UK pensions

[vogie]

13 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

No final salary pensions (everyone my age has one).

No job for life (most of my peers worked for one employer all their life).

ZERO hour contracts.

Little chance of a lifetime marriage and family for men (women just don't want monogamy any more)

No prospect of owning their own homes (in my 20s a 'starter' house cost 2x-4x salary, now a house costs 10x-20x salary)

 

And that's a few just off the top of my head.

But on the plus side, nobody cares if you smoke cannabis any more, which probably compensates everyone for the loss of everything else..

I think Martin Lewis is saying it different to you in the case of students owning their own home anyway.

 

 

Edited July 28, 2018 by vogie

[BritManToo]

18 minutes ago, vogie said:

I think Martin Lewis is saying it different to you in the case of students owning their own home anyway.

 

Don't listen to other people, look it up yourself.

My first flat (1 bed) in Brighton (1979) was 16,000 pounds, my salary as a new graduate teacher 8,000 pounds.

Looked up my old 16k flat, sold in 2015 for 140k, looked up starting teachers salary 20k.

 

Not as bad as I thought, my old starter flat only went up from 2x my salary to 7x my salary.

(If I'd bought the ground floor flat would have been worse, that went from 20k to 240k, from 2.5x to 12x salary)

Edited July 28, 2018 by BritManToo

[BritManToo]

18 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

A somewhat exaggerated post, but I agree with the gist of points 1,2,3 and 5.

If you agree with 4 out of my 5 points, doesn't that mean it's an extremely accurate post?

Or does your definition of 'exaggerated' and 'accurate' differ to mine?

[My Thai Life]

Babyboomers. Born from around 1944 to 1964. I have always assumed that that was most of us on this forum - certainly a very large chunk anyway.

 

We have had such a fortunate time compared to the earlier and the later generations. But it would be wrong to blame us for that. Some of it was due to war, some of it to demographics, some of it to technological change, the changing role of the UK in the world: in general, social change.

 

Governments of both persuasions in the UK have been incompetent for a long time. The tit-for-tat style is ineffective and inefficient; there is not even the attempt at partnership between government, banks, business and workers that we see in some other European countries. I have never been able to bring myself to vote for them. 

 

The class society is ever present underneath an increasingy thin veneer of modernity. And no I'm not a Marxist or an anarchist.

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, DILLIGAD said:

Maybe they are not worse off,but their expectations are too high &/or unreasonable?
Just a thought???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is true in my opinion. But the basic opportunity to earn enough to buy a house is not there for example. My niece and her intended got through university

 

1 hour ago, vogie said:

I am a little dubious of some of your claims mb, have you any evidence of your claims. Why will he pay more tax, we started work at 14 or 15 year old, I didn't know any of my friends who were out of a job. So to be working for 50 years of your life will take some beating by anybodys standards. What is the average age that youngsters start work these days, I cannot find anything on the internet to confirm or deny this.

You say he has to pay for advanced education, well that is their choice, we never had that choice, if you was not academically inclined you did not go to university, which in the 60s was only 4% of the population, now it is 40% of young people thanks to Tony Blair. Most of the youngsters leaving university will find they don't have a cat in hells chance of finding employment as their degrees are useless and there are too many of them. It almost meaningless them going to uni. Most end up working in coffee shops with a grant that will never be paid off.

Sorry if I seem a bit cynical, but when you see these young people getting plastered of a weekend, getting drunk on cocktails and whatever, we could not afford that luxury. They will not think twice of spending two or three hundred pounds on a night out, I just don't see how they are worse off than us.

Britman got there first- read his post above.

 

Yes, it's the big things that show the real erosion. 

 

To give an example in my own life (not complaining because I know life can cut up rough): when my Grandad had to go in to hospice he got NHS funding.  Thus, he was able to keep the family stack and pass it on.  When my mum and dad got terminally sick, they had to fund treatment by selling the family home.  That's a significant loss to the next generation. 

 

My niece and her intended, work hard, very hard.  They are both well qualified and in good jobs, but their rent swallows up much of their income, and they still have student debts.  The idea of them getting on the housing ladder is laughable. 

 

Now you say education was their choice.  So what sort of job can they get without it?  When I went to uni it was free and there was a grant- not so nowadays. 

 

 

Look at it again!  

Edited July 28, 2018 by mommysboy

[transam]

3 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

This is true in my opinion. But the basic opportunity to earn enough to buy a house is not there for example. My niece and her intended got through university

 

Britman got there first- read his post above.

 

Yes, it's the big things that show the real erosion. 

