Theresa May calls General Election on 8th June.

[HSTEd]

There's nothing that the 'parasites' can do about that. The solution is in the hands of younger voters. As long as they do nothing and say that they are ignored by politicians, the longer they will be ignored.

What younger voters do is irrelevant since they will simply be overwhelmed by the size of the pensioner or near pensioner block vote

 

[Tetchytyke]

Sounds a bit like the Lifetime ISA. Clearly a sign from the government that young people are to expect to fund themselves in retirement.

The Liftetime ISA is just yet another way- like with Help to Buy- that this government are blowing taxpayer cash on Trustafarians who can afford to buy commercial investment products.

If theyhave the surplus income to pay into the Lifetime ISA to get the big bonuses, you don't need to be spending taxpayer cash on their savings. If they don't have the surplus income to pay into the Lifetime ISA then no amount of bonus is going to change that fact.

It's just chucking yet more free cash towards younger people who can already draw heavily from the Bank of Mum and Dad.

 

[me123]

Yes, I was trying to think if there was a current arrangement but couldn't put my finger on it. Haven't the time now, but will click on the link later to see what it's all about.

It's a very limited product at the moment, available only at a few banks (and not big high-street names). But the idea is that you put aside up to £4k per year and the government will top it up by up to £1k per year. The money can be withdrawn only as a deposit on a first home, or once you reach sixty years of age.

The Liftetime ISA is just yet another way- like with Help to Buy- that this government are blowing taxpayer cash on Trustafarians who can afford to buy commercial investment products.

Absolutely. I wouldn't say that I'm a "trustafarian" or "living off the Bank of Mum and Dad", but the product would work nicely for me and I'm quite keen to open an account. However, I'm not exactly the kind of person who needs £1000pa from the government. I'd manage quite well without this. It's ridiculous that the government's helping people like me out, but turning a blind eye to the most vulnerable in society.

 

[HSTEd]

The older generation paid in for the younger generation of the time. Quite frankly the "parasite" comment made me feel sick. Don't know how old you are but all being well you will be a "parasite" one day, maybe you should think about that

Very unlikely - our generation will be made to work until we drop to pay for the unearned largesse of the baby boomers.
Where is the massive amount of accumulated capital in public hands you were handed by your parents? You blew it all and left nothing for us

 

[northwichcat]

It's just chucking yet more free cash towards younger people who can already draw heavily from the Bank of Mum and Dad.

The Help2Buy ISA gives a bonus on £1,600. Is someone with £1,600 saved towards a first home classed as rich and having rich parents even if they are in their late 30s?

 

[WelshBluebird]

The Help2Buy ISA gives a bonus on £1,600. Is someone with £1,600 saved towards a first home classed as rich and having rich parents even if they are in their late 30s?

I would ask is £3k (the max bonus) really going to make much difference to someone being able to afford a first home or not considering how expensive house prices are these days? If it would then you probably aren't in a financially stable enough position to buy! And that still doesn't negate the fact you are giving government money to those who can afford to say £1600 whilst ignore those who can't afford it save that much.

 

[Tetchytyke]

However, I'm not exactly the kind of person who needs £1000pa from the government. I'd manage quite well without this. It's ridiculous that the government's helping people like me out, but turning a blind eye to the most vulnerable in society.

My problem with the bonuses is that it rewards people who pay the most into it. You pay the most into it if you've got the highest disposable income, or if you are given the money from other sources. So it is giving taxpayer cash to people who don't need it, in a time of supposed austerity.

I'm not eligible for it because I owned a house (sold for a loss) with my ex-wife. I don't want to tie money up until retirement in that way because I don't trust the government to not change things: I got my fingers burned with a Child Trust Fund that is now pretty much worthless.

 

[northwichcat]

I would ask is £3k (the max bonus) really going to make much difference to someone being able to afford a first home or not considering how expensive house prices are these days?

It might make the difference between "I can just about afford to buy a home but then I won't have any money to buy furniture for it" and "I can just about afford to buy a home and have a bit of money to furnish it."

