Dear oh dear...

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

But its imaginary money though. Fix the housing supply problem and the "wealth" of the property owners you mention will evaporate because house values will tumble. 

 

Supply and demand innit. Flood the market, any market, with supply and the price drops accordingly. Which of course is exactly what we need in the housing market and why it won't happen, all neatly encapsulated in one mechanism. 

Alternatively fix the demand side by reducing the population to fit the number of houses we already have. Equally politically unacceptable! 

Report today saying pension age will have to rise to 71 because there aren't enough people working to pay for it. Assuming an official cull of the elderly is out (unofficial by reducing access to health services or carers is ok), either immigration needs to increase hugely or the birthrate must go up, which is currently discouraged.

In fact, the report is nonsense, like most of these, because equivalent benefits would have to be paid to the huge number of people unable to work after mid sixties because of physical incapacity - so, again, you need to increase immigration to pay for it. Luckily, both shades of party are aware of this and already doing it.

 

[rusty69]

My forecast pension age has already changed about 3 times. The closer I get, the further apart the goal posts get. I have resigned myself to the fact that there probably won't be a state pension by the time I do get there, or it will be means tested. I certainly don't think the perks that today's pensioners receive will be available. I suspect they will pillage the funds to pay for the broken roads, the knackered NHS, the politicians expenses or something else instead. 

Edited February 5 by rusty69

[blackrose]

29 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Report today saying pension age will have to rise to 71 because there aren't enough people working to pay for it. Assuming an official cull of the elderly is out (unofficial by reducing access to health services or carers is ok), either immigration needs to increase hugely or the birthrate must go up, which is currently discouraged.

In fact, the report is nonsense, like most of these, because equivalent benefits would have to be paid to the huge number of people unable to work after mid sixties because of physical incapacity - so, again, you need to increase immigration to pay for it. Luckily, both shades of party are aware of this and already doing it.

 

 

Generally speaking increased rates of immigration into the country will also increase the birthrate because immigrants tend to have more children than the natives. The only problem with that solution is that in boosting the population (by whatever method) to get more working people to pay for our aging demographics will itself result in even greater numbers of old people in a couple of decades time who will themselves need to be cared for. So what's the solution for that? Import even more people to care for the ones you imported previously? It's an unsustainable circular solution and it's based on short term thinking that just stores up greater problems for the future. I don't pretend to know what the answer is but perhaps the people who think that ever increasing rates of immigration is the simple solution should stop pretending too. 

 

16 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

My forecast pension age has already changed about 3 times. The closer I get, the further apart the goal posts get. I have resigned myself to the fact that there probably won't be a state pension by the time I do get there, or it will be means tested. I certainly don't think the perks that today's pensioners receive will be available. I suspect they will pillage the funds to pay for the broken roads, the knackered NHS, the politicians expenses or something else instead. 

 

Yes I'm of a similar negative mindset about ever getting a state pension. I'm 62 this year so only 5 years to go unless I have to work longer.

Edited February 5 by blackrose

[peterboat]

38 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

My forecast pension age has already changed about 3 times. The closer I get, the further apart the goal posts get. I have resigned myself to the fact that there probably won't be a state pension by the time I do get there, or it will be means tested. I certainly don't think the perks that today's pensioners receive will be available. I suspect they will pillage the funds to pay for the broken roads, the knackered NHS, the politicians expenses or something else instead. 

I get my pension next month, I have just cancelled my TKR because after a little incident mooring the boat the pain has gone away! So currently happy with life

[Jerra]

12 hours ago, DandV said:

There is no one size fits best.

Whilst the bulk of absolute  housing need, no spare bedrooms, is for one or two bedroom units, there is also a requirement for multi bedroom properties, even five and six bedrooms,  for those who choose to live in multigenerational family arrangements,

Not the norm in those of us with  Anglo Saxon heritage, but not uncommon for those with different heritages. 

Here, particularly for our maori and pacifika peoples but increasingly those with Asian heritage.  

The point I am trying to make is there are plenty of houses being built that fit the multi person/bedroom requirement.  I have never suggested there shouldn't be.

 

However, the housing problem that seems (at least in my experience) to be greatest is the smaller, cheaper "starter homes".  To a certain extent the niche filled by council housing.  Council hpuses had sensible affordable rents that allowed people to save and move on.  Taht is until they were stupidly removed for political dogma.

 

Now IMO the need is for small cheaper (I dislike the term affordable housing as all houses are affordable to somebody) houses young people just starting out can afford.

[MtB]

1 hour ago, rusty69 said:

My forecast pension age has already changed about 3 times. The closer I get, the further apart the goal posts get. I have resigned myself to the fact that there probably won't be a state pension by the time I do get there, or it will be means tested. I certainly don't think the perks that today's pensioners receive will be available. I suspect they will pillage the funds to pay for the broken roads, the knackered NHS, the politicians expenses or something else instead. 