 

To give an example in my own life (not complaining because I know life can cut up rough): when my Grandad had to go in to hospice he got NHS funding.  Thus, he was able to keep the family stack and pass it on.  When my mum and dad got terminally sick, they had to fund treatment by selling the family home.  That's a significant loss to the next generation. 

 

My niece and her intended, work hard, very hard.  They are both well qualified and in good jobs, but their rent swallows up much of their income, and they still have student debts.  The idea of them getting on the housing ladder is laughable.  

 

 

Look at it again!  

Why should the tax payer pay for special care because you may miss out on family cash..?

[BritManToo]

4 minutes ago, transam said:

Why should the tax payer pay for special care because you may miss out on family cash..?

I agree,

Much better to spend that tax money to a deserving Somali refugee family than spend it on our old scrounging Brit parents that paid tax and NI all their working life.

Edited July 28, 2018 by BritManToo

[mommysboy]

7 minutes ago, transam said:

Why should the tax payer pay for special care because you may miss out on family cash..?

Because they were sick with diseases, and not care patients. Diseases are supposed to be covered by the NHS.  That's why they paid taxes for 40 years. That's why you pay taxes.  Next particularly dumb question?

 

So, here's me thinking.... if they can get away with that, what chance I'll get my due pension?  It's something you have to ask yourself.

Edited July 28, 2018 by mommysboy

[transam]

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Because they were sick with diseases, and not care patients. Diseases are supposed to be covered by the NHS.  That's why they paid taxes for 40 years. That's why you pay taxes.  Next particularly dumb question?

I think you have dodged something....?

[mommysboy]

Just now, transam said:

I think you have dodged something....?

What?

 

[vogie]

6 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

This is true in my opinion. But the basic opportunity to earn enough to buy a house is not there for example. My niece and her intended got through university

 

Britman got there first- read his post above.

 

Yes, it's the big things that show the real erosion. 

 

To give an example in my own life (not complaining because I know life can cut up rough): when my Grandad had to go in to hospice he got NHS funding.  Thus, he was able to keep the family stack and pass it on.  When my mum and dad got terminally sick, they had to fund treatment by selling the family home.  That's a significant loss to the next generation. 

 

My niece and her intended, work hard, very hard.  They are both well qualified and in good jobs, but their rent swallows up much of their income, and they still have student debts.  The idea of them getting on the housing ladder is laughable. 

 

Now you say education was their choice.  So what sort of job can they get without it?  When I went to uni it was free and there was a grant- not so nowadays. 

 

 

Look at it again!  

I asked you if you could prove that the younger generation pay more tax, have you a link to the claims, as I said I have looked on the net and have come up with zilch.

 

"Now you say education was their choice.  So what sort of job can they get without it?  When I went to uni it was free and there was a grant- not so nowadays."

 

You ask what sort of job can they get without it, my answer has to be the same job with it, it is meaningless in most cases.

I accept and respect when you went to uni you must have been a special academic young person, but to go to uni these days you have to be average at best. When I was young in the 60s I never new anyone that went to uni, nowadays it is unusual to meet someone that has never been, surely you must agree with me on that, not unless I am moving around with a more select crowd. There is no need for all these non special youngsters to go to uni, by all means let them learn a skill at a college, but by sending them to uni is just kidding them in thinking that they are more academic than they actually are.

 

[transam]

Just now, mommysboy said:

What?

 

Did you know if a UK pensioner goes into hospital the pension folk should be informed to juggle stuff.....

Must be 25 years back my uncle died. My aunt was left alone in the house of which they owned. Shortly after she was taken to a care home...The authorities sold their house to fund her care. My mother questioned it and got nowhere..

About 4 years back my aunt (93) had to go to a care home because she didn't know who her husband was, she passed away there and my uncle told me it cost him their savings...

 

[mommysboy]

1 minute ago, vogie said:

I asked you if you could prove that the younger generation pay more tax, have you a link to the claims, as I said I have looked on the net and have come up with zilch.

 

"Now you say education was their choice.  So what sort of job can they get without it?  When I went to uni it was free and there was a grant- not so nowadays."

 

You ask what sort of job can they get without it, my answer has to be the same job with it, it is meaningless in most cases.

I accept and respect when you went to uni you must have been a special academic young person, but to go to uni these days you have to be average at best. When I was young in the 60s I never new anyone that went to uni, nowadays it is unusual to meet someone that has never been, surely you must agree with me on that, not unless I am moving around with a more select crowd. There is no need for all these non special youngsters to go to uni, by all means let them learn a skill at a college, but by sending them to uni is just kidding them in thinking that they are more academic than they actually are.

