Tories lost the 2019 election among working age adults

[pp111]

Again another person totally missing the point. The issue isnt that they were better off than people today, they were better off than their parents generation. That has now gone for the current generation and its break even for the generation before.

The point being made its these people and those born in the 50s and 60s who will now decide on who is government and what polices they follow as the largest majority of elderly voters in the future are over 65, certainly already over 55.

Are they going to vote for smaller pensions and reduced healthcare in order to balance the books? Or are they going to protect their own interests and vote for the current working generation to pay more and more?

Problem has always been in this country is that the state pension and healthcare is a Ponzi scheme.

Healthcare costs alone is £5600 per year on average for the over 65 household and £8400 for the over 85s.

The state pension will cost double what it does now so £200bn per year by 2050.

With people living on average 25 years in retirement, each pensioner costs around £400k. I doubt most have even paid £400k in taxes during their working life.

I am not saying for a second that old people should have the NHS or pension removed before anybody starts, I am just saying its a massive problem, one of the biggest this country faces so no point ignoring it and pretending it doesnt exist. We need to have adult discussions about this but instead we get triple locked pensions.

And the people deciding who deals with this problem will be decided on by the beneficiaries going forward.

Everyone votes to protect their own interests. That doesn't mean you can just ban people from voting because you don't get your own way.

I hear what you say, but I think you would probably change your tune if you were due your pension.

If the government can't maintain the state pension then maybe they should stop taking money from people and frittering it away. I mean these people paid in to the system for decades and when they come to take it out the government says "you can't have it, we spent it"? If that was you or I we would be imprisoned. Successive governments spent the money instead of banking it, well, hard luck, they shouldn't have promised people a pension in the first place. I am not against pensions being changed, but I am against it being changed retrospectively. The government told people and took a sizeable percentage of their salary to look after them in their old age. They should honour that commitment. The very least, you should be blaming the government for this, not the OAP's. It's not their fault someone took their money and spent it!

 

[Greebo]

Everyone votes to protect their own interests. That doesn't mean you can just ban people from voting because you don't get your own way.

I hear what you say, but I think you would probably change your tune if you were due your pension.

If the government can't maintain the state pension then maybe they should stop taking money from people and frittering it away. I mean these people paid in to the system for decades and when they come to take it out the government says "you can't have it, we spent it"? If that was you or I we would be imprisoned. Successive governments spent the money instead of banking it, well, hard luck, they shouldn't have promised people a pension in the first place. I am not against pensions being changed, but I am against it being changed retrospectively. The government told people and took a sizeable percentage of their salary to look after them in their old age. They should honour that commitment. The very least, you should be blaming the government for this, not the OAP's. It's not their fault someone took their money and spent it!

I am not, I am one of those who will soon retire and yes, as I have admitted already, I am going to vote for whoever looks after my personal interests the best.

So I am not blaming all the other elderly doing the same. I am merely pointing out that two of this companies biggest financial problems in the coming decades is going to be decided by the recipients of this money so things are going to get even more uncomfortable for the current generation. Already they are worse off than the last generation and they are going to become even worse off.

But equally I am aware that there are some massive financial problems facing this country over the next few decades and this has just been ignored by this government and previous ones and the can has always been kicked down the road. The end of the road is coming up fast.

It should have started in the 70's. Pension age should have gone up by a year every 5 -10 years and by now the pension age should be at least 70.

If that wasnt palatable then the old system of the current workforce pays for the pensions of the current elderly should have been scrapped and a new separate pension "tax" introduced and that money was invested in a big pot for people to draw on when retired.

Again that wasnt a vote winner as you would be asking people to do financial harm to themselves to sort out a problem 50 years into the future.

 

[tenofspades]

little bit of a bold headline considering it was a poll asking people to recall what they voted.
But that being said- I do hate how the elections are top-heavy. I think it needs to be adjusted by age. So ALL the demographics of society are represented, not just the top heavy.

I'm not convinced PR is any better.

 

[SPG]

I am not, I am one of those who will soon retire and yes, as I have admitted already, I am going to vote for whoever looks after my personal interests the best.

So I am not blaming all the other elderly doing the same. I am merely pointing out that two of this companies biggest financial problems in the coming decades is going to be decided by the recipients of this money so things are going to get even more uncomfortable for the current generation. Already they are worse off than the last generation and they are going to become even worse off.

