The state pension as we know it started in 1948 when unemployment was low and a lot of people contributed. We now have, apart from an ageing population, a diluted contribution base with millions not putting in but entitled to take out. The main sufferers will be those in their 60's now who have contributed properly through a lifetime of work and will get shafted.
Labour Party politics
- Topic starter DANGERCLOSE
- Start date
Rudi Hedman
Member
- Location
- Caterham
- Country
England
Silvertop 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
A friend worked on that bill he was a senior civil service.
The assumption was that "men" started worked at 15 retired at 65 and died at 70. As you say there is no longer a direct link between NI and pension contributions.
Today most young people start work at 21, if you are unemployed, have children or long term sick your contributions are paid for all diluting the pension pot.
The only solution is to have individual pension pots and to force people into saving enough money for their old age. It will be a huge shift and would take decades, you still then have to decide what to do if people aren't working never the less someone must start this this or the whole Ponzi scheme will collapse.
steeleye20
Member
- Location
- Croydon
- Country
-
England
georgenorman
Member
- Country
-
England
Why do you live in a country that you hate so much?
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
This is the kind of solution that capable people come up with. But if you think about it deeper it means that we essentially go back to Victorian era situations where those incapable suffer immense poverty and earlier demise. We know that half the population (who have IQs under 100 aren't going to be able to provide for themselves as old people) it just isn't realistic......then there is those who slip though the cracks and of course women who give up work for children.
However, me really not liking the thought of us going back to a more victorian era doesn't mean it won't happen.....because while it won't be anywhere near as bad (but only thanks to technology).....it's probably going to be more Victorian for sure.
People are going to be in for a hell of a shock when the state turns around and says, 'sorry' to things that they have grown to think they are entitled to.....A large part of that is the fault of the media and social liberals/left.
To reduce the massive impact this will have my thoughts on this are that society firstly has to undergo cultural changes that quite frankly it's not willing to undertake.....indeed, those changes are going to require a collapse first, which I think will happen anyway.
First amongst those changes are that families have to take vastly more responsibility for themselves than they currently do. In a similar way to how Asian families do for example. The age of the nuclear family will have to come to an end. The talented within a family will have to look out for the thickos within their family rather than this 'shut the door on those wankers' and let the state sort it approach we have had since WW2.
That's going to be about as welcome as a kick in the balls to a lot of people.
I know that in Japan they run schemes where younger people help out older people who don't have any family structures and that they gain rewards from the state for it.....I think we will also see things like that.
But the state is just going to be significantly smaller. The boomer generation and mine grew up thinking that the state is the answer to everything....we see it in the worship of the NHS with cultural and state supported feminism deepening this mindset.
It's all going to undergo a massive shock at some point. Because it frankly doesn't work in the economic realities you describe in your post.
Automation is going to have to help with an awful lot of problems we currently have.
Last edited: