Citywire for Financial Professionals
Stay connected:

View the article online at http://citywire.co.uk/money/article/a886351

How long can babyboomers expect a 'free lunch'?

The pension demands of older generations are hitting the retirement prospects for young people, says a report for Labour.

 
How long can babyboomers expect a 'free lunch'?

Younger people may never be able to retire if the baby boomer generation ‘keeps asking for a free lunch’ when it comes to pensions, according to an independent review.

The Independent Review of Retirement Income, commissioned two years ago by the Labour party and chaired by David Blake of the Pensions Institute at Cass Business School, has warned a generation faces working until they drop as the state pension age pushes up and their personal pension saving fails to fund a decent retirement income.

In the wide ranging review, which follows the government’s decision to relax access to pensions through new freedoms, Blake set a bleak scene for future retirees.

The scene is being set by politicians eager to win votes who reluctant to ‘adopt sensible long-term solutions to the problems of pensions…especially it this involves sacrifices today’ that could alienate voters.

Blake said this had a ‘fundamental consequence for intergenerational equity’ as ‘every generation passes the consequences of its own failures down to the next generation’.

True to form, the babyboomers are now handing down the cost of failing to increase the state pension age sooner, meaning younger people are faced with covering the state pensions of a large generation of people who are living longer than ever before.

There is a fear that the costs will be exacerbated by last year's pension freedom reforms as babyboomers who are given access to their savings, will spend it and then fall back on the state.

‘While this can be a small problem when a population is growing, it becomes very severe when a population is rapidly ageing,’ said Blake in the report.

He said the cost of funding retirement ‘will be even more expensive for the next generation to provide if significant numbers of babyboomers run out of money and demand that the next generation provides them with an income for life to keep them out of "poverty"’.

‘For how much longer can the baby boom generation keep asking for a free lunch from the next?’

The report said there is a demographic risk that ‘younger cohorts refuse or are unable to honour the implicit intergenerational contract that underlies many pension schemes’ because there are too few people in work to cover the costs of retirees.

Steve Lowe of insurer Just Retirement said if retirees mis-used the pension freedoms to blow their savings it would have consequences not only for them but other generations.

‘Those at risk of poor [retirement] outcomes are mass market defined contribution customers with pension assets of between £30,000 and £100,000 who don’t feel they can afford advice but won’t receive additional state help,’ he said.

‘Poor decisions by this kind of pension saver will have massive implications later on, not just on their own living standards but on the finances of the whole country and subsequent generations who may be forced to bail them out.’

It is not just a rising pension bill for older generations that younger people face, the report suggested that they will also have to accept that the government will have to ‘increase the state pension age even more rapidly than is currently planned’.

The upshot is that employees will have to remain in work for far longer or they will have to save far more into their pensions if they have any chance of retiring at a date of their choosing, or at all.

Black noted ‘the risk that employees can no longer afford to retire’ given the level of contribution needed ‘to deliver an adequate pension’.

The report recommends that worker should save 15% of their salary in order to fund a decent retirement and the government should adopt a ‘national retirement savings target’ of 15% of lifetime earnings. It would be achieved through ‘auto-escalation’ – the practice of automatically increasing workplace pension contributions – and would aim to ‘avoid future pensioner poverty.

Richard Parkin, pension expert at Fidelity International, said a sudden jump to 15% contributions would be advisable considering auto-enrolment is in its infancy, with contributions set to reach 8% in 2017 (made up of 4% employee contribution, 3% employer contribution and 1% tax relief).

‘By setting themselves the goal of putting 1% of any pay rise into their pension each year, they can quickly find that, with the help of their employer’s contributions and tax relief, they are getting close to the 15% target that should ensure a comfortable retirement,’ he said.

53 comments so far. Why not have your say?

Keith Cobby

Mar 03, 2016 at 13:25

The answer is to abolish means testing. Introduce a flat rate pension based only on residency and then tell everybody they are on their own.

report this

Michael via mobile

Mar 03, 2016 at 14:58

@Keith, agree.

Instead of blaming baby boomers why not address the politicians.

what is a baby boomer supposed to do refuse the minimum 2.5% yearly state pension increase?