 

[AM9]

What younger voters do is irrelevant since they will simply be overwhelmed by the size of the pensioner or near pensioner block vote

Rather than use words like: "overwhelmed by the size of the pensioner or near pensioner block vote", perhaps you could add some value to your post by specifying what (in your opinion) constitutes 'younger voters' and 'pensioner' and 'near pensioner' means in real ages.

 

[tspaul26]

I misworded my reply, I meant to say that the current Older Generation had paid in for the Older Generation of their time

Ah, a Ponzi scheme...can't possibly go wrong.

I jest of course, but there is a serious point to bear in mind as well. Specifically, the problem of ageing can only really be dealt with in three ways:

• store value to pay for your own retirement;
• when young, bribe younger people to care for you in your dotage; or
• the social security contract, where the only generation that gets truly shafted is the one still working on Judgment Day.

However, the social contract can only be implemented if future generations agree to recognise the financial claims created by their predecessors, in the expectation that their successors will do the same. It is not enough for the older generation to say "I paid in for my parents". That does not justify current demands made of today's working generation.

The problem we now encounter in the developed world is that if one generation benefits from a higher relative standard of living than that afforded to those before or after it, the entire social contract between generations is threatened.

We are currently testing this theory to destruction and recent public policy on the relative distribution of spending between generations is extremely dangerous. A sense of intergenerational solidarity is rapidly being lost without which the entire social contract becomes unsustainable.

To put the matter another way: if the current working generation concludes that the pressures exerted on the system from current demands threatens the overall viability of that system, then one end of the bargain will collapse and the working generation will no longer recognise the financial claims of its predecessors. It will default on the agreement so to speak.

As far as I can see, generous postwar welfare provision is very much an aberration from the norm. Previous generations did not enjoy it and future generations will not. My view is that a radical rethink is required with respect to how we as a society view personal, familial and social responsibility.

It may sound trite, but families and communities will need to look out for each other once more, rather than assuming that 'the State' will provide or step in. Any man who plans his life with the latter expectation is a fool.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It might make the difference between "I can just about afford to buy a home but then I won't have any money to buy furniture for it" and "I can just about afford to buy a home and have a bit of money to furnish it."

If £400 makes that much difference then you can't afford a house.

The Help to Buy ISA is a useless product and the government bonuses are individually pitiful but, taken in entirety, very expensive to the taxpayer.

My real beef is with Help to Buy loans and the new Lifetime ISA. The fomer is using taxpayer cash to keep a property bubble artificially inflated, the latter is throwing taxpayer money at people who can afford to invest commercially. In a time of record foodbank usage, throwing money at young professionals to keep the property bubble inflated is nothing short of scandalous.

 

[Howardh]

It's a very limited product at the moment, available only at a few banks (and not big high-street names). But the idea is that you put aside up to £4k per year and the government will top it up by up to £1k per year. The money can be withdrawn only as a deposit on a first home, or once you reach sixty years of age.

Thanks for that - so if inflation was zero for 40 years (!!) that's 5 x 40 (£200k) when you reach 60. If it goes on your first home, can you still keep adding to it?

Interestingly (to me) I have £100k in cash from savings for my pension and I'm expecting, at 66, to get two decent pensions + one small one, should inherit my parents house and dad's shares so my demands on the state will be the state pension alone (around £140/wk) - the rest is down to me.

But currently I get carer's allowance for looking after two people 48 hours a day of just under £63/wk, and nothing else so I'm at risk of going into those savings to keep going - I think the state should be "paying" me a lot more as if I had to go back to work, eventually mum and dad would be a burden on the state and the state can't look after them for £63/wk.

 

[AM9]

If £400 makes that much difference then you can't afford a house.

The Help to Buy ISA is a useless product and the government bonuses are individually pitiful but, taken in entirety, very expensive to the taxpayer.

My real beef is with Help to Buy loans and the new Lifetime ISA. The fomer is using taxpayer cash to keep a property bubble artificially inflated, the latter is throwing taxpayer money at people who can afford to invest commercially. In a time of record foodbank usage, throwing money at young professionals to keep the property bubble inflated is nothing short of scandalous.