 

I don't think there are figures, but a youngster leaving school today will be paying tax for 40-50 years, possibly more.  That's the basis of my claim.  They are also saddled with enormous public debt, partly arising from the financial collapse of 2008.  There has to be big hikes in taxes to pay for the UK pension, health, and social services.

 

It is just a fact of life that in order to have a good career that pays a decent wage then you'll likely need a university education, which will be self funded.

 

Another example: when I grew up we had a council house, with a front and back garden. Dad was a hard working blue collar worker.  In those days that was enough to allow mum to stay at home for a few years to bring up us kids. What chance of this now? Both parents will likely be working.

[mommysboy]

8 minutes ago, transam said:

Did you know if a UK pensioner goes into hospital the pension folk should be informed to juggle stuff.....

Must be 25 years back my uncle died. My aunt was left alone in the house of which they owned. Shortly after she was taken to a care home...The authorities sold their house to fund her care. My mother questioned it and got nowhere..

About 4 years back my aunt (93) had to go to a care home because she didn't know who her husband was, she passed away there and my uncle told me it cost him their savings...

 

There is no escape these days, however, we had a good lawyer.....and you can guess the rest since some things we have to do in life may not be deemed entirely lawful. 

 

But that's not the point is it?

[DILLIGAD]

Maybe that’s why so many are moving to other countries for work, something that is far more common now than in the past.
Life can suck for all of us!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vogie]

4 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

I don't think there are figures, but a youngster leaving school today will be paying tax for 40-50 years, possibly more.  That's the basis of my claim.  They are also saddled with enormous public debt, partly arising from the financial collapse of 2008.  There has to be big hikes in taxes to pay for the UK pension, health, and social services.

 

It is just a fact of life that in order to have a good career that pays a decent wage then you'll likely need a university education, which will be self funded.

 

Another example: when I grew up we had a council house, with a front and back garden. Dad was a hard working blue collar worker.  In those days that was enough to allow mum to stay at home for a few years to bring up us kids. What chance of this now? Both parents will likely be working.

I really think you need to stop blaming the "baby boomers," I think the governments would be a more likely candidate to blame. I was 33 before I could afford a mortgage, my cars were bought from scrapyards.

If the basis of your claim is that todays youngsters will have to work 40 - 50 years (which I seriously doubt) maybe 40, but I doubt 50. How does that make them pay more tax, we started at 15 and worked till we retired at 65, I would imagine the young of today starts work around the age of 22 -25 (as I said I can't find any figures) if they can work less years than us, well good luck to them, I wish I could have.

 

And I will say this till I'm blue in the face, I believe only the academic should go to university.

 

 

[Kadilo]

47 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

This is true in my opinion. But the basic opportunity to earn enough to buy a house is not there for example. My niece and her intended got through university

 

Britman got there first- read his post above.

 

Yes, it's the big things that show the real erosion. 

 

To give an example in my own life (not complaining because I know life can cut up rough): when my Grandad had to go in to hospice he got NHS funding.  Thus, he was able to keep the family stack and pass it on.  When my mum and dad got terminally sick, they had to fund treatment by selling the family home.  That's a significant loss to the next generation. 

 

My niece and her intended, work hard, very hard.  They are both well qualified and in good jobs, but their rent swallows up much of their income, and they still have student debts.  The idea of them getting on the housing ladder is laughable. 

 

Now you say education was their choice.  So what sort of job can they get without it?  When I went to uni it was free and there was a grant- not so nowadays. 

 

 

Look at it again!  

My son is at Uni. He’s not the brightest so he’s struggling a bit, but he’s a tryer. 

He could of taken an easy option and carried on working in the shop where he was working part time before but he wants to better himself.......and why not. 

Without a degree he has no chance, even with one it’s going to be hard. I feel for the younger generation. They will never have the opportunities my parents had to buy council houses etc and get on the ladder. 

 

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Don't listen to other people, look it up yourself.

My first flat (1 bed) in Brighton (1979) was 16,000 pounds, my salary as a new graduate teacher 8,000 pounds.

Looked up my old 16k flat, sold in 2015 for 140k, looked up starting teachers salary 20k.

 

Not as bad as I thought, my old starter flat only went up from 2x my salary to 7x my salary.

(If I'd bought the ground floor flat would have been worse, that went from 20k to 240k, from 2.5x to 12x salary)

A good, real life example, that is by no means uncommon.

[Kadilo]

12 minutes ago, vogie said:

 

 

And I will say this till I'm blue in the face, I believe only the academic should go to university.

 

 

Who decides who is an academic?

You have set criteria to be able to enter a degree course and if it’s met then you can apply. Or are you saying only those who come from certain backgrounds and schools/colleges should go?