We all know that pensions should have been tackled ages ago but having a go at baby boomers, who in reality just used the chances to save, is ridiculous they did not make the rules....politicians did.

report this

Micawber

Mar 03, 2016 at 15:28

You just know from the headline when it's going to be a Michelle McGagh article!

report this

Micawber

Mar 03, 2016 at 15:32

Every generation passes on the consequences of its own successes to the next generation, too. Or tries to, if their successes can be kept out of the hands of an overgrown and inefficient state.

Have you thought how you would live on the state pension, Michelle? Or how you would look after your parents if they didn't have a pension?

report this

uncommercial

Mar 03, 2016 at 18:25

What I strongly resent is the inappropriate emotive language. As a baby boomer, I am not "asking for a free lunch" nor am I "demanding" anything. Over a working life time, I've paid taxes and contributions as prescribed. Now I'm claiming the pension the state tells me is my entitlement. No free lunch, no demand.

Pension liberalisation is probably foolish - it certainly looks like a political game aimed at short term advantage for Osborne. The whole purpose of pensions is to provide a lifetime income after work has ceased to provide it.

It might well be that there is a problem with growing numbers of retired people. I've been expecting such a problem for almost sixty years - it was obvious as schools expanded to take the first wave of boomers. So we shouldn't really be unprepared.

But there is no need to pitch this in terms of one group having taken advantage of another. We will need to resolve the problem as fairly as we can.

Really, though, the biggest problem is the small group of people who have hugely enriched themselves beyond all reason or justice at the expense of everyone else. Efforts to scapegoat groups such as the poor or baby boomers is nothing but a smoke screen.

report this

Roger Savage

Mar 03, 2016 at 18:43

What a disgusting conclusion from a disgustingly misdirected report.

A far better question would be - how long can politicians expect a free lunch? They're the ones responsible for robbing everyone decent blind whilst rewarding themselves excessive pay and expenses.

Politicians are the ones that have filled the country up and sold the country out to appease the EU / party donors (house builders, bankers, etc...) so that when they've finished ripping off the taxpayer, they move to a cushy number in the city or Brussels.

It's nothing more than crushing irony to claim that people who have paid into the system are having a free lunch whilst politicians engage in the most chronic treachery by throwing away the country's wealth and heritage whilst tolerating/encouraging benefits scroungers and engineering a major demographic shift that threatens everything Britain used to stand for.

report this

PaulSh

Mar 03, 2016 at 18:45

I have paid vast sums of money during my working life to fund the state pensions of people in older generations plus a huge amount bringing up two children, and now it's payback time. That's what I call an implicit intergenerational contract.

report this

David 111

Mar 03, 2016 at 19:34

This intergenerational conflict approach really makes me sick. When I look at today's youngsters' lifestyles and compare them with my own as I progressed through the decades (yes, I am a so called baby boomer) all I see is that in many respects they expect far more instant gratification than my generation ever did.

report this

V.T Graham

Mar 03, 2016 at 19:42

Surely it would be fair to all if the pension is related to no of years paid in and a fixed contribution?

Pension age 75 so max 60 years

report this

colin overton

Mar 03, 2016 at 19:49

Completely irrelevant, as any "Report for Labour" has been, is and will be while Tombstone Ed or The Commissar and his Neo-Trots were/are in charge. Another 9 years in the wilderness?

report this

underscored

Mar 03, 2016 at 19:57

David 111 - not much else for them really...

report this

ali smith

Mar 03, 2016 at 20:26

The 'baby boomers' have paid in for over 40 years and so paid for previous generations state pensions. But that's ok I take it?

report this

mark antrobus

Mar 03, 2016 at 20:59

Cowardly governments in collusion with the retirement vote have consistently fleeced the young with high taxes, university tuition fees, the effective abolition of defined benefit pension schemes, grossly high house prices and the end of job security. In a nutshell, having had all these benefits themselves while keeping the retired of their day in poverty, they have drawn up the drawbridge on those that follow - for what reason? To pay for a retirement welfare system of unprecedented generosity for themselves that will not survive to the next generation.

Just for starters, the state pension age needs to be equalised with immediate effect. Also a % of employer and employee National Insurance contributions should be diverted into a sovereign wealth pension fund - with a lower rate of contributions where an acceptable defined benefit pension scheme is in operation. And no, you should under no circumstances be able to blow your pension pot in one go and make yourself dependent on the young - the whole point of pension tax brakes is to avoid such dependency in old age.

report this

underscored

Mar 03, 2016 at 21:42

"The 'baby boomers' have paid in for over 40 years and so paid for previous generations state pensions. But that's ok I take it?"

