Pay to listen to Corbyn speak

[Blue Mist]

I didn’t have a dig. Who do you think pays for state pensions? I’m not moaning about it I just get fed up with the ever prevailing attitude that all young people are freeloaders and wasters.

The vast majority of young people that I know about and hear about are hard working and trying their best in difficult times to get on with their life, I would never have a dig at the young for that and I would hope not many others would either.

 

[SWP's back]

Diane Abbott is not a racist. You can disagree with her politics, even dislike her public persona but she is not a racist. She is a hard working and diligent constituency MP who is very popular and appreciated by the people she represents.

She’s a racist prick.

She’s also thick as pig shit.

 

[inchy14]

How about this? In many walks of life pensioners get discounted this and that for reasons we're all familiar with, but increasingly we're seeing evidence that a sizeable proportion of aging baby boomers have a great deal more disposable income than other age groups, what with index linked pensions and being asset rich, savings, shares and whatnot. Of course side by side with this aging affluence we also have pensioner poverty which cannot be overlooked.

The solution the State and other bodies have come to (City included) is to offer discounts simply based on age, which means affluent over 65s are minting it and I know this from personal experience, we all know this.

Kids get discounts but young adults don't, but we know they are the first generation that may well end up poorer than their parents, so are the discounts given to older people evidence of us giving up on the young? Is it evidence of the State giving discounts to pensioners because they no longer earn and have had a life time of paying tax and national insurance or is it that pensioners vote in large numbers, often for the Tories and their demographic make up the bulk of the Tory Party?

Complicated isn't it! and so is this fund raising mini fiasco, but where as old versus young is a real topic for debate, there's no thread about it and there'd be very little froth generated by it if there was. Not so here, this small earthquake no one killed white versus BAME non event has run for 16 pages! Why is that I wonder?

But that's not being done over the colour of their skin though is it? That's why people aren't impressed with this decision, thing is you already know that but just won't admit it.
If this was the other way round there would rightly be uproar.

 

[SWP's back]

How about this? In many walks of life pensioners get discounted this and that for reasons we're all familiar with, but increasingly we're seeing evidence that a sizeable proportion of aging baby boomers have a great deal more disposable income than other age groups, what with index linked pensions and being asset rich, savings, shares and whatnot. Of course side by side with this aging affluence we also have pensioner poverty which cannot be overlooked.

The solution the State and other bodies have come to (City included) is to offer discounts simply based on age, which means affluent over 65s are minting it and I know this from personal experience, we all know this.

Kids get discounts but young adults don't, but we know they are the first generation that may well end up poorer than their parents, so are the discounts given to older people evidence of us giving up on the young? Is it evidence of the State giving discounts to pensioners because they no longer earn and have had a life time of paying tax and national insurance or is it that pensioners vote in large numbers, often for the Tories and their demographic make up the bulk of the Tory Party?

Complicated isn't it! and so is this fund raising mini fiasco, but where as old versus young is a real topic for debate, there's no thread about it and there'd be very little froth generated by it if there was. Not so here, this small earthquake no one killed white versus BAME non event has run for 16 pages! Why is that I wonder?

You know why kids and over 65’s get discounts don’t you? They aren’t generally in paid employment. To liken the thread subject to that is a false simile.

 

[Ghandi's Flip Flops]

How about this? In many walks of life pensioners get discounted this and that for reasons we're all familiar with, but increasingly we're seeing evidence that a sizeable proportion of aging baby boomers have a great deal more disposable income than other age groups, what with index linked pensions and being asset rich, savings, shares and whatnot. Of course side by side with this aging affluence we also have pensioner poverty which cannot be overlooked.

The solution the State and other bodies have come to (City included) is to offer discounts simply based on age, which means affluent over 65s are minting it and I know this from personal experience, we all know this.

Okay. Firstly, in the 70's pensioners were more than twice as likely to be in poverty as the population as a whole. Nowadays they face roughly the same chance of living in poverty as the general population.
So by removing any existing discounts etc, all you are likely to do is penalise the poorest and likely return more into poverty.

What i think you are high-lighting is a increased inequality between pensioners.These inequalities mostly exist because of the once generous occupational & private pension schemes. The decent occupational schemes are mostly unavailable now, and the private schemes aren't anywhere near as viable after Gordon Brown decided to ransack them back in the day. So in effect in the future the inequality between pensioners should reduce.

