People complaining about paying for their own care again = massive entitlement

[adolf hamster]

How many boomers are in power in your fantasy? Nearly every boomer age politician is safely in the House of Lords where they can do little damage. The civil service, they probably retired at 60 or less. Similarly with the health services and most public companies if senior enough.

Unless you think the Queen got onto the government and said, 'here is what you must do.'

the point he's making is you can be retired and out of "the system" yet still be in power, it's right there in cheesyboy's post:

the largest voting block in history

 

[theone8181]

Yes the person is to blame for being a sheep.

I know plenty of materialistic folk who all they talk about is money, cars, salary, etc. They even lie about their own stuff to make them look fancier. Like I can't believe how one idiot lied about how much their house was they added an extra £100k on like I couldn't easily google exactly how much they paid.

Such and such is marrying such and such and their family is even richer and valued at £60m. Like who cares?

Did you see what such and such bought their wife as a "push" present? I wonder what my husband will get me. It's a competition because of sheep and idiots tbh. 10 years ago did push presents exist? 50 years ago did eternity rings exist? 100 years ago did diamond engagement rings exist?

It's like why the majority of the market buys diamond engagement rings. Marketing is a powerful tool and social media is just that marketing for yourself and likley the brand's you are using to upmarket yourself.

If anyone is basing financial decisions and life choices based on social media then yeah it is their fault tbh. Social media isn't real life it's the person's vision of what they envision life to be like or what they want their life to be like.

What's a push present? I'm going to have to Google this as I've not heard of it before (seriously).

I googled and I'm still think wtf, even my Mrs who "pushed" out 2 isn't bothered by it.

 

[cheesyboy]

It'll make a difference to their heirs, though.

I don't think society should be subsidising heirs on the backs of the workforce.

Or would you make it 100%?

Yes. Or close to it.

Would you allow assisted suicide so people who are frail/ill can at least have killing themselves as the only way to ensure some of their money (after tax) goes to their heirs rather than to a private business?

I'd allow assisted suicide. Though I'd probably not want a people doing it for money. A near 100% IHT rate would ensure it makes no difference whether you spend on care or not, though. So no problems there.

I'm interested in generational fairness and meritocracy. I'll happily forgo the £quarter-million+ of inheritance my household is likely to receive in the next couple of decades if it's part of a system that levels the financial playing field for all.

 

[Hagar]

the point he's making is you can be retired and out of "the system" yet still be in power, it's right there in cheesyboy's post:

Yes well the following generations should get with the program as we boomers are dying (quite) fast. Every vote that has been analysed shows 18 to 45 just don't vote in significant numbers. Particularly in a none constituency vote like the recent referendum where that age group could have swung it the other way just by voting.
My age group (b1952) always vote. It is ingrained that you go and vote in a general election, most do council ones as well and even PCC, I will turn out and vote. I know the arguments about safe seats and PR but if you don't vote ever, nothing will ever change. Eventually the 45's will be 65's etc. A new generational group will be most politically active and things may get changed but you need to be in the habit of voting for something for something to happen.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

What's a push present? I'm going to have to Google this as I've not heard of it before (seriously).

I googled and I'm still think wtf, even my Mrs who "pushed" out 2 isn't bothered by it.

It's common now among the current generation. Any excuse to spend excess on more crap that isn't needed.

Yet they are entitled to a point it's all the old people who are to blame for them not being able to live in mansions or the best areas.

 

[cheesyboy]

Yes well the following generations should get with the program as we boomers are dying (quite) fast. Every vote that has been analysed shows 18 to 45 just don't vote in significant numbers. Particularly in a none constituency vote like the recent referendum where that age group could have swung it the other way just by voting.
My age group (b1952) always vote.

Boomers have been trained, by being rewarded, that politics is 'for' them.

On the other hand, young people turned out in record numbers to vote for Corbyn's Labour, a movement awoken by the student protests of a decade ago, and have been rewarded by.... The Labour party doing its best to flush out all traces of Corbynism or Leftism in general.

Young people are trained, by the system, that politics is not for them. It's for their parents' and grandparents' generations.

 

[Hagar]

Given that the baby boomer generation was 1945 to 1965, that would be anyone aged of 56 and over is part of the boomer generation. So, lets start at the top, Boris Johnson?

How come the baby boomer generation is now 20 years and expanding, it seems, where following generations seem to be 15 years or less from the tables I have seen. There is no way Boris is in the same generation as me. Pack as many as possible into your target list it seems.

PS Actual real genealogical generations should be 25 years in the western world. Less in more undeveloped parts.

 

[Hagar]

Boomers have been trained, by being rewarded, that politics is 'for' them.

On the other hand, young people turned out in record numbers to vote for Corbyn's Labour, a movement awoken by the student protests of a decade ago, and have been rewarded by.... The Labour party doing its best to flush out all traces of Corbynism or Leftism in general.

Young people are trained, by the system, that politics is not for them. It's for their parents' and grandparents' generations.

Corbyn the archetypal boomer raised of middle class parents, he achieved little in a parliamentary career except being elevated on a radical ticket and set to fail.
His politics was nothing to do with student politics of a decade ago, more like 1970's student politics. If he had been any good he would have featured more since 1984 when he was first elected.
People who have experienced leftist in this country largely do not want it back, it was generally rubbish.

 

[Narj]

Heh, the hatred of the old from some quarters as if they are one hive-minded entity always amuses me. Despite all that life experience, their opinion shouldn't matter, apparently.