Er. No. The generation prior to the boomers lived in old age poverty and the boomer cohort will take out 120% of what they put in. But don't worry eh.

report this

geoffrey mulford

Mar 03, 2016 at 21:55

As a babyboomer I have got another 15 years before my state pension age. Can't say I am going to be the lucky generation. I don't think I am safe now It wouldn't surprise me if the goal post aren't moved yet again. 67 at the moment and counting.

report this

uncommercial

Mar 03, 2016 at 22:04

"Er. No. The generation prior to the boomers lived in old age poverty and the boomer cohort will take out 120% of what they put in. But don't worry eh."

Not so simple. Many of my parents' generation had long, comfortable retirements on defined benefit schemes. Only some lived in poverty. Plenty of boomers have been excluded from defined benefits.

One would expect each generation to take out more than they paid in, if pensioners are allowed to participate in generally rising living standards. Isn't it a good thing to remove them from poverty.

report this

Alan Selwood

Mar 03, 2016 at 22:40

The writer of the article is trying to make political capital out of a sorry mess brought upon the nation by a number of factors, some of which are squarely in Labour's camp, others the 'fault' of many different elements.

First, when the State Pension Scheme was set up in the 1940s, nobody knew that the UK's life expectancy was going to rise so high. So in the early years, the total amount to be paid out in State pensions was much more limited than it became subsequently, and there are, as the writer says, no free lunches. So contribution levels and/or retirement ages should have gone up as life expectancy rose, and no governments grasped this nettle, because the electorate prefers free lunches and votes accordingly, like Romans preferring bread and circuses.

Secondly, the State pension was and is unfunded. No pension pot is built up for each individual, and there has therefore been an inter-generational robbing of Peter to pay Paul right from the outset hard-wired into the whole State Pension system.

Thirdly, some people could have afforded to contribute more for their retirement, while others did not have enough money to do so, some because pay levels were too low, others because of a personal failure to defer gratification - furniture and entertainment today already had a wide appeal compared with retirement saving for 20 or 30 years hence back in the 1970s. That's what people are like. They won't change.

Fourthly, a mere 15 years ago, Britain had the best private pensions in Europe. But then Gordon Brown took away some of the tax advantages of pension funds, making the cost to employers higher, and then the 1980s pension scandal resulted in more rigid regulation, and the need for pension funds to invest more in gilts and less in equities, so that although theoretically safer, the net result was that providing a decent retirement income cost more again. So naturally, more and more employers decided to water down or close the defined benefit schemes that had provided security for pensioners in the private sector. Now only MPs seem to have retained this level of retirement comfort.......

Fifthly, the excesses of the 2000s led to governments around the world forcing down interest rates, causing the price of gilts to rise and the value of annuities based on them to fall, as a result of which nobody wanted to be forced into taking an annuity because the income levels were so minute relative to the capital cost of that income. Annuities just looked even worse value than before.

Finally, George Osborne has moved the pension tax goalposts again and again, so that now the incentives to make pension contributions have been reduced again, and people are much more than at any time since the 1940s being left to their own devices without any real attempt to force people into saving enough to fund their own retirement, other than a token gesture level of compulsory contributions to workplace pensions which will never provide enough retirement income and in many cases the employees are better off doing their savings in different ways.

What a mess.

Now, in just two short paragraphs, here is how to sort out the mess........

Oh dear - no space left to write more!

report this

Sinic

Mar 03, 2016 at 22:51

This must be the first time that every post is in complete and justifiably angry agreement. I have earned a salary, paid tax and national insurance since I was eighteen and retired at the age of fifty nine four years ago. I have never in my life claimed a penny in un/employment benefit. The state pension which I have earned, paid for and have every right to, will stat to be paid in eighteen months unless some form of legalised and immoral government theft prevents it. Every single paltry penny has been earned and paid for by hard graft. I am fortunate that it will represent but a small proportion of my retirement income but that doesn't alter the fact that it is paid for and mine. A quick calculation tells me that I have paid around £2m in income tax alone during my working life. 'Asking for a free lunch'!!!! I am not asking for a free lunch; I am demanding a burger when I have paid for fillet steak!

report this

geoffrey mulford

Mar 03, 2016 at 23:21

My point is that the baby boomers go from 1946 to 1964. I don't think people born towards the 1964 end have been practically lucky. 1940 to 1958 perhaps.

