So is it CPI that is 9.1%? And that excludes housing cost inflation?
Christ.
It is going higher still so a lot of pain ahead
Pain felt by younger working people and not the asset classes or the retired.
Many pensioners receive the state pension of just £9,600 pa and are really hurting
True, but the state pensioners now are the ones who voted for Thatcher from '79 onwards. The current stingy state pension follows on from policies of her governments.
I have some sympathy, but fairly limited amounts.
Blair/Labour were in office for 13 years from 1997-2010
This period of Conservative government will comfortably exceed that but it doesn't feel it, still less the Thatcher-Major period of 18 years.
At no time has it felt secure and transformatory.
It has certainly been the latter, and not in a good way.
I'm not so sure it has. Blair and Thatcher both permanently shifted the dial.
It's not clear this one has.
Nothing is permanent in a democracy. But leaving the EU will be harder to reverse than anything Thatcher or Blair did. These Tory years have been completely transformatory, they will long be remembered.
As far as I can tell the Tory government has achieved a moderate change in our political relationship and trading arrangements with our near neighbour (at great political cost) whilst seeing its economic policy shift notably to the Left and the ongoing triumph of the Left in social and cultural matters over the last 12 years.
If I were you I wouldn't be too downhearted.
Well that is the problem of the Tories losing a lot of their old Remain vote and acquiring new voters who favour porkbarrelling and economic protectionism. It is a fundamental clash with the old pro-business free trade Tories.
They sold out business and financial rigour for a mess of pooterish populism. British Peronism in effect.
In the 19th century and early 20th century the Tories were often protectionist, it was the Whigs and Liberals who were most pro free trade.
It was just keeping Labour out after universal suffrage that in the 20th century shifted many pro free trade middle class Liberal businessmen to become Tories.
Remember too it was the Liberals who introduced the workhouse, many old school Tories opposed it
I don't think you're right there.
I don't think there was a Liberal party when the workhouse was introduced or indeed a Tory one!
It was Earl Grey's Whig government which introduced the workhouse and the Whigs of course became the Liberals
The Whig govt. formalised the system but workhouses existed for many many years before. At least according to Wikipedia!
So is it CPI that is 9.1%? And that excludes housing cost inflation?
Christ.
It is going higher still so a lot of pain ahead
Pain felt by younger working people and not the asset classes or the retired.
Many pensioners receive the state pension of just £9,600 pa and are really hurting
True, but the state pensioners now are the ones who voted for Thatcher from '79 onwards. The current stingy state pension follows on from policies of her governments.
I have some sympathy, but fairly limited amounts.
Blair/Labour were in office for 13 years from 1997-2010
This period of Conservative government will comfortably exceed that but it doesn't feel it, still less the Thatcher-Major period of 18 years.
At no time has it felt secure and transformatory.
It has certainly been the latter, and not in a good way.
I'm not so sure it has. Blair and Thatcher both permanently shifted the dial.
It's not clear this one has.
Nothing is permanent in a democracy. But leaving the EU will be harder to reverse than anything Thatcher or Blair did. These Tory years have been completely transformatory, they will long be remembered.
As far as I can tell the Tory government has achieved a moderate change in our political relationship and trading arrangements with our near neighbour (at great political cost) whilst seeing its economic policy shift notably to the Left and the ongoing triumph of the Left in social and cultural matters over the last 12 years.
If I were you I wouldn't be too downhearted.
Whilst losing FoM and all the benefits involved for the younger and older who took advantage of it?...not even mentioning the massive issues employers have with trading?...
...moderate change?....
You can still exercise FoM 50% of the time (you can travel to Europe for 90 days in any 180 day period) and do so ad infinitum for leisure, study, or short term business meetings.
For 95%+ of Britons this is all that they ever need so this is somewhat overblown.
So is it CPI that is 9.1%? And that excludes housing cost inflation?
Christ.
It is going higher still so a lot of pain ahead
Pain felt by younger working people and not the asset classes or the retired.
Many pensioners receive the state pension of just £9,600 pa and are really hurting
True, but the state pensioners now are the ones who voted for Thatcher from '79 onwards. The current stingy state pension follows on from policies of her governments.
I have some sympathy, but fairly limited amounts.
They also voted for Brexit. And yet ... "The Resolution Foundation thinktank and academics from the London School of Economics said the average worker in Britain was now on course to suffer more than £470 in lost pay each year by 2030 after rising living costs are taken into account, compared with a remain vote in 2016." Of course, stuff the workers - the pensioners are OK.
Yet inflation was low after Brexit, it is only the war in Ukraine and the limited energy supplies and excess demand post Covid that have really seen inflation rise.
