#COVID19 | Page 684 | Vital Football

#COVID19

Maybe you're scared of a gerontocracy (?!) - as medical advances prolong life, governments might pander to the old in order to win enough votes to stay in power, while increasing numbers of elderly place an intolerable care burden on the young.

But older people don't all vote conservative. There's no reason someone can't organise a proper rainbow party which seeks change for the whole world and draws in older members along the way. I'd expect younger people to maybe start the ball rolling, with all their drive and youthful idealism.
 
pebble said:
This is also disturbing:

"I'm not into raiding their wealth (although, by God, is a lot of it hoarded with your generation) either."

Well, I'm glad to hear you wouldn't go as far as stealing people's life savings. But what is it with this anti-boomer shit?
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced I identified boomers. I'm fairly sure I identified over 60s. No one would steal life savings (although, you might be interested to know that your fascists in Germany did exactly this via Mefo bills) but there are several ways that those with hoarded wealth could be made to pay a share; taxes on second homes for instance have long been mooted as a way to alleviate some of the housing crisis and make sure those that are wealthiest pay more.

pebble said:
I don't know what age range you're accusing, but I doubt whether we're the worst hoarders of wealth in recent times.
Click to expand...
No, your generation is the wealthiest in history

pebble said:
If younger people are hard done to over the past ten years, it's because voters have elected rubbish governments. It's not because scheming 60-somethings have hoarded wealth. Nor have we cynically paid into the NHS in order to have it there for us in later life, in some kind of unfair way. That was the point of the NHS, for everyone.
Click to expand...

I agree, although it isn't really the young people who keep electing these horrendous Tory governments is it?

pebble said:
I agree that post-pandemic we need to make radical changes to ensure that the young don't spend decades paying for the crisis. Writing off debts and moving to a universal wage would be a start. This isn't something that requires older people to parade through the streets whipping themselves - it requires governments and the super-rich to accept that their game won't survive without some rule changes.
Click to expand...

Something genuinely constructive. I agree wholeheartedly. However, if you see my previous reply to JC, I'm afraid your Triple lock is inevitably doomed for other reasons

pebble said:
Yes, that's what I said. '"even a fascist wouldn't suggest that after paying National Insurance all your life you suddenly stop being eligible for NHS treatment when you retire!"

But you said "In our society they also bought you the "entitlement" to still be looked after by the NHS and to still use those services even when you were not contributing" - as if there was something wrong with using NHS services after you retire.

Why even mention it? As this is the point of the NHS, it's perverse to suggest anyone should feel guilty for using NHS services later in life.
Click to expand...

I mentioned it because it led nicely on to my next point, which was about the current COVID crisis and triple lock and began with something like "what your taxes do not entitle you to....". It was a response to Poacher, who has thsi fantasy that his £100k lifetime taxes entitles him to complete immunity from mucking in with the rest of the country to pay for all of this.

pebble said:
I'm not sure what you mean about this no longer being an entitlement for you when you get older. That could only happen if younger people, after I'm gone, voted in a government who tore up the established social contract. After I'm gone, I refuse to take the blame for any such change!
Click to expand...

Oh no. The current Tory goverbment has already raised my pension age until late 60's- early 70's. I am in a unique position in my field whereby someone contracted ONE DAY earlier than me will have to work 5 fewer years and will receive a lump sum. Your generation's pensions have proved so expensive that pension schemes across the country are a fraction of what they were. There is a real element of the drawbridge being pulled up on younger generations, you can hardly deny that
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Oh no. The current Tory goverbment has already raised my pension age until late 60's- early 70's. I am in a unique position in my field whereby someone contracted ONE DAY earlier than me will have to work 5 fewer years and will receive a lump sum. Your generation's pensions have proved so expensive that pension schemes across the country are a fraction of what they were. There is a real element of the drawbridge being pulled up on younger generations, you can hardly deny that
Click to expand...

I'm with you - it sounded like you were saying your entitlement to benefits after retirement was in question.

As to pension age being raised, I'm not completely opposed - I worked till 66 and would have been happy to work a few more years, but then I'd have been accused of taking up a space that could have been occupied by a younger person!

I agree that arbitrary changes to pension ages and conditions are unfair, especially on someone like you who just misses out.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
Lol so the Tories no longer care about attacking Labour. OK dude. Justify being their stooge.
Click to expand...
What's the point. look at the state of the media trying to make out that Johnson some kind of hero. And Starmer saying that Labour will vote it through. Without even knowing what the deal is.

Imagine someone else saying that. They would of been crucified by the media. but no the establishment back in charge of the Labour party.

Win win for Murdoch and the rest of the pigs in the trough.
 
Forest-England said:
What's the point. look at the state of the media trying to make out that Johnson some kind of hero. And Starmer saying that Labour will vote it through. Without even knowing what the deal is.

Imagine someone else saying that. They would of been crucified by the media. but no the establishment back in charge of the Labour party.

Win win for Murdoch and the rest of the pigs in the trough.
Click to expand...
Labour couldn't vote it down even if they wanted to. Why face four years of attack lines and be cast as anti brexit villains (again) when you can't even achieve anything?