With 15 years to go till I retire and possible goal posts being moved between now and then. I may not be any better off than the younger generation. I may make up part of the shafted generating along with all the people that are younger than me. You can't say I have been part of the lucky generation until the fat lady sings

report this

Lavochkin

Mar 03, 2016 at 23:30

Whatever your views on the competency of current & previous governments, their actions have basically been contained by what would be acceptable to the electorate – and that means us.

Since the 1940’s, life expectancy has increased through a combination of wealth, giving better living conditions and medical advances. We so often hear about how medical advances saves lives, but that’s not actually true. Medical advances & improved living conditions only delay deaths. The net result is an increase in the number of pensioners, many of whom are living for longer. It’s not the fault of these pensioners that they are creating a far higher bill than was expected, they’re just claiming what they were promised and what they have paid for.

Neither is it the fault of the younger generations. Advances in technology has resulted in industry running leaner with far fewer well paid jobs available (globalisation has also seen jobs move to lower cost economies) – how many workers does it take to produce a Nissan Qashqai compared to a Ford Cortina?

A massive increase in the demand for housing has been caused by a larger population (and a number of other factors), which has inevitably resulted in far higher prices (although we shouldn’t judge the whole country on London prices/problems).

Ultimately we’ve created an unsustainable model where our taxes fund an NHS that offers ever more expensive treatments that helps to create more pensioners who live longer (taking more of the available tax pot) and leaves them living in houses that adds additional pressure on prices.

Something has to give and the electorate has to allow the government (whichever government that may be) to make some pretty unpalatable choices.

Should the brief of the NHS change so that treatments are reduced once you reach a certain age? Should the bedroom tax be widened to include the whole population (with tax breaks for pensioners/singles who choose to house share)? Should assisted dying be legalised & even extended once the standard of life drops below a certain level?

Can you imagine the outcry if the government tried to introduce any of these changes? Yet the reality is that if we don’t make fundamental changes to the current model then nothing will change – The pensions & NHS bills will be unsustainable and the younger generations will have no chance of living the life that the baby-boomers were promised and have paid for.

Is that wrong? Do we have the courage to make such fundamental changes? Big questions, difficult decisions, but they need to be addressed by each and every one of us.

report this

Hugh M

Mar 04, 2016 at 04:03

Slash civil service pensions, slash MP's pensions. They can afford it. Stop giving money away to other countries and halt immigration. There you go, enough savings for a decent pension of all who have contributed.

report this

Ian Holmes

Mar 04, 2016 at 05:17

"every generation passes the consequences of its own failures down to the next generation".

Sadly, the iniquitous IHT persuades the same generation to spend everything rather than being able to............

"pass the consequences of its success down to the next generation".

report this

uphill swimmer

Mar 04, 2016 at 09:13

trout bites fly

report this

uncommercial

Mar 04, 2016 at 10:13

There isn't total agreement. I don't think that older people, of whom I am one, can just sit back and talk about what they've paid in and what they're entitled to. There will have to be compromise in order to deal with the population issues. But there really are far more important political battles in relation to fair division of rewards, and they aren't to do with foreign aid, benefits, immigration etc. Pitching it as an issue of old versus young is stupid and unhelpful.

And the question of funded pensions is a red herring. There is no real difference between funded and unfunded pensions - just different pieces of paper. The reality is that pensioners and children have to live on the fruits of the labour of working people. The rest is just accounting.

report this

LouisV-W4

Mar 04, 2016 at 11:09

Why is it always private sector pensioners that get criticised for saving for their old age, and then get clobbered by successive governments because they are saving too much? I see no mention of the massive increase in the public sector, especially under Labour, and the resultant pension black hole which will see 'baby boomer' public sector retirees living longer on fat final salary pensions, funded by everyone else.

I worked in local government for a few years at the start of my career in 1972, but when I married, I left for the private sector and took out my pension contributions to buy a made-to-measure wedding suit from Burtons and pay for a deposit on a rented flat. Imagine my surprise recently when I was informed that I was due a £6000 lump sum and a small index-linked pension for the rest of my life. For someone who did not realise he had any public sector pension entitlement, what does a pension look like for someone with 40 years service?