But equally I am aware that there are some massive financial problems facing this country over the next few decades and this has just been ignored by this government and previous ones and the can has always been kicked down the road. The end of the road is coming up fast.

It should have started in the 70's. Pension age should have gone up by a year every 5 -10 years and by now the pension age should be at least 70.

If that wasnt palatable then the old system of the current workforce pays for the pensions of the current elderly should have been scrapped and a new separate pension "tax" introduced and that money was invested in a big pot for people to draw on when retired.

Again that wasnt a vote winner as you would be asking people to do financial harm to themselves to sort out a problem 50 years into the future.

70 your having a laugh. Increase the requirement to pay national insurance longer for a full pension.

 

[MikeTimbers]

little bit of a bold headline considering it was a poll asking people to recall what they voted.
But that being said- I do hate how the elections are top-heavy. I think it needs to be adjusted by age. So ALL the demographics of society are represented, not just the top heavy.

I'm not convinced PR is any better.

All the demographics are represented. Except under-18s of course. The "problem" remains that those who work don't vote as much as those who are retired. The solution shouldn't be to do with those who do vote but with those who don't. Why don't more working people vote? Fix that before anything else.

 

[Uther]

70 might be fine for someone who whiles away their time in an office, but not for people who do manual work for a living.
I know for a fact I would struggle to do my current job in my 60's, let alone 70.

 

[mid_gen]

Everyone votes to protect their own interests. That doesn't mean you can just ban people from voting because you don't get your own way.

I hear what you say, but I think you would probably change your tune if you were due your pension.

If the government can't maintain the state pension then maybe they should stop taking money from people and frittering it away. I mean these people paid in to the system for decades and when they come to take it out the government says "you can't have it, we spent it"?

That isn't how the state pension system works.

People that are working now, are paying the pensions of people that are retired now.

When you retire, the people that are still working are paying your pension.

What is happening now, with the triple lock and stagnant wages, is the retired demographic are increasingly taking more out than they paid in.

 

[Uther]

That isn't how the state pension system works.

People that are working now, are paying the pensions of people that are retired now.

When you retire, the people that are still working are paying your pension.

What is happening now, with the triple lock and stagnant wages, is the retired demographic are increasingly taking more out than they paid in.

As will you if/when you get there. The government are already messing around with pensions, and I doubt things like triple locks will be much to get upset about before too much longer. Pensioners in this country don't exactly get a lot of money as it is if relying on the state.
For anyone in their 20s I'd be more concernebd that there will even be a state pension when you retire, or if it will be worth 50p as it's not keeping up with the cost of living.
Bring in compulsory voting, then maybe the lazy ******** will get off their arses to vote for their future. Don't complain if they don't.

 

[Greebo]

70 your having a laugh. Increase the requirement to pay national insurance longer for a full pension.

70 might be fine for someone who whiles away their time in an office, but not for people who do manual work for a living.
I know for a fact I would struggle to do my current job in my 60's, let alone 70.

Which is a problem and why that may not have been the right way to deal with it.

But it wasnt a problem decades ago. The average life expectancy for a man in 1971 was 68 so the average man only got paid 3 years of pension. Yes everybody was promised a pension but most people barely got chance to spend it and it seemed easy to pay for it from current workers taxation. Your retirement was only 6% of your working life.

Now its over 81 so if you still had retirement at 65, you now have more than 16 years of pension on average to pay for and retirement would be 34% of your working life.

By rights the pension age should be at least 70 now. The average man would still have 11 years of retirement and pension and would have 21% of their working life as retirement. If the 3 years and 6% wasnt a problem in the 70s, why would 11 years and 21% be an issue now?

Of course nobody wants to work until they are 70 or even 75. But we have to have the adult discussion on how the billions and billions more every year is going to be found to fund this and the health care for the elderly.

The way the demographics are changing in this country, by 2050 working people would have to be paying 50% more tax than they are now to fund the retirees if you want to keep things the same as they are now.

 

[Uther]

I think now the government have brought in workplace pensions then the writing is on the wall for state pensions. It may well take decades but it wouldn't surprise me at all if the state pension became means tested or disappeared altogether eventually.

 

[Greebo]

I think now the government have brought in workplace pensions then the writing is on the wall for state pensions. It may well take decades but it wouldn't surprise me at all if the state pension became means tested or disappeared altogether eventually.