It's not 'taxpayer's money', any more than it is care in the home budget, schools funding, road building money, railway subsidy, defence budget, hospital funding etc... Once tax has been collected it becomes part of the public purse. It's irrelevant that it was once in somebody else's pocket. We don't generally have hypothecated taxation in the UK.

 

[meridian2]

Brexit was overwhelmingly carried through by the votes of the over 50s.

The EU is the welfare state writ large. High salaries, protected pensions, a huge public sector and never having to show the "books", at the expense of youth opportunity and employment.

 

[me123]

Thanks for that - so if inflation was zero for 40 years (!!) that's 5 x 40 (£200k) when you reach 60. If it goes on your first home, can you still keep adding to it?

The government bonus stops when you reach 50 years of age and is limited to £32k (basically, £1k per year for the 32 years between aged 18 and 50). But essentially, yes. And withdrawing some of the savings for a deposit, you can keep the account going.

With steep penalties for withdrawing your funds (effectively taking away your bonus and then some) and the potential that a future government could alter the scheme (they can't take away your bonus, but they could stop giving you it) there is the risk in the future that you have your money locked in an account that has steep withdrawal penalties, little or no interest and no government bonus.

 

[EM2]

The EU is the welfare state writ large. High salaries, protected pensions, a huge public sector and never having to show the "books", at the expense of youth opportunity and employment.

Eh? Do you mean for the employees of the EU, or for the residents within the Union?

 

[Dave1987]

It's just been commented on on the 100 Days program that around 500,000 mainly young people have registered to vote for the first time in this election already. If these young people, annoyed at the older generation *potentially* wrecking their futures by voting leave from the EU, vote Lib Dem or Labour then we could yet see a huge surprise in this GE. I has been commented on that it was mainly the over 50's who voted leave, and most won't be alive to witness the true aftermath of that decision. If Mrs May and the Tories believe they can simply ignore young people, which make up the majority of the 48% remainers, I think they could come to regret it. If not now in this GE, certainly in future GE's.

 

[RichmondCommu]

A year or two ago, I'd have probably agreed with you.

But Brexit changed my mind. Brexit was overwhelmingly carried through by the votes of the over 50s. And now apparently we have a "mandate" to trash my opportunities and freedom of movement, and get me to pay for the economic damage, because of the votes of people who've made their money and pulled the ladder up behind them.

When almost a third of people eligible to vote are of retirement age, younger people don't stand a chance in elections. It's all well and good to say younger people should vote- and they should- but we're outnumbered.

I'm angry that my opportunities have been trashed, and the economy I have to pay for has been trashed, by a load of people who no longer contribute very much to society.

So would you prefer it if we removed the over 50s from the democratic process?

The real problem is that on the whole young people are not interested in politics. I've just got back from canvassing and only people above the age of 40 are interested talking on the door step.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's irrelevant that it was once in somebody else's pocket. We don't generally have hypothecated taxation in the UK.

It is taxpayer's money, as is everything else that the government spends, including Trident, care budgets, etc etc. It isn't magic money from a magic tree.

And it is handing £32,000 of that money over to people who don't need it, for...what, exactly?

£32,000 per person, to bolster their significant savings, whilst we have people starving on the streets, relying on foodbanks. Really? Really really?

The real problem is that on the whole young people are not interested in politics. I've just got back from canvassing and only people above the age of 40 are interested talking on the door step.

I think that's a fallacy as much as claiming that all older people ARE interested in politics. Some are, some aren't, some believe in the process and others don't.

A lot of it is sheer numbers. About 75% of the population are eligible to vote. Of that group, 1/3 are aged 21-40, 1/3 are aged 40-58 and 1/3 are aged over 58. Young people, even if they all turn out, are outnumbered and, therefore, outvoted. I wouldn't say the eldest quartile of the population should lose a democratic vote, but the result right not is a tyranny of the majority. That's why unaffordable luxuries like ENCTS haven't been binned yet.

I'd also ask where you were canvassing; people under 40 can't afford to live in most of TW10...