For example, I know of a couple who spent their life in local government, and while one still works (because she can't face life not working!), their joint pension will be £110,000 pa.

Governments find it easy to plunder private sector pension funds, and then come back for more, but won't touch the public sector.

report this

PaulSh

Mar 04, 2016 at 11:18

@uncommercial, there is a big difference between a funded and an unfunded state pension. Both types of pension are exposed to the demographic pressure of increased life expectancies, but funded pensions are immune to demographic anomalies such as the Baby Boom because you are paying for your own pension and not someone else's.

And of course there's the simple fact that the current unfunded pension system is basically a Ponzi scheme, but apparently it's perfectly legal to run one if you are the government.

report this

Michael Stevens

Mar 04, 2016 at 11:28

The State Pension Age was 70 years when introduced. It should rise from 66 in 2020 to 70 by 2040. One year for every five fears.

NI contributions to 44 to qualify for a full pension. It was 44 before it was reduced by Blair goverment

report this

David 111

Mar 04, 2016 at 11:39

LouisV-W4 - I worked all my life in local government, eventually retiring from a reasonably senior middle management level job. I can assure you that my pension is well below a quarter of your friends' £110,000 a year! I can only assume they are or were both at director level. Most local government employees retire on very modest pensions (well below the level of mine), whatever the public believes.

report this

uncommercial

Mar 04, 2016 at 11:43

@PaulSh I'm afraid that is complete rot, and it is grossly misleading to describe state pensions as a Ponzi scheme.

report this

Boris

Mar 04, 2016 at 21:27

Lavochkin: “Should the brief of the NHS change so that treatments are reduced once you reach a certain age?”

Why do you believe that such age discrimination does not already exist? In 1998, when my Father developed heart disease, his GP told my Mother “You’ve had him for 40 years, what more do you expect?”

report this

Hugh M

Mar 05, 2016 at 03:52

And how long should people with children expect a free lunch at the expense of those with no children? And how long should the unemployed expect a free lunch at the expense of those who have worked all their lives.

This report is totally worthless, there are too many people who expect to be kept by taxpayers for all their lives. Pensioners have paid into the system and deserve the benefits of contributions at retirement, just as their taxes supported pensioners when they were younger.

report this

MoneyObserver

Mar 05, 2016 at 09:44

@ Keith Cobby.

Re your suggestion of dropping a Contributions Requirement for qualifying for State Pension and replacing it with a mere Residence Requirement, this would mean that huge numbers of immigrants who have never paid anything in, and their ageing relatives would qualify for a UK State Pension.

Immigration would soar even higher.

What a huge cost to the Britsish taxpayer

report this

Know-it-all

Mar 05, 2016 at 10:04

I have a simple question. Do the authors of these articles ever read the responses? If not, why not? If so, could we have a considered response to this virtually complete rejection of Ms NcGagh's arguments, please?

report this

Lavochkin

Mar 05, 2016 at 10:45

Boris, I'm not saying that there isn't already some age discrimination in the NHS - especially at an individual level. The point I was trying to make is that as a society, we expect ever improving health care and ever more complex & expensive treatments, with no consideration for how we are going to pay for it.

At an individual level, we would all want our health service to do anything and everything to keep us and our loved ones alive for as long as possible. However, for our society as a whole, is that the best approach?

The question that I have in my mind is whether it may be preferable to focus our resources on the younger generations. Not exactly "live fast, die young", but wouldn't you prefer to have a higher proportion of your lifetime earnings to spend during your most vibrant years?

Not everybody will, but that doesn't mean the question shouldn't be asked & at the moment, we don't really have this option.

report this

andy mac

Mar 05, 2016 at 10:56

My wife and I are baby boomers, we have brought up 2 children. We paid for childcare no vouchers or grandparents

We worked during university vacations as we both came from working backgrounds.