I suppose my parents are "boomers" but they didn't have a pot to pee in. My grandparents only got a house by winning money on some lottery draw.

 

[cheesyboy]

Corbyn the archetypal boomer raised of middle class parents, he achieved little in a parliamentary career except being elevated on a radical ticket and set to fail.
His politics was nothing to do with student politics of a decade ago, more like 1970's student politics. If he had been any good he would have featured more since 1984 when he was first elected.
People who have experienced leftist in this country largely do not want it back, it was generally rubbish.

I'm not going to get into the pro's and con's of Corbyn here. That wasn't the point of my post.

The point was that the surging youth turnout has been rewarded by having their values completely sidelined. There's literally nothing for them in the current political landscape.

And yet they are vilified for not voting enough!

 

[cheesyboy]

Heh, the hatred of the old from some quarters as if they are one hive-minded entity always amuses me. Despite all that life experience, their opinion shouldn't matter, apparently.

I suppose my parents are "boomers" but they didn't have a pot to pee in. My grandparents only got a house by winning money on some lottery draw.

And whilst your poorer boomer parents get NOTHING extra from a policy like the one in the OP, wealthy Boomers get yet more.

You should also be able to see the unfairness.

 

[Dolph]

I'm not going to get into the pro's and con's of Corbyn here. That wasn't the point of my post.

The point was that the surging youth turnout has been rewarded by having their values completely sidelined. There's literally nothing for them in the current political landscape.

And yet they are vilified for not voting enough!

It's satisfying when democracy works the way it's intended to. Unpopular ideas get sidelined. That's not a fault.

 

[cheesyboy]

It's satisfying when democracy works the way it's intended to. Unpopular ideas get sidelined. That's not a fault.

The Tyranny of the Majority is an enormous fault!

 

[adolf hamster]

Yes well the following generations should get with the program as we boomers are dying (quite) fast. Every vote that has been analysed shows 18 to 45 just don't vote in significant numbers. Particularly in a none constituency vote like the recent referendum where that age group could have swung it the other way just by voting.
My age group (b1952) always vote. It is ingrained that you go and vote in a general election, most do council ones as well and even PCC, I will turn out and vote. I know the arguments about safe seats and PR but if you don't vote ever, nothing will ever change. Eventually the 45's will be 65's etc. A new generational group will be most politically active and things may get changed but you need to be in the habit of voting for something for something to happen.

i'm not denying that the younger generations are doing themselves no favours with poor turnout, but when for the most part the parties are glossing over their interests because it's more fruitful to target the larger more vote-heavy demographic it's a vicious demotivational cycle.

of course brexit was dissappointing to see people who had the most to win/lose by voting stand idly by, although we can probably put some blame on the "remain is a sure thing" predictions the media was pumping out.....

 

[Narj]

And whilst your poorer boomer parents get NOTHING extra from a policy like the one in the OP, wealthy Boomers get yet more.

You should also be able to see the unfairness.

Well my dad always took accountability for his lot in life to be fair. Never paid much attention in school, used to get into a bit of trouble. Loveable rogue type.

He made sure I had a good work ethic and didn't end up digging holes for a living. I feel like I've got what I have through hard work and don't see why I can't choose to leave it to whoever I chose without the state or a private company seizing most or all of it - they've had enough from me as it is.

These days there are probably more young millionaires than ever - there are certainly plenty of lucky breaks and ways to make money that were never around before. Look at the rise of the investment savvy youngsters on reddit/youtube as an example.

 

[Hagar]

I am not happy with the triple lock and was pleased that Mrs May tried to get rid if it in her manifesto. A simple link to average earnings would suffice or RPI.
Also at some point some government is going to have to get to grips with social care in old age. At some point it will be paid for in taxation in the same way as the health service. When and how that point is reached should be by concensus but the principle that a decent level of care free at the point of need should also be there. As with health, those who can pay and want something different should be able to go private.
The transition is the difficult bit. Who pays how much when. The partner of a person going into care should not be placed in penury or made homeless to pay for that care, provision should be by the state. Whether a post death charge on the estate can be made on the partner like additional IHT, all needs discussion. However a tax funded service like the NHS is the goal in the end.

 

[krooton]

I do find it odd that people complain about the younger generation's spend-spend-spend mindset, when they have been brought up in the most capitalistic-brainwashing era of all time.

The level of marketing that happens now is insane, with every opportunity taken to get someone to "need" something.

 

[Pudney]

It's satisfying when democracy works the way it's intended to. Unpopular ideas get sidelined. That's not a fault.

Just because something is popular doesn't make it right.

 

[cheesyboy]

I feel like I've got what I have through hard work

But also through having a father who.....

made sure I had a good work ethic and didn't end up digging holes for a living

We're all products of our environment, and most of us are just trying to make our way in the world. We can never equalise everyone's opportunity, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make things more fair. The idea that we pay wealthy people's care to subsidise inheritance (very much unearned income on the part of the inheritee) on the backs of working people is not in any way 'fair' and really should not be supported by anyone who thinks hard work should be rewarded.

 

[muon]

These days there are probably more young millionaires than ever - there are certainly plenty of lucky breaks and ways to make money that were never around before. Look at the rise of the investment savvy youngsters on reddit/youtube as an example.

You are so removed from reality.

This is why government shouldn't pander to opinions of people like you.

I'll tell those younger than me they should work harder and become investment savvy. Use reddit and youtube.

Do you know who actually makes nearly all investment income? Old money. Why? You need existing capital to make money.