Clearly that is their solution. It has to go before 2050 and it cripples the country financially. Nobody will come clean and say this though.

They dont even need to means test it. Just have a tax code where if you earn over a certain amount you pay 100% tax on your state pension element or combined with some sliding scale to it.

Eg. From £20k to £50k you are increasingly taxed on your state pension until at £50k it has full 100% tax on it.

Means testing is complicated and expensive.

Biggest issue though will be convincing the voting public since the people directly affected have the biggest voting turnout at 85% and will be making up 60% of the votes in any GE by 2050.

The closer you leave it to 2050 to do something distract, the less chance you will get voted in or remain in power unless both big parties agree to it and both offer the same thing.

 

[Hagar]

@Greebo

...Now its over 81 so if you still had retirement at 65, you now have more than 16 years of pension on average to pay for and retirement would be 34% of your working life.

Did you mean you are working three times longer than being retired ie 48 years, which sounds realistic. Therefore retirement would be 25% approx of your working life. I worked ~47 years until I retired.
Otherwise, as it appears, working life is twice your 16 years which is too low.

 

[Tefal]

little bit of a bold headline considering it was a poll asking people to recall what they voted.
But that being said- I do hate how the elections are top-heavy. I think it needs to be adjusted by age. So ALL the demographics of society are represented, not just the top heavy.

I'm not convinced PR is any better.

But one demographic is not voting.

You can't blame the people who bother to vote because other people don't.

 

[Tefal]

Apologies, was going on memory.

So a smaller than 38% demographic 'tail' is wagging the electorate dog.

Nope, again the biggest single unified block of voters in the country is "didn't vote".

So you can slap them onto the winner every single time and adjust your percentages

Not voting isn't voting for the opposition or what your "peer" group voted for, it is agreeing to who ever wins

 

[Tefal]

So nothing. So do 26% of your fellow oldies. Do you think thats going to make any difference?

Anyway, the point isnt whether you vote Tory or Labour, its a case most people will vote for the policies which are best for their lives as an elderly person

Well one obvious fact is all of us plan to be an old person....

 

[Greebo]

@Greebo

Did you mean you are working three times longer than being retired ie 48 years, which sounds realistic. Therefore retirement would be 25% approx of your working life. I worked ~47 years until I retired.
Otherwise, as it appears, working life is twice your 16 years which is too low.

No you work 47 years and are retired 16 years. 16/47 is 34%. Its obvious some smaller percentage of your total life and 25% of your adult life.

I was just trying to get across your retirement is a third of your working life and hence its a massive amount of money in pensions and health care for those who are still working to pay and support.

 

[Tefal]

Instead of trying to remove or devalue the old people's votes why not force the young people to vote?

 

[Greebo]

But one demographic is not voting.

You can't blame the people who bother to vote because other people don't.

I know and it wouldnt be an issue if 85% of the whole population voted no matter what their age group. But they dont and trying to get them vote seems like hard work so in the future unless that changes 60% of the vote is going to be the over 65s and 72% will be the over 55s so if you are a party wanting to be elected, who are you going to aim your policies at?

I can see capital punishment coming back in before 2050.

EDIT: I know and parties have tried but its difficult plus when they do vote they may well not vote for you therefore its much easier to after the votes of the group where 85% already vote. You dont need to persuade them to vote, just need to persuade them to vote for you.

 

[Secret_Window]

Instead of trying to remove or devalue the old people's votes why not force the young people to vote?

It's what I said in the previous page.

It isn't a case of young vs old and right vs wrong - the simple fact is young people don't vote and this gifts the win to those who are older and actually do vote. Nothing will change until this changes.

See link here:

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/general-election-maps-shows-massive-17492900

 

[cheesyboy]

Nope, again the biggest single unified block of voters in the country is "didn't vote".

So you can slap them onto the winner every single time and adjust your percentages

Not voting isn't voting for the opposition or what your "peer" group voted for, it is agreeing to who ever wins

You're like a dog with a bone on this non-voter stuff.

It's all 'ifs', really.

The facts on the ground are that working age people, represented by working age people who voted, were overridden by retirees who voted.

And the question is whether a country steered on the mandate of retirees, over that of working age people, is a country likely to be making good decisions for the future.

Whether retirees' votes could have been overcome if more younger people voted is not the situation we're dealing with. And "how do working people make sure their ideals are represented?" was not the question.

So I don't see why the obsession with bringing it up.