 

Many students who maybe struggle to get the grades then go on to excel with their course so who are you or anyone else to decide who should or should not go. 

 

Typical class bull. 

 

Edited July 28, 2018 by Kadilo

[My Thai Life]

This discussion has prompted me to fact check the history of "free" higher education (unis).

 

It was introduced in 1962 and terminated around 1990, so it was definitely a major boon for the boomers, including me.

 

I believe I was in the last cohort to benefit from "free" higher education prior to Thatcher binning it. Sadly 10 years later, the Blair regime merely fine-tuned Thatcher's  policy.

 

For those not academically inclined,  there used to be really excellent apprenticeships (the sort that still exist in Poland and Germany for example): these were also destroyed. 

 

The top priority for any country is surely to invest in its future skills - ie training and education for its young people.

 

I am sympathetic to people who object to such investments being made for people who are not really "British", but don't let that blind you to the fact that British governments of both persuasions are not interested in investing in British people. (No offence to the Scots, who seem to have maintained an excellent system.)

 

 

[vogie]

15 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

Who decides who is an academic?

You have set criteria to be able to enter a degree course and if it’s met then you can apply. Or are you saying only those who come from certain backgrounds and schools/colleges should go?

 

Many students who maybe struggle to get the grades then go on to excel with their course so who are you or anyone else to decide who should or should not go. 

 

Typical class bull. 

 

It used to be the schools that decided, it used to be based on their grade results, I would have that was obvious, but I never went to uni, somebody is going to have to decide, who do you think should decide, the student. Let's base this topic on a debate rather than a rant eh.

[Kadilo]

12 minutes ago, vogie said:

It used to be the schools that decided, it used to be based on their grade results, I would have that was obvious, but I never went to uni, somebody is going to have to decide, who do you think should decide, the student. Let's base this topic on a debate rather than a rant eh.

The Uni’s decide and it’s still based on their grade results. As long as they have the grades then they get considered and thank goodness it’s that way. Some even get the opportunity from inner cities and underprivileged kids who show promise that don’t quite have the grades. Thank goodness for that too because some go on to be doctors, etc 

I dread to think how many talented kids lost out because the schools decided. 

Edited July 28, 2018 by Kadilo

[transam]

6 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

The Uni’s decide and it’s still based on their grade results. As long as they have the grades then they get considered and thank goodness it’s that way. Some even get the opportunity from inner cities and underprivileged kids who show promise that don’t quite have the grades. Thank goodness for that too because some go on to be doctors, etc 

I dread to think how many talented kids lost out because the schools decided. 

Me.....?

[vogie]

8 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

The Uni’s decide and it’s still based on their grade results. As long as they have the grades then they get considered and thank goodness it’s that way. Some even get the opportunity from inner cities and underprivileged kids who show promise that don’t quite have the grades. Thank goodness for that too because some go on to be doctors, etc 

I dread to think how many talented kids lost out because the schools decided. 

"Thank goodness for that too because some go on to be doctors, etc"

 

What percentage go on to become doctors, any evidence, I would have thought you had more chance of working in a coffee bar etc.

 

You obviously can't see the point I am trying to make. Don't you think that there are too many students going to university, don't you think more emphasis should put on colleges, we can't all be doctors?

 

4% in the 60s, 40% now, the 40% might think they are special, but they're not, even if their mothers think so.

[denby45]

1 hour ago, My Thai Life said:

This discussion has prompted me to fact check the history of "free" higher education (unis).

 

It was introduced in 1962 and terminated around 1990, so it was definitely a major boon for the boomers, including me.

 

I believe I was in the last cohort to benefit from "free" higher education prior to Thatcher binning it. Sadly 10 years later, the Blair regime merely fine-tuned Thatcher's  policy.

 

For those not academically inclined,  there used to be really excellent apprenticeships (the sort that still exist in Poland and Germany for example): these were also destroyed. 

 

The top priority for any country is surely to invest in its future skills - ie training and education for its young people.

 

I am sympathetic to people who object to such investments being made for people who are not really "British", but don't let that blind you to the fact that British governments of both persuasions are not interested in investing in British people. (No offence to the Scots, who seem to have maintained an excellent system.)

 

 

"For those not academically inclined,  there used to be really excellent apprenticeships"

 

Are you suggesting that apprenticeships were only for the less bright students. What nonsense. I made a decision to go the vocational route because it made perfect sense to me. My parents were relatively poor so could not really afford to sponsor me through uni. However I still got my degree through company sponsorship from British Steel. Many of my nights were however spent at night classes and also did block release. All this while earning a (paltry but manageable) income. Started life as a dumb apprentice and finished my working life as a DCS and SIS Consultant. Retired at 57.