 

Welcome to the club. We decided the same thing back in the late 1980s and set about planning ourselves a retirement income completely outside of the pension scam industry. 

[IanD]

2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Report today saying pension age will have to rise to 71 because there aren't enough people working to pay for it. Assuming an official cull of the elderly is out (unofficial by reducing access to health services or carers is ok), either immigration needs to increase hugely or the birthrate must go up, which is currently discouraged.

In fact, the report is nonsense, like most of these, because equivalent benefits would have to be paid to the huge number of people unable to work after mid sixties because of physical incapacity - so, again, you need to increase immigration to pay for it. Luckily, both shades of party are aware of this and already doing it.

 

 

That's not quite what the report said though -- it said that to keep the current ratio between number of contributors (workers) and beneficiaries (pensioners) the same, the pension age would in theory have to rise to 71 if the population stays the same (tight immigration control) and the number of pensioners continues to rise.

 

Since this is likely to be unacceptable, the alternatives are either pay in more (via higher taxation) or take out less (via lower pensions -- or reducing the rate that they rise every year due to the "triple lock").

 

The problem is that neither of these solutions are what people want to hear -- and they're often the same people protesting about high immigration levels. So there are three*** possible solutions to this problem, but they don't want any of them... 😞

 

*** actually four, but euthanising pensioners is seen as beyond the pale by most sane people... 😉

Edited February 5 by IanD

[rusty69]

23 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Welcome to the club. We decided the same thing back in the late 1980s and set about planning ourselves a retirement income completely outside of the pension scam industry. 

Well, I am not as smart as what you is. I think I was still at school in the late 80's, so am now fooked. By the time I even get near the goalposts, they will have disapperared.

Edited February 5 by rusty69

[MtB]

Who are you calling smart? I'm a right scruffy bustud!! 

 

 

[Jon57]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

That's not quite what the report said though -- it said that to keep the current ratio between number of contributors (workers) and beneficiaries (pensioners) the same, the pension age would in theory have to rise to 71 if the population stays the same (tight immigration control) and the number of pensioners continues to rise.

 

Since this is likely to be unacceptable, the alternatives are either pay in more (via higher taxation) or take out less (via lower pensions -- or reducing the rate that they rise every year due to the "triple lock").

 

The problem is that neither of these solutions are what people want to hear -- and they're often the same people protesting about high immigration levels. So there are three*** possible solutions to this problem, but they don't want any of them... 😞

 

*** actually four, but euthanising pensioners is seen as beyond the pale by most sane people... 😉

Or another bout of covid with the bean counters in charge. Let it rip. No NHS waiting list, not many pensions to pay plenty of housing.etc etc etc. 😱😱😱😱

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Jon57 said:

Or another bout of covid with the bean counters in charge. Let it rip. No NHS waiting list, not many pensions to pay plenty of housing.etc etc etc. 😱😱😱😱

That's option four. I did say that most sane people wouldn't think this acceptable...

Edited February 5 by IanD

[Jon57]

Just now, IanD said:

That's option four...

That's involantary. Big brother politics. 

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Jon57 said:

That's involantary. Big brother politics. 

It's only involuntary if it's not done deliberately. Wasn't there a comment from Boris during the last plague on the lines of "At least it'll reduce the number of pensioners", or am I just imaging this based on his attitude?

[Jon57]

Just now, IanD said:

It's only involuntary if it's not done deliberately. Wasn't there a comment from Boris during the last plague on the lines of "At least it'll reduce the number of pensioners", or am I just imaging this based on his attitude?

It was possibly a thought. Like all the decisions in any organisation. Projected cost savings. I'm one for euthanasia thinking of doing the Rochdale both ways again 😁

[IanD]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/04/should-the-uk-embrace-higher-net-migration-or-re-think-the-economy

"But while the long-term solution might well be a different economic model – higher wage, higher productivity, more highly automated – getting to that better world will not be easy or cost-free. It means either higher taxes to pay for higher levels of public spending or higher prices for consumers, and quite possibly both.

So there’s a choice that has to be made: embrace high levels of net migration and fundamentally rethink housing; or reduce net migration to late 20th-century levels and fundamentally rethink the economy. It can’t be ducked."

[Machpoint005]

An extra 4% on GDP would have been handy too.

 

Or rather, not losing 4% in the first place.

 

 

[Mad Harold]

1 hour ago, Jon57 said:

 I'm one for euthanasia thinking of doing the Rochdale both ways again 😁

No need to do the Rochdale both ways.

Just go West on the Rochdale and come back on the HNC!

Be interesting to see how far you get before topping yourself. 😢

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

No need to do the Rochdale both ways.

Just go West on the Rochdale and come back on the HNC!

Be interesting to see how far you get before topping yourself. 😢

A nice trip, can do it in ten days or so if you're really keen... 🙂

 

Only if there are no stoppages, obviously -- rather less likely today than in 2017... 😞

 

 

[Midnight]

42 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

No need to do the Rochdale both ways.