It was of course not just pensioners who voted for Brexit either, all voters over 47 did therefore including many still of working age. Plus pensioners who were graduates voted Remain while working under 35 non graduates voted Leave
Inflation rose to 3.4% at the end of 2017 because of the GBP devaluation that followed the Brexit vote, which drove up inflation for food and other imported goods. The introduction of new costs and trade restrictions under our new post Brexit trade regime has further pushed up core goods inflation to levels well above those on the Continent (7.2% in the UK versus 4.2% in the Euro Area). And the government wants workers to just suck this up while their pensioner client voters get protected? No fucking way.
EU inflation is now just 0.9% less than the UK average. It is the Russia and Ukraine war and failure to expand energy supplies to meet demand post lockdown with the focus on net zero that has had the biggest impact on UK inflation not Brexit
I really wouldn't be envious of EU economic performance.
Our employment market is red hot and we are first in Europe for new tech/digital start-ups, first or second for FDI (depending on the measure) and our services industry is extremely strong.
The challenges we have here are the usual ones of aging demographics and left behind areas.
If you think things are functioning well in the UK you really should go out more. You cant get a doctor's aopointment.... you wait up to 13 hours for A&E ....you can't get a policeman for love nor money. The hospitality industry has all but collapsed .....You have waits of three or four hours at airports-if your plane takes off at all-the trains aren't running. The traffic jams are appalling....
What is this "Red Hot employment" market doing? It seems the only person who hasn't noticed apart from you works in Dubai!
Sandpit. Why don't you come back to this Nirvana?
I’m quite happy where I am, thanks!
Well there's a surprise! Maybe you should come back for a while and you'll appreciate being there all the more.
A few days ago I commented that the problem with the strike was that it didn't have a clearly articulated purpose.
Well, the Mick Lynch media blitz has fixed that... And more. The big shift in support has come from a lot of people recognizing the argument and saying "hey, that applies to me too."
Yes, Lynch is really earning his salary - I can't remember a union leader who puts the case as clearly, calmly and with a dash of dry wit. (I don't care what he thinks about the Labour Party, Ukraine, or anything else.)
In fairness he's sitting there with 7 or 8 hearts in his hand and the government has just declared them trumps, having completely misread the situation.
In what regard? I get that people might be thinking "yeah, they deserve a higher pay rise, and so do I", but there was a notable lack of "chaos" yesterday. The government can afford to sit back and let them go on strike again and again and again.
In regard to public opinion. The majority are not annoyed at the inconvenience and support the strikes. That is not what the government wanted. The government has come across as completely unreasonable by not allowing the management to make an offer until the day after the first strike. Claims that the Union were not negotiating have been effectively demolished by Lynch whose blunt style is well suited to such disingenuousness.
The number annoyed may increase as the number of strike days increase but other unions settling for circa 7% in the same industry show where this needs to go.
But isn't it to the government's advantage that people aren't annoyed? The media are obsessed with the strikes at the moment. They might not be so interested when they are on strike for the 10th time later this year.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
So your want us to die rather than have to have social care paid out of your inheritance
You really are unpleasant and hopefully a labour government may relieve you of some of your entitlements
To be fair, Mr G neither you nor I. or our wives, appear to need social care at the moment although I regret to say I am beginning to make demands on social services. And we all, I think, have passed four score years!
Indeed and we are fortunate but in my son in laws parents case they were both 84 when they suddenly needed care and to date have paid over £200,000, though with his mothers death this is now about £55,000 pa for as long as his father survives
Can indeed come on suddenly. My own fall a few weeks ago seems to have accelerated a whole lot of deterioration, and consequently need for assistance.
I can't even type easily now; have to use the dictation facility; which isn't very satisfactory, although I'm beginning to get better at it.
Hope things take a turn for the better soon.
Thx. Not optimistic I'm afraid. I have an appointment at UCH requested, but apparently it will not be for several weeks at least!
So is it CPI that is 9.1%? And that excludes housing cost inflation?
Christ.
It is going higher still so a lot of pain ahead
Pain felt by younger working people and not the asset classes or the retired.
Many pensioners receive the state pension of just £9,600 pa and are really hurting
True, but the state pensioners now are the ones who voted for Thatcher from '79 onwards. The current stingy state pension follows on from policies of her governments.
I have some sympathy, but fairly limited amounts.
They also voted for Brexit. And yet ... "The Resolution Foundation thinktank and academics from the London School of Economics said the average worker in Britain was now on course to suffer more than £470 in lost pay each year by 2030 after rising living costs are taken into account, compared with a remain vote in 2016." Of course, stuff the workers - the pensioners are OK.
Yet inflation was low after Brexit, it is only the war in Ukraine and the limited energy supplies and excess demand post Covid that have really seen inflation rise.