We didnt/dont smoke, didnt go out much.

gradually moved up the housing ladder

We looked after 3 parents without any additional handouts for care etc other than NHS medical care

WE saw politicians say no tution fees and then stitch everyone up

We have seen pension promises denied ( I saw my MP a number of years ago and he denied what is happening)

The bus pass is never within reach , the pension age keeps moving - broken promises, and dont get me started on flat rate pension

NHS gone to hell in a handcart

Care homes fleecing everyone with 3rd world standards

If old age was so wonderful why dont the youngsters want it

We have never had a debt other than a mortgage

If the young people think its wonderful did they have wars to fight, rationing

Hard manual labour - the boomers are enjoying what they paid for

The young never had it so good

The problem lies in the politicians and rip off Britain

Euthenasia is the way forward check in at 75

report this

alan franklin

Mar 05, 2016 at 15:56

An analysis as pathetic as I would expect from anything commissioned by the Labour Party.

We are "baby boomers" and have already helped two children get their own homes, as well as giving continual help to children and grandchildren.

Boy oh boy do I resent this utterly crap-awful article, as others have remarked.

We got "lucky" by working, in my case, the equivalent of three full time jobs for years, forever doing stacks of freelance work, also renovating property and working exceptionally hard and long. Do that and everyone can be "the lucky generation."

Yes, we also paid in contributions for about 45 years and still pay lots of tax.

If the government needs money it should start by getting hundreds of thousands off "the sick" as many are just slackers, well able to work. (I exempt the genuinely sick, of course.)

Next, stop hundreds of thousands of immigrants pouring in, many with their hands out for homes and handouts. Then we would actually have homes to go round and plenty of money to look after those who really do need help.

Also, we should scrap the absurd idea of foreign aid, which goes to nations like India with space programmes. We should also get the heck out of the clasp of the absurd, overbearing bunch of unelected morons (the commissioners and judges) who rule us from Brussels and Strasbourg. They also take £55 million a DAY from us. Some twerp giving out leaflets said to me today :"But we get some of it back." How kind of them, to give us a small percentage of our own money back.

Off to take a couple of aspirins.

report this

dd

Mar 05, 2016 at 16:13

It only comes back with strings attached. "Support" for small businesses has actually cost my business time and money, in other words, money and money, since wasting my time is also a cost to my business. I could have been doing something more productive. In contrast, those providing the "support" actually get paid for it, whether it helps or not.

report this

gld

Mar 05, 2016 at 18:39

A ludicrous, ill informed article, presumably from generation whinge. The reality:

It's official: the British state pension at a maximum £110.15 a week is the most miserable in Europe. Compared to average income, even Hungary and Slovenia better the pension benefits 12.3m British pensioners receive, according to a new OECD report.

British workers on average earnings typically get a state pension worth 32.6% of their working wage.

report this

dd

Mar 05, 2016 at 23:51

What I don't understand is how there are so many tax-payer funded pensions of £55k-60k+, from age 60 or lower, at a time when the lifetime allowance applicable to the rest of us (if we could reach it) would buy less than half that amount. Why is this happening at a time when others are facing working until they drop? How can that be justified and how much would be saved if there were a cap?

Michael Stevens' point about 44 years of NI is interesting.

Geoffrey M is right too about how not all Boomers are in the same fortunate situation as others. Some Boomers will face more difficult retirements than their parents, mainly due to demise of DB pensions.

Generalisations have a lot to answer for (and Steve Webb is very good at them.)

report this

Michael Stevens

Mar 06, 2016 at 18:36

It is interesting that many do not know that many pensioners have state pension plus SERPs total of £10,000, £12,000 or even over £14,000 per year. Just from the NI full contributions

NI should rise to44 years and retirement age 70 by 2040

report this

mark antrobus

Mar 06, 2016 at 19:24

Michael Stevens' point is yet another example of the the intergenerational injustice between the retired, and those who are young. Being in the middle age wise, I contributed to the SERPS in my early working life for about 12 - 15 years, in the mistaken belief, as it was then promoted, that SERPS was the equivalent of a defined benefit occupational pension. Since then what I thought was a guaranteed pension has been steadily watered down to a projection ivalue n effect of zero; although in theory it will be worth the wonderful sum of £20 per week, this will be fully absorbed by the new flat rate pension of £155 - which based on many future years of increased National Insurance Contributions going forward, I would be qualifying for in any event. I expect many others will be in the same position.