 

[Steveman]

A few posters on this forum do have a big problem with older people and don't disguise that they despise them, it's strange because if it was older posters having a dig at younger ones the posts wouldn't last 5 minutes.

 

[Bromley boy]

It also doesn't cover the vast scale of corporate tax avoidance.

The ageing population is the biggest problem, I quite agree. Or, more accurately, the fact that the Government don't have the balls to make pensioners have some austerity for a change. All this guff about triple-locked pensions means that now, on average, pensioners are better off than working age people. That is neither right nor sustainable.

I am bitter that I've not had a pay rise that matches inflation for a decade, yet my personal tax rates keep climbing ever higher. I get no more money but have to pay more tax out of it, to fund pensioners' care home fees when they have £200,000 equity in their home.

I agree 100% regarding aggressive corporate tax avoidance of the kind that went on in the city up until the late 2000s and still does,
to a lesser extent, today.

At the other end of the spectrum a lot of corporate tax "avoidance" is simply companies arranging their affairs so as to minimise their tax liabilities. We should always remember that any company's first obligation is to maximise returns to its shareholders, not the fill the coffers of HM Treasury (shareholders who often include institutional investors such as pension schemes).

It's also fair to say successive governments have done a pretty poor job of creating a taxation system that is simple, transparent and fit for purpose.

Re. the generational point. Is true that the "boomers" have been lucky. Nevertheless they have worked hard all their lives, saved and benefited from an increase in the value of property. I don't begrudge them that, as I say, but I'm about your age and I share your concerns for the future!

Incidentally on the care home point, my understanding was that, unlike NHS treatment, residential care is means tested so that a pensioner with £200k equity would have to sell their property in order to fund their care. The government only steps in when their assets are depleted below a minimum (low) level. This was certainly my family's experience when my late grandmother went into a care home.

 

[Dave1987]

A few posters on this forum do have a big problem with older people and don't disguise that they despise them, it's strange because if it was older posters having a dig at younger ones the posts wouldn't last 5 minutes.

Having a dig? Or simply engaging in civilised debate? I've read reports from both sides of the EU debate that say if the referendum was held again then the result would probably go the other way by just as narrower margin. Many many people who voted Leave won't be alive to see the repercussions of that decision. Why should young people be saddled with a decision made by the older generations for the rest of their lives? I have full confidence that the UK will rejoin the EU. Once the generation who feel hatred to the EU and have spent decades trying to leave ever since the previous vote decades ago have died or no longer involved in politics and the younger generation take over politics I have full confidence that no matter what happens in the next couple of years it will all be for nothing as we will vote to rejoin in years to come.

 

[Steveman]

Having a dig? Or simply engaging in civilised debate? I've read reports from both sides of the EU debate that say if the referendum was held again then the result would probably go the other way by just as narrower margin. Many many people who voted Leave won't be alive to see the repercussions of that decision. Why should young people be saddled with a decision made by the older generations for the rest of their lives? I have full confidence that the UK will rejoin the EU. Once the generation who feel hatred to the EU and have spent decades trying to leave ever since the previous vote decades ago have died or no longer involved in politics and the younger generation take over politics I have full confidence that no matter what happens in the next couple of years it will all be for nothing as we will vote to rejoin in years to come.

I rest my case - you do have a big problem with older people and obviously you still can't accept the referendum decision as it went the wrong way.
Bitter seems to be a polite way of describing most of your posts.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I think that's a fallacy as much as claiming that all older people ARE interested in politics. Some are, some aren't, some believe in the process and others don't.

A lot of it is sheer numbers. About 75% of the population are eligible to vote. Of that group, 1/3 are aged 21-40, 1/3 are aged 40-58 and 1/3 are aged over 58. Young people, even if they all turn out, are outnumbered and, therefore, outvoted. I wouldn't say the eldest quartile of the population should lose a democratic vote, but the result right not is a tyranny of the majority. That's why unaffordable luxuries like ENCTS haven't been binned yet.

I'd also ask where you were canvassing; people under 40 can't afford to live in most of TW10...