Just go West on the Rochdale and come back on the HNC!

Be interesting to see how far you get before topping yourself. 😢

Based on C&RT's recent record, the problem is he wouldn't get very far at all. 😆

 

 

 

Edited February 5 by Midnight

[Jon57]

39 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

No need to do the Rochdale both ways.

Just go West on the Rochdale and come back on the HNC!

Be interesting to see how far you get before topping yourself. 😢

Done it twice already. 3rd time lucky 😂

[doratheexplorer]

6 hours ago, rusty69 said:

My forecast pension age has already changed about 3 times. The closer I get, the further apart the goal posts get. I have resigned myself to the fact that there probably won't be a state pension by the time I do get there, or it will be means tested. I certainly don't think the perks that today's pensioners receive will be available. I suspect they will pillage the funds to pay for the broken roads, the knackered NHS, the politicians expenses or something else instead. 

I understand the negativity but given the amount of resistance even to dropping the triple lock, I expect the state pension to still be around when I retire in 20+ years time.  By the time I retire I will have paid NI contributions for nigh on 50 years, in that time, the only thing I've had back was 3 months of basic rate jobseekers allowance a couple of decades ago.  If the state pension is scrapped or means tested, I will be rioting, along with, I expect, millions of others.  I would consider it theft and would expect to have my NI contributions reimbursed to me.

[rusty69]

7 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

I understand the negativity but given the amount of resistance even to dropping the triple lock, I expect the state pension to still be around when I retire in 20+ years time.  By the time I retire I will have paid NI contributions for nigh on 50 years, in that time, the only thing I've had back was 3 months of basic rate jobseekers allowance a couple of decades ago.  If the state pension is scrapped or means tested, I will be rioting, along with, I expect, millions of others.  I would consider it theft and would expect to have my NI contributions reimbursed to me.

Well, I would say I would be right along side you. However, my mobility scooter probably won't make it past the 6 foot deep potholes and climate change protestors. Besides, the retirement age will be 87 by then, and unless my scooter has an inbuilt toilet and my replacement knee and hips hold up,Westminster may be a step too far. 

 

I'll be right up for an internet protest though as long as it doesn't clash with my afternoon nap.

[Mike Todd]

18 hours ago, system 4-50 said:

Some ideas for the government:

1. Students must live at home.  No student accommodation is to be provided by Universities.  If going to a university in a different town then the student must arrange a parents swap.  The current student accommodation can then house a family instead of a part-time resident student.

2. Divorce is not to be allowed unless/until both parties have found a new partner.  This way no intermediate single housing is required.  Certain days of the year will be recognised as "swap" days.  Dating systems will be extended to include property details in addition to the normal vital statistics.

But you would also have to make marriage mandatory, no cohabitation!

[IanD]

56 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

I understand the negativity but given the amount of resistance even to dropping the triple lock, I expect the state pension to still be around when I retire in 20+ years time.  By the time I retire I will have paid NI contributions for nigh on 50 years, in that time, the only thing I've had back was 3 months of basic rate jobseekers allowance a couple of decades ago.  If the state pension is scrapped or means tested, I will be rioting, along with, I expect, millions of others.  I would consider it theft and would expect to have my NI contributions reimbursed to me.

Except that's not how it works, your NI contributions pay for the pensions of other people at the time you paid them, they don't go into a "my pension" piggybank.

 

Your NI contributions have paid for other people's pensions over the last 50 years. After you retire, your pension will be paid for by the NI contributions of those still working.

 

Though actually even this is a fiction, it might have really been "NI" when it was introduced to pay for the NHS, but not any more because it's not hypothecated (allocated to a particular purpose) any more than "road tax" is.

 

NI for a long time has just been a stealth income tax that goes into the same massive cash bucket as all other government income including income tax and VAT and car tax and every other tax, which they then decide how to spend -- for example, by funnelling some into the pockets of their cronies.

 

You might as well demand all your other taxes back that have been spaffed up the wall... 😞

Edited February 5 by IanD

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

Except that's not how it works, your NI contributions pay for the pensions of other people at the time you paid them, they don't go into a "my pension" piggybank.

 

Your NI contributions have paid for other people's pensions over the last 50 years. After you retire, your pension will be paid for by the NI contributions of those still working.

 

Though actually even this is a fiction, it might have really been "NI" when it was introduced to pay for the NHS, but not any more because it's not hypothecated (allocated to a particular purpose) any more than "road tax" is.

 

NI for a long time has just been a stealth income tax that goes into the same massive cash bucket as all other government income including income tax and VAT and car tax and every other tax, which they then decide how to spend -- for example, by funnelling some into the pockets of their cronies.

 

You might as well demand all your other taxes back that have been spaffed up the wall... 😞

The term is 'current funded'