report this

uncommercial

Mar 06, 2016 at 20:34

@mark antrobus That's just plain injustice. It doesn't really clarify anything to call it intergenerational. The situation you describe is primarily the result of schemes devised by George Osborne. Neither Osborne nor Cameron are baby boomers. They are people who seem careless of the principle that government policy should attempt to be fair to all citizens.

report this

dd

Mar 06, 2016 at 22:30

but they write this:

"The government is committed to ensuring older people can live with dignity and security in retirement."

report this

dd

Mar 06, 2016 at 23:47

vs £8060 at £155pw

report this

dd

Mar 06, 2016 at 23:48

Sorry, that followed Michael's 18:36.

report this

MoneyObserver

Mar 07, 2016 at 09:36

Discussions on 'Intergenerational' injustice, promoted by people like Tessa (two homes) Jowell are always very restricted in their scope.

What is needed, if existing older people are to be vilified, is a proper system of

'Intergenerational Accounting' which includes the value of one generation bringing up the next one and handing over to them a fully functioning world and infrastructure.

report this

dd

Mar 07, 2016 at 10:03

But there is a problem with generalisations. There are huge variations in the circumstances of Baby Boomers, there are unemployed 61 year olds living on savings (if they have any) due to age discrimination; same variation applies to younger generations for different reasons.

report this

MoneyObserver

Mar 07, 2016 at 10:08

@dd

But the present debate about "Intergenerational Unfairness" which is increasingly bubbling up, and will get worse, is and will be conducted in generalisations, however the specifics to which you refer can all be taken into account in a 'macro-model' of Intergenerational Accounting.

report this

dd

Mar 07, 2016 at 10:15

Good!

report this

Know-it-all

Mar 07, 2016 at 10:25

Enough already!

report this

MoneyObserver

Mar 07, 2016 at 10:30

Adjusted for inflation, how much has it cost to build the M1 motorway and hand it over fully functioning (more or less) to the next generation ?

report this

Johnill

Mar 08, 2016 at 05:51

We all know that modern science is helping everyone to live longer so people have to save for themselves to supplement the state pension.

Politicians must learn to put all National Insurance money into separate funds for State Pensions and for the NHS, which is what they were designed for, and not to be added to the general kitty for them to squander as they think fit. Then there will be enough for a decent bread and butter payment every month for pensioners that have worked all their lives. The jam and the cream must come from their own savings.

The Government must also encourage people not to spend money they do not have. If you cannot afford something, save up until you can.

P.S.

I am sure that our illustrious leaders award themselves much better pensions than the OAP.

report this

MoneyObserver

Mar 08, 2016 at 09:03

A huge problem is UK Population Growth.

Office of National Statistics (ONS) show 53% of last years growth came from direct immigration.

This represents a huge competition for younger people seeking housing and good jobs with pensions and good 'tax payer affordable' state pensions.

Pointing at the older generation and claiming they have been greedy is just a diversionary tactic to avoid mentioning this uncomfortable and

non "politically correct" fact.

report this

leave a comment

Please sign in here or register here to comment. It is free to register and only takes a minute or two.

News sponsored by:

Understanding the value in commodity investing


Here at BlackRock, we help investors make more out of commodities with a range of innovative, flexible and resilient investment strategies.

Watch Now

New Economies - Frontiers and Latam Exciting markets, unrealised investment opportunities


From Brazil and Mexico, to Vietnam and Nigeria, the rapidly developing economies of Latin American and frontier markets, which are some of the smaller, less developed economies in the world, provides investors with a wealth of potential opportunities. Discover why BlackRock's investment trust range is well placed to help you make more of these exciting regions.

Watch Now

The Citywire Guide to Investment Trusts


In this guide to investment trusts, produced in association with Aberdeen Asset Management, we spoke to many of the leading experts in the field to find out more.

Watch Now

Today's articles

Tools from Citywire Money

From the Forums

+ Start a new discussion

Weekly email from The Lolly

Get simple, easy ways to make more from your money. Just enter your email address below

An error occured while subscribing your email. Please try again later.

Thank you for registering for your weekly newsletter from The Lolly.

Keep an eye out for us in your inbox, and please add noreply@emails.citywire.co.uk to your safe senders list so we don't get junked.

Read more...

Investment Trust Insider: issue 32 out now!

by Gavin Lumsden on Sep 28, 2016 at 11:03

Sorry, this link is not
quite ready yet