- Joined
- 16 April 2007
- Posts
- 926
- Reactions
- 1
Umm where's my rights not to pay disarrayCome on throw me a bone here. Gen x is always left out
Julia said:I do have to admit to a bit of resentment that once again it's those of us who have been prudent, saved and generally taken responsibility for ourselves who receive the least.
get angry man. or generalise more. i don't give a stuff what generation someone is, but a man should always pay his own way. granted sometimes there is bad fortune, or things go wrong and people need a helping hand, but people should always pay their own way if they are able.
if you are old with a large house and can't afford to live your lifestyle then you should downsize. if you are young and able bodied then get a friggin job. everyone should work. to get all biblical "those who do not work, neither shall they eat"
sorry man but i don't know what you are talking about. what is your point? that the sensible and frugal should support those who spend their lives pissing their money up against the wall?
p.s. fix your quote tags
actually it's more like the reality, but whatever.
and no i'm not. that's a stupid question.
In fact they are now talking about having seniors sell their houses, which is excellent. All retirees should be forced to sell all their property before they are eligible to receive any pension payments.
Downgrade to low-maintenance, low-cost retiree housing, free up housing supply for young families.
There is no reason the government should pay pensioners any money if they are capable of sustaining themselves through selling their assets. Indeed, this is impossible and unsustainable. It's all about what's best for society.
No I understand what you were saying.get angry man. or generalise more. either way i don't give a stuff what generation someone is, but a man should always pay his own way. granted sometimes there is bad fortune, or things go wrong and people need a helping hand, but people should always pay their own way if they are able.
if you are old with a large house and can't afford to live your lifestyle then you should downsize. if you are young and able bodied then get a friggin job. everyone should work. to get all biblical "those who do not work, neither shall they eat"
i hear you
Younger generations have always looked after the older generation - throughout history.
Ruby said:There are a few things you don't seem to be aware of, living in your naive little cocoon. When the current crop of elderly people was young:-
[*]There was no Superannuation Guarantee (unless you were a public servant)
Ruby said:[*]There was no equal pay for equal work, so women occupied low paid positions.
[*]There was no childcare, enabling mothers to work
[*]There was a high level of work place discrimminaton, meaning that many jobs were not open to women, and if they were, they were not open to married women. (I remember when the public service did not employ married women.)
[*]There were no high salaries, which meant that people could not ever save enough for a comfortable retirement.
Ruby said:[*]The high standard of living that Australia currently enjoys was created by today's aging baby boomers
Ruby said:But then...........you still have a lot of growing up to do.
yes they often did, but leftist social engineering, the dismantling of the family unit and the rise of the welfare / nanny state have thrown traditional social dynamics out of whack.
given the current state of superannuation funds due to market volatility and fees, taxes, government regulation and (tinfoil hat on) the likelihood super will be compulsorarily acquired by the government at some stage in the future to pay for whatever crisis our leaders have managed to blunder their way into, i don't really see super being that good of a long term bet. but time will tell.
and due to a much lower cost of living and higher real value of dollars (before fiat was badly debased), this meant purchasing power was much higher and families could survive and even build assets on a single income. zero chance of that now.
just as well house prices have increased so much then! pretty sure downsizing assets could help many people enjoy "a comfortable retirement"
this is crap and typical of the self-important attitude many boomers like to throw around. it was our grandparents generation, who grew up in the depression and fought in WW2 that created our countries standard of living. it was the boomers milked the benefits while overseeing its debasement though.
now tell us about how boomers invented computers and went to the moon etc. etc. (hint: they didn't, it was the WW2 generation again)
age does not necessarily equate to wisdom
anyway generalisation doesn't help resolve any issues. generational conflict is part and parcel of our society. starcraftmazter raises valid points about personal responsibility and the duty of an individual to pay their own way if they possess the means to do so. getting all indignant and saying "we had it so hard so we deserve to live the lifestyle we are accustomed to even if it needs to be subsidised by others" is bullsh!t and should rightly be challenged by those who are expected to pay for it.
Yep, agree that it's entirely possible government will e.g. take contributed Super from individuals and issue those individuals with some sort of annuity.given the current state of superannuation funds due to market volatility and fees, taxes, government regulation and (tinfoil hat on) the likelihood super will be compulsorarily acquired by the government at some stage in the future to pay for whatever crisis our leaders have managed to blunder their way into, i don't really see super being that good of a long term bet. but time will tell.
For someone who decries generalisation, you're doing a fair bit of it yourself.and due to a much lower cost of living and higher real value of dollars (before fiat was badly debased), this meant purchasing power was much higher and families could survive and even build assets on a single income. zero chance of that now.
Wow! Not just a huge generalisation but simply rude as well.this is crap and typical of the self-important attitude many boomers like to throw around. it was our grandparents generation, who grew up in the depression and fought in WW2 that created our countries standard of living. it was the boomers milked the benefits while overseeing its debasement though.
yes you are both touching upon the point i am highlighting.
what is the standard of lifestyle one should reasonably expect? what level of assets are required to support this lifestyle? if one has assets in excess of "reasonable lifestyle" requirements then why should they expect to be subsidised by others?
should those who were spendthrifts throughout their life have the right to demand benefits from others in their retirement?
this is especially pertinent now when the population of "non-productive" aged is bulging, life expectancies are increasing, asset allocation is skewed heavily towards the elder generations while debt load is heavily skewed towards the younger generations, and the value of currency has been seriously debased causing a huge spike in asset prices but with no corresponding increase in wages.
you both mention the person who worked hard, lived modestly, played the game and thus should have the right to enjoy what they have. i don't think anyone is disputing this right. however in the case where there are people with assets but excessive lifestyle expectations, or people who wasted their money throughout their lives but expect to be subsidised in retirement, i think it is reasonable to challenge assumptions that they should be financed by the increasingly burdened taxpayer.
are you missing the irony here? don't you think a person with substantial assets claiming benefits is demonstrating this "welfare entitlement mentality"?
Disarray, I'm not sure where you get the notion that any significant group of people is expecting the taxpayer to fund some sort of really extravagant lifestyle which seems to be what you're suggesting. I might be misunderstanding what you're saying.what is the standard of lifestyle one should reasonably expect? what level of assets are required to support this lifestyle? if one has assets in excess of "reasonable lifestyle" requirements then why should they expect to be subsidised by others?
Imo, no, but in fact this is exactly what happens.should those who were spendthrifts throughout their life have the right to demand benefits from others in their retirement?
True. I also think we need to engage in a candid discussion about the prolongation of life in old age. Huge amounts of medical resources are given over to slightly extending the life of someone who is going to die within a year anyway. I would like to see this stopped and the resources devoted to younger people.it is a challenging time as far as generational shift goes. acknowledging generational perceptions and differences are the first step to a civil discussion on how best to manage the next 30 odd years because it should be obvious to all that the system is failing NOW due to excess debt, and you can't mortgage the future off forever.
To be honest, I really wouldn't want to attribute the present standard of living to any particular generation. I think it's way more individual than that, and that one's standard of living usually reflects the effort one has made during a lifetime.also julia, you agree with the assertion that "the high standard of living that Australia currently enjoys was created by today's aging baby boomers" and not the WW2 generation?
.........think it's all that difficult for a couple getting the married rate of around $1100 per week which if they own their own home seems more than reasonable to me...........
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?