Especially when the only alternative available is even worse.
 
Forest-England said:
What's the point. look at the state of the media trying to make out that Johnson some kind of hero. And Starmer saying that Labour will vote it through. Without even knowing what the deal is.

Imagine someone else saying that. They would of been crucified by the media. but no the establishment back in charge of the Labour party.

Win win for Murdoch and the rest of the pigs in the trough.
Click to expand...

You'd started reading The Guardian but fallen back into your tabloid preferences I see. Try having a peek, they don't present the deal or Johnson that way.

Still anything to justify being a Tory stooge.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Labour couldn't vote it down even if they wanted to. Why face four years of attack lines and be cast as anti brexit villains (again) when you can't even achieve anything?

Especially when the only alternative available is even worse.
Click to expand...
You at least wait and read the details. You then explain what points you don't agree with. And what Labour would of liked to have done differently.

That way you put the blame squarely on the Tories.
 
Forest-England said:
You at least wait and read the details. You then explain what points you don't agree with. And what Labour would of liked to have done differently.

That way you put the blame squarely on the Tories.
Click to expand...
Yes, but Starmer is obliged to give a press conference on the day

I'm pretty sure he did say he would wait to see what it said.

But ultimately, it is that deal or no deal. There is literally nothing else he can do. It's a binary choice
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Yes, but Starmer is obliged to give a press conference on the day

I'm pretty sure he did say he would wait to see what it said.

But ultimately, it is that deal or no deal. There is literally nothing else he can do. It's a binary choice
Click to expand...
I realise that but what he did say allowed people like me from the left to question what he did say.

He needs to take the left with him. It's very early days but the signs aren't looking good. Yes he comes across better than Corbyn at PMQs. He looks the part. But is it just more of the same. They're getting donors in where we've to pay them back in some way.

Remember the way Labour were blamed for the financial crash. Every media outlet had a clock showing how much debt was going up.

No single party won the election and Brown was still in office. The media were going mad saying that the public won't take this and almost telling people to get on the streets. It's not a fair fight. And now on top of that we've the tory boundary changes to contend with.


Bloody hell it's depressing!

How did I get here?

Night.
 
Pope, just a bit of info on a point that I'm pretty sure we'll never agree on.

When we emigrated I'd worked in the UK for the best part of 20 years and paid Income Tax on my earnings. I never thought twice about it although the main benefit I received was once getting a tooth filled. When I eventually retired in Aus I was advised that I did qualify for a small pension from the UK so I applied for it. When it came through I had to laugh, it was a pittance, and I thought it was typical of what I was used to. That was a few years ago now and the sum I get now is exactly the same as when it started, to me that was much the same as the mean spirited UK Govt attitude that I was used to.
When I hear anybody speak about their Income Tax I've always appreciated that the sum involved covers that person for life and that includes retirement.
 
Old Red Fart said:
Pope, just a bit of info on a point that I'm pretty sure we'll never agree on.

When we emigrated I'd worked in the UK for the best part of 20 years and paid Income Tax on my earnings. I never thought twice about it although the main benefit I received was once getting a tooth filled. When I eventually retired in Aus I was advised that I did qualify for a small pension from the UK so I applied for it. When it came through I had to laugh, it was a pittance, and I thought it was typical of what I was used to. That was a few years ago now and the sum I get now is exactly the same as when it started, to me that was much the same as the mean spirited UK Govt attitude that I was used to.
When I hear anybody speak about their Income Tax I've always appreciated that the sum involved covers that person for life and that includes retirement.
Click to expand...
Were you not under the protection of the police in that time?

Did you drive on roads that were maintained with those taxes? You may even have been there as brand new motorways were built with your tax money.

Did you have children who went to state school with those taxes, or perhaps went to university at heavily subsidised rates? Because even if you didn't, you would have been looked after at some point by professionals who did.

Was your country invaded by the Soviets in that time? No, because your taxes paid for an army to stop that (along with nuclear weapon deterrent)

Regardless of whether you used your doctor or not, you were able to go to work each day safe in the knowledge that if you did get sick it wouldn't bankrupt you.

As for work, you lived in an era of nearly full employment due to the nationalisation of industries. Whatever private line of work you were in, you had neighbours who had jobs because of your taxes and a lot of people you enjoyed socialising with could afford to do so because of those taxes.

You used subsidised trains because of those taxes. You had lights that came on, water that ran from a tap and coal to put in your fire because they were subsidised (in your day) by those taxes.

Coming from a generation that is categorically told that organising a sustainable pension income is our responsibility, I really have no sympathy with the argument that your state pension, after just 20 years of contribution, is a pittance.

I have even less time for the argument that you paid taxes and got nothing back, so someone of your generation is owed a freebie on COVID- which was Poacher's original argument
 
So you're a tory stooge if you don't get behind the Labour leader....
But then surely that makes pretty much the entire Labour frontbench tory stooges.
So we... can criticize them? Or no?
I'm confused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.