It was of course not just pensioners who voted for Brexit either, all voters over 47 did therefore including many still of working age. Plus pensioners who were graduates voted Remain while working under 35 non graduates voted Leave
Inflation rose to 3.4% at the end of 2017 because of the GBP devaluation that followed the Brexit vote, which drove up inflation for food and other imported goods. The introduction of new costs and trade restrictions under our new post Brexit trade regime has further pushed up core goods inflation to levels well above those on the Continent (7.2% in the UK versus 4.2% in the Euro Area). And the government wants workers to just suck this up while their pensioner client voters get protected? No fucking way.
EU inflation is now just 0.9% less than the UK average. It is the Russia and Ukraine war and failure to expand energy supplies to meet demand post lockdown with the focus on net zero that has had the biggest impact on UK inflation not Brexit
I really wouldn't be envious of EU economic performance.
Our employment market is red hot and we are first in Europe for new tech/digital start-ups, first or second for FDI (depending on the measure) and our services industry is extremely strong.
The challenges we have here are the usual ones of aging demographics and left behind areas.
If you think things are functioning well in the UK you really should go out more. You cant get a doctor's aopointment.... you wait up to 13 hours for A&E ....you can't get a policeman for love nor money. The hospitality industry has all but collapsed .....You have waits of three or four hours at airports-if your plane takes off at all-the trains aren't running. The traffic jams are appalling....
What is this "Red Hot employment" market doing? It seems the only person who hasn't noticed apart from you works in Dubai!
Sandpit. Why don't you come back to this Nirvana?
I’m quite happy where I am, thanks!
Well there's a surprise! Maybe you should come back for a while and you'll appreciate being there all the more.
So is it CPI that is 9.1%? And that excludes housing cost inflation?
Christ.
It is going higher still so a lot of pain ahead
Pain felt by younger working people and not the asset classes or the retired.
Many pensioners receive the state pension of just £9,600 pa and are really hurting
True, but the state pensioners now are the ones who voted for Thatcher from '79 onwards. The current stingy state pension follows on from policies of her governments.
I have some sympathy, but fairly limited amounts.
They also voted for Brexit. And yet ... "The Resolution Foundation thinktank and academics from the London School of Economics said the average worker in Britain was now on course to suffer more than £470 in lost pay each year by 2030 after rising living costs are taken into account, compared with a remain vote in 2016." Of course, stuff the workers - the pensioners are OK.
Yet inflation was low after Brexit, it is only the war in Ukraine and the limited energy supplies and excess demand post Covid that have really seen inflation rise.
It was of course not just pensioners who voted for Brexit either, all voters over 47 did therefore including many still of working age. Plus pensioners who were graduates voted Remain while working under 35 non graduates voted Leave
Inflation rose to 3.4% at the end of 2017 because of the GBP devaluation that followed the Brexit vote, which drove up inflation for food and other imported goods. The introduction of new costs and trade restrictions under our new post Brexit trade regime has further pushed up core goods inflation to levels well above those on the Continent (7.2% in the UK versus 4.2% in the Euro Area). And the government wants workers to just suck this up while their pensioner client voters get protected? No fucking way.
EU inflation is now just 0.9% less than the UK average. It is the Russia and Ukraine war and failure to expand energy supplies to meet demand post lockdown with the focus on net zero that has had the biggest impact on UK inflation not Brexit
I really wouldn't be envious of EU economic performance.
Our employment market is red hot and we are first in Europe for new tech/digital start-ups, first or second for FDI (depending on the measure) and our services industry is extremely strong.
The challenges we have here are the usual ones of aging demographics and left behind areas.
If you think things are functioning well in the UK you really should go out more. You can't get a doctor's aopointment.... you wait up to 13 hours for A&E ....you can't get a policeman for love nor money. The hospitality industry has all but collapsed .....You have waits of three or four hours at airports-if your plane takes off at all-the trains aren't running. The traffic jams are appalling....
What is this "Red Hot employment" market doing? It seems the only person who hasn't noticed apart from you works in Dubai!
(Sandpit. Why don't you come back to this Nirvana?)
As I've reported previously - you can get a GP appointment. Six weeks ago I filled in an e-consult, was called later that day and had an appointment in person that evening.
You are doing the classic thing of seeing headline news and thinking it is the experience of everybody. It isn't. Chaos at airports - well yes, but it was strongly correlated with half term, and I think that extra demand often causes problems. Traffic jams - anything in particular? I've not seen anything out of the normal. We currently have rail strikes. Other countries have strikes at times too. France seems particularly prone.
I am not 'doing the classic thing of looking at headlines'. All those things I have mentioned I have encountered myself in the last several months. I specifically didn't mention things like the costs of living because it hasn't yet affected me. You obviopusly haven't been anywhere or tried to use any services yourself or you'd know these things.
.........Or perhaps you live in Dubai with their access to rose tinted TV sets? I spend time in France and if you think it's as bad there then you should take a trip and you'll be in for a pleasant surprise.
