Friday, 22 August 2014

A New Source Of Angst For The Progressives: ‘Intergenerational Unfairness’

Anne Perkins explain that this means those selfish old people, not content with simply failing to give up their seats to a far more entitled breeder, are living too long and blocking the younger generation from work & housing:
The state pensionable age is climbing, slowly but relentlessly. By 2018, women will, like men, not be eligible for a state pension until they are 65. After that the goalposts move for both men and women together, so that by 2044 they will have to work until they are 68. The effect of the changes, which have been creeping in since 2010, is to hold the ratio of pensioners to working-age population at around 30% until the 2040s, at which point something else may have turned up – preferably not the elixir of eternal youth. This is what is causing the real crisis in the welfare state. But, as older voters can be relied on to vote, tackling the politics of pensions has to be done more by stealth.
In other words, ‘Damn, they’ll actually act in their own interests! Curses! Our plans would work, if not for those dratted kids pensioners..’
Even if the objective of getting everyone of working age enrolled in a responsive, dynamic system that guarantees an income to all at a decent and sustainable level comes off – in terms of probability, this is up there with the elixir of eternal youth – it is still almost certain to be pensioners who will be absorbing at least two-thirds of everything that the government spends on benefits. Nor do the demands of the elderly on the state stop at pensions. It is the cost to the health service as well.
Well, only so long as the NHS is restrained (somewhat) from killing them off by starvation or dehydration…
Redefining what is old may seem the obvious place to start. It is easy to see why the fit and the well-paid should stay at work. It is rather harder to make the case for those who have toiled for a lifetime in low-paid jobs. It is fair to ask workers to pay for pensioners, but it is unfair to ask workers to pay for pensioners whose assets far outstrip theirs. And it is equally unfair if good jobs are occupied by people who could afford to retire.
The perennial socialist cry: “Hey, you! You shouldn’t be using that! You should give it up to someone more deserving! ” They, of course, will be the ones who decide who is deserving.
This looks to me suspiciously as if the having-it-all generation, just as it ought to be preparing to bow out, is greedily lining up to have a bit more. These are the people born between 1946 and 1964. That really was like winning the first prize in life. Free university, the housing boom, the Pill, the explosion in white-collar jobs and pensions – for a majority, that has been a golden ticket to a life of unparalleled good fortune.
And now they should just have the good grace to die, so we can plan our Brave New World. God, I loathe socialists.

11 comments:

Kevin said...

Surely she should be doing the decent thing herself and retiring to make way for a younger person. Or does it just apply to everyone else?

Ian Hills said...

Easy to see why the Liverpool Care Pathway was invented.

Michael said...

So "Logan's Run" was a documentary and not a SF Film? Obviously, the age boundaries will not apply to them will it?

Anonymous said...

Bunny

Simple turn the pensions contribution of NI into a sovereign wealth fund and not a liability paid out of direct taxation, then the whinging bastards can't complain. They will still complain but it would be a move in the right direction.

Budvar said...

The years 48 to 64???
I was born the back end of 62, and I don't see any golden handshakes etc beckoning on the horizon...

Dioclese said...

I was born in that range of years, and I intend to live to at least 110 just so I can get back all the taxes that bastard Gordon took off me while I was self employed.

Anyhow, I want to live long enough to be a burden on my children like they were to me. It's only fair.

Also hate socialists by the way...

Flaxen Saxon said...

I was born in 1956 so I'm a solid member of the 'Baby Boomers'. Born into stolid working class mediocrity and poverty I have clawed my way into the respectable middle classes by dint of hard work and industry. Yea, I know I'm starting to sound smug, but what the heck. No one has given me anything in life. I live in paradise in a large house, own a rental property and do very well thank you very much. I'm certainly part of the charmed generation. When I do decide to retire to somewhere warm, no doubt (not Birmingham) I intend to live on my pension and booty in mediocrity and genteel comfort.

Bucko The Moose said...

I was born in 75, so I'm a worker paying for old people.

Oh hang on. They've already paid, haven't they?

MTG said...

"God, I loathe socialists."

A few small business owners here? I recall that constant onslaught from the Napoleon and Squealer types. Still, I'm glad to have resisted all those 'Keep Left' signs.

andy5759 said...

Ok, pensionable age rises. So what? School leaving age rises too. Do the mathematics. Start paying in later after an extended period of taking, then get your pension, and any other rewards which you worked for. Simple.

JuliaM said...

"Or does it just apply to everyone else?"

Well, this is CiF...

"I was born the back end of 62, and I don't see any golden handshakes etc beckoning on the horizon..."

I'm just outside, born in 65!

"Oh hang on. They've already paid, haven't they?"

Indeed so.Into a Ponzi scheme, sadly...