I've been canvassing in Tooting so quite a mix of age groups. Young people are not out voted simply because not everyone above the age of 40 votes against your wishes.

 

[Bromley boy]

young people, which make up the majority of the 48% remainers

Are you sure about that?

It's true that the majority of young voters who voted voted for remain but, as I recall, the turnout figures for the younger demographics showed that less than half of them actually bothered to turn out and vote!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Re. the generational point. Is true that the "boomers" have been lucky. Nevertheless they have worked hard all their lives, saved and benefited from an increase in the value of property. I don't begrudge them that, as I say, but I'm about your age and I share your concerns for the future!

Incidentally on the care home point, my understanding was that, unlike NHS treatment, residential care is means tested so that a pensioner with £200k equity would have to sell their property in order to fund their care. The government only steps in when their assets are depleted below a minimum (low) level. This was certainly my family's experience when my late grandmother went into a care home.

Purely residential care is paid for by the care-receiver, but it gets more complicated where some of the care is residential and some of it is health related. However the Government have recently implemented a lot of changes: care fees will now be capped at £72,000 in the lifetime of the care receiver, regardless of the actual cost, and the upper asset limit (above which you get no help) is being raised from £23,000 to £118,000. This is a big part of why the Social Care precept is being brought in: people with £100,000 of assets will still get the council to fund some of their care, and people with £1,000,000 of assets will pay barely 7% of their wealth towards their care.

I don't necessarily begrudge individual baby-boomers their fortune, but what I do resent is being told that they "worked hard" and therefore deserve everything they get. And I do begrudge their generation the largesse they've enjoyed, because they've spent all the money on themselves and there's nothing left for me.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Are you sure about that?

It's true that the majority of young voters who voted voted for remain but, as I recall, the turnout figures for the younger demographics showed that less than half of them actually bothered to turn out and vote!

Well exactly and I don't think it will be any different at the general election.

 

[me123]

The real problem is that on the whole young people are not interested in politics. I've just got back from canvassing and only people above the age of 40 are interested talking on the door step.

You obviously haven't been to my doorstep (not at all surprising given that we live a few hundred miles apart). I have some questions I'd like to ask candidates for both the Welsh local elections and the upcoming GE, but no-one has knocked on my door yet. The local candidates have delivered their fliers (at least two out of the three were delivered by the candidates themselves - I saw them walking past the window) - but haven't actually tried to speak to me.

In fact, I've never had anyone knock on my door to answer questions and hear what I have to say. I did once have a Labour party member knock on my door - she asked who I was going to vote for, and when I said SNP she thanked me and walked away

I'd very much like to talk on the doorstep, but it doesn't seem like anyone would like to speak to me. Aside from Jehovah's Witnesses (they very quickly regret striking up a conversation with me).

In the last few gone from being very politically motivated to just being weary and cynical. I've never not voted. I'm going to spoil a ballot in my local elections, and am seriously considering not voting in the General Election because my vote is going to be completely worthless. And I'm one of the young people that actually does go out to vote and tries to engage with politics - imagine how disconnected the "never-voted" lot must feel? So get out there and talk to us, and stop assuming that we're not interested! Perhaps if the political agenda actually considered issues that are important to young people (education, employment, affordable housing) then we'd have something to talk about.

 

[EM2]

The real problem is that on the whole young people are not interested in politics.

They're not interested because they don't see themselves getting anything out of it (e.g. the recent curtailing of Housing Benefit for under-25s), and because politicians think the young are not interested, they don't do anything for them, and because nothing is done for them, the young aren't interested, and because the young aren't interested...and on and on and on it goes.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Well exactly and I don't think it will be any different at the general election.

If anything, it will be worse at the general election. Of the 650 constituencies in the UK, about 450 of them are safe seats. If you're a Labour supporter in Buckingham or a Tory in Sunderland you may as well stay at home and save yourself the hassle of trekking down the church hall.

The question is always: why are people disengaged from the process? I have my own ideas, I wondered what you think it is that is behind it?

I also haven't been canvassed by anyone where I am, but then I'm in a safe seat, so why bother? My vote will change nada.