What that leaves is the lucky ones who are still alive, who gained took advantage of the previous generous/viable pension schemes. The question could then be how to target these to pay more without penalising the more needy or their kind, but there are inherent problems with this.
First why should you?, because it's likely with disposable income they are also paying more through other taxes like VAT, Car tax, Airport tax etc.


Also just to bat your observations back to you, on what basis do you believe that different age groups should all have an equal amount of disposable income?

Unless you look at whole scenario objectively, you get people taking the a typical British attitude of not actually liking the poor, just hating the fucking rich.

 

[The perfect fumble]

You know why kids and over 65’s get discounts don’t you? They aren’t generally in paid employment. To liken the thread subject to that is a false simile.

But the relationship between paid employment and ability to pay no longer applies to a sizeable chunk of the over 65s, to deny that is to deny the facts. Figures show the recently retired in the UK are for the first time wealthier than those aged under 45.

 

[SWP's back]

But the relationship between paid employment and ability to pay no longer applies to a sizeable chunk of the over 65s, to deny that is to deny the facts. Figures show the recently retired in the UK are for the first time wealthier than those aged under 45.

Can you post a link to that study (remember to ensure it’s about income and not capital assets), it’s not as though an OAP can sell 1/30th of their kitchen to pay for a season ticket.

Here’s the actual table of mean income by age demographic:

I can’t believe you’re so far down defending the OP subject that you’re now suggesting OAP concessions should be scrapped.

My point stands, under 18’s and OAP’s don’t have an earned income as a rule although looking at the table I’d include under 25’s rather than stopping them at 18.

Either way, it’s not remotely similar to making something more expensive for one race or another.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Okay. Firstly, in the 70's pensioners were more than twice as likely to be in poverty as the population as a whole. Nowadays they face roughly the same chance of living in poverty as the general population.
So by removing any existing discounts etc, all you are likely to do is penalise the poorest and likely return more into poverty.

What i think you are high-lighting is a increased inequality between pensioners.These inequalities mostly exist because of the once generous occupational & private pension schemes. The decent occupational schemes are mostly unavailable now, and the private schemes aren't anywhere near as viable after Gordon Brown decided to ransack them back in the day. So in effect in the future the inequality between pensioners should reduce.

What that leaves is the lucky ones who are still alive, who gained took advantage of the previous generous/viable pension schemes. The question could then be how to target these to pay more without penalising the more needy or their kind, but there are inherent problems with this.
First why should you?, because it's likely with disposable income they are also paying more through other taxes like VAT, Car tax, Airport tax etc.


Also just to bat your observations back to you, on what basis do you believe that different age groups should all have an equal amount of disposable income?

Unless you look at whole scenario objectively, you get people taking the a typical British attitude of not actually liking the poor, just hating the fucking rich.

You are right in suggesting that once the baby boomers disappear in to the great unknown with there mortgages paid, their index linked pensions and so on, the next generation of pensioners will return to the norm of being basically skint.

And no I don't believe that we should all have the same income, if that is what you were asking.

I raise this not to start a new topic but to highlight that once any government or organisation starts differential pricing based on demographics, be it bus passes, discounted season tickets or even discounts for attending a rally, they will, because it is broad brush and in some case ill thought out, screw up, and in some cases piss off those outside of the group receiving said discount, however, it is not a given that if a discount is applied to one group rather than another that the group that is not receiving the discount is discriminated against, yet much of the tenor of the discussion in here is about discrimination against the white working class, for that to generate so much heat tells me that when it comes to issues of race passions flare up from, lets be honest, a very pathetic looking flame indeed.

 

[CityStu]

Can you post a link to that study (remember to ensure it’s about income and not capital assets), it’s not as though an OAP can sell 1/30th of their kitchen to pay for a season ticket.

Here’s the actual table of mean income by age demographic:

I can’t believe you’re so far down defending the OP subject that you’re now suggesting OAP concessions should be scrapped.

My point stands, under 18’s and OAP’s don’t have an earned income as a rule although looking at the table I’d include under 25’s rather than stopping them at 18.

Either way, it’s not remotely similar to making something more expensive for one race or another.

It is U25s in some situations, like young persons' railcards.

 

[SWP's back]

You are right in suggesting that once the baby boomers disappear in to the great unknown with there mortgages paid, their index linked pensions and so on, the next generation of pensioners will return to the norm of being basically skint.

Well they (even now) have a lower income than every age group aged between 25 and 65.

You’re acting as if they are loaded and cash rich just because a lot of them own their own homes. I’m guessing you don’t like them doing so as it was Thatcher than massively increased the number of people that wanted to be property owners.