 

Met many so called academics in my field of engineering that went the uni route. Some could hardly tie their shoe laces.

 

Den

 

Edited July 28, 2018 by denby45

[Kadilo]

8 minutes ago, vogie said:

"Thank goodness for that too because some go on to be doctors, etc"

 

What percentage go on to become doctors, any evidence, I would have thought you had more chance of working in a coffee bar etc.

 

You obviously can't see the point I am trying to make. Don't you think that there are too many students going to university, don't you think more emphasis should put on colleges, we can't all be doctors?

 

4% in the 60s, 40% now, the 40% might think they are special, but they're not, even if their mothers think so.

As has already been said, in the past kids could go on to get an Apprenticeship which was not only recognised but was valued. Many of the large manufacturing companies took loads on.......most of them don’t even exist now. Apprenticeships hardly exist in the true form and of those that do many do not get a job at the end, just used for cheap labor and then dumped. 

 

Go go onto college and do what exactly? City and Guilds? They won’t even get a sniff of a job that could build them a future. When I was Colllege a C&G was a recognised and respected qualification.  Now it’s just frowned upon. 

 

So what  are their options? Have no hope for the future and go work in your coffee shop or try, even if they are maybe not the brightest, to better themself. It’s not a case of thinking they are special, it’s a case of without a degree your chances are slim. 

 

How many go on to become Doctors? Personally I’m not interested in the stats. If there is only one then it was worthwhile. 

 

 

 

 

[Kadilo]

4 minutes ago, denby45 said:

"For those not academically inclined,  there used to be really excellent apprenticeships"

 

Are you suggesting that apprenticeships were only for the less bright students. What nonsense. I made a decision to go the vocational route because it made perfect sense to me. My parents were relatively poor so could not really afford to sponsor me through uni. However I still got my degree through company sponsorship from British Steel. Many of my nights were however spent at night classes and also did block release. All this while earning a (paltry but manageable) income. Started life as a dumb apprentice and finished my working life as a DCS and SIS Consultant. Retired at 57.

 

Met many so called academics in my field of engineering that went the uni route. Some could hardly tie their shoe laces.

 

Den

 

Thats good point. Where are the likes of British Steel now. ?

[vogie]

4 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

As has already been said, in the past kids could go on to get an Apprenticeship which was not only recognised but was valued. Many of the large manufacturing companies took loads on.......most of them don’t even exist now. Apprenticeships hardly exist in the true form and of those that do many do not get a job at the end, just used for cheap labor and then dumped. 

 

Go go onto college and do what exactly? City and Guilds? They won’t even get a sniff of a job that could build them a future. When I was Colllege a C&G was a recognised and respected qualification.  Now it’s just frowned upon. 

 

So what  are their options? Have no hope for the future and go work in your coffee shop or try, even if they are maybe not the brightest, to better themself. It’s not a case of thinking they are special, it’s a case of without a degree your chances are slim. 

 

How many go on to become Doctors? Personally I’m not interested in the stats. If there is only one then it was worthwhile. 

 

 

 

 

 

43 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

Thank goodness for that too because some go on to be doctors, etc 

In your post 4492 you said 'as above. This post you are saying that infact you don't know.

 

University was never meant for everybody.

 

But we seem to be veering off topic a tad, so will leave it there, if you care to start a new topic I will gladly contribute.

[My Thai Life]

@ Denby

 

Eh? No, I'm not suggesting that at all. What I said was that the UK used to have excellent apprenticeships.

 

Engineers are the backbone, sad that the UK gave up prioritising them.

 

Derivatives traders are the order of the day.

 

(I've worked in both fields).

 

Edited July 28, 2018 by My Thai Life

[mommysboy]

29 minutes ago, vogie said:

"Thank goodness for that too because some go on to be doctors, etc"

 

What percentage go on to become doctors, any evidence, I would have thought you had more chance of working in a coffee bar etc.

 

You obviously can't see the point I am trying to make. Don't you think that there are too many students going to university, don't you think more emphasis should put on colleges, we can't all be doctors?

 

4% in the 60s, 40% now, the 40% might think they are special, but they're not, even if their mothers think so.

Personally, I believe there is some merit in your argument at first sight.  I'm not sure there is a decent alternative though. You see you can train someone up to be a tinker, tailor, etc, but if there are no jobs, or lousy pay... well, need i go on.

 

It really comes down to the fact that all things being equal today's youngsters simply don't have nearly as much opportunity to truly better themselves as we did.  And on top of that are saddled with huge debts from our generations.  Not that life has ever been a picnic!