You keep mocking those who live in Dubai, but you seem to prefer living overseas yourself and yet are still entitled to an opinion, just as others are.
Anyway, your description of Britain is not one I recognise. I had to call my GP on Monday, was seen the same day. My current GP is the best one I've ever had, I really respect them - they answer the phone, the receptionist is polite and friendly, and they always seem happy to help. Utterly alien from any GP service I'd had in the past, including when Blair was PM.
As for traffic - not seen much of that more than usual. Did a lot of driving last week as been on holiday, and chose to holiday domestically this year, and the only traffic issue I experienced was a detour due to the M6 being closed northbound due to an overturned lorry, other than that and scheduled roadworks reducing speeds down to 50mph where the roadworks are happening, the traffic was perfectly normal.
The hospitality industry seems to be running just fine too. Eaten out a few times last week as on holiday and taking parents/grandparents out for Father's Day too, the food was good, the service was good and the tables were fully booked. Whatever hospitality issues you may be experiencing, might be because you're rude to wait staff from the way you present yourself here.
I'm hoping the market has overshot on oil and we're due a correction.
‘ Some relief on inflation coming ? “
As I explained at start of this thread, no, I don’t think so.
Energy prices may have started the fire, but they now walk off smirking, job done. Other things can now prolong the inflation spike. Like surrendering to union demands for higher pay.
It’s gone beyond the point economists can now say where when it will peak, how quickly drop to what level, there’s too many moving parts.
A few days ago I commented that the problem with the strike was that it didn't have a clearly articulated purpose.
Well, the Mick Lynch media blitz has fixed that... And more. The big shift in support has come from a lot of people recognizing the argument and saying "hey, that applies to me too."
Yes, Lynch is really earning his salary - I can't remember a union leader who puts the case as clearly, calmly and with a dash of dry wit. (I don't care what he thinks about the Labour Party, Ukraine, or anything else.)
In fairness he's sitting there with 7 or 8 hearts in his hand and the government has just declared them trumps, having completely misread the situation.
In what regard? I get that people might be thinking "yeah, they deserve a higher pay rise, and so do I", but there was a notable lack of "chaos" yesterday. The government can afford to sit back and let them go on strike again and again and again.
In regard to public opinion. The majority are not annoyed at the inconvenience and support the strikes. That is not what the government wanted. The government has come across as completely unreasonable by not allowing the management to make an offer until the day after the first strike. Claims that the Union were not negotiating have been effectively demolished by Lynch whose blunt style is well suited to such disingenuousness.
The number annoyed may increase as the number of strike days increase but other unions settling for circa 7% in the same industry show where this needs to go.
But isn't it to the government's advantage that people aren't annoyed? The media are obsessed with the strikes at the moment. They might not be so interested when they are on strike for the 10th time later this year.
No, the government chose this fight for the political advantage they thought it would give them (Labour's strikes etc). It has nothing to do with economics or the running of the railway business. If it was the focus would be on different points and a genuine attempt to resolve it would have been made before the strikes began. People being sympathetic and not cross was not the desired outcome.
So is it CPI that is 9.1%? And that excludes housing cost inflation?
Christ.
It is going higher still so a lot of pain ahead
Pain felt by younger working people and not the asset classes or the retired.
Many pensioners receive the state pension of just £9,600 pa and are really hurting
True, but the state pensioners now are the ones who voted for Thatcher from '79 onwards. The current stingy state pension follows on from policies of her governments.
I have some sympathy, but fairly limited amounts.
Blair/Labour were in office for 13 years from 1997-2010
This period of Conservative government will comfortably exceed that but it doesn't feel it, still less the Thatcher-Major period of 18 years.
At no time has it felt secure and transformatory.
It has certainly been the latter, and not in a good way.
I'm not so sure it has. Blair and Thatcher both permanently shifted the dial.
It's not clear this one has.
Nothing is permanent in a democracy. But leaving the EU will be harder to reverse than anything Thatcher or Blair did. These Tory years have been completely transformatory, they will long be remembered.
As far as I can tell the Tory government has achieved a moderate change in our political relationship and trading arrangements with our near neighbour (at great political cost) whilst seeing its economic policy shift notably to the Left and the ongoing triumph of the Left in social and cultural matters over the last 12 years.
If I were you I wouldn't be too downhearted.
Well that is the problem of the Tories losing a lot of their old Remain vote and acquiring new voters who favour porkbarrelling and economic protectionism. It is a fundamental clash with the old pro-business free trade Tories.
They sold out business and financial rigour for a mess of pooterish populism. British Peronism in effect.
In the 19th century and early 20th century the Tories were often protectionist, it was the Whigs and Liberals who were most pro free trade.
It was just keeping Labour out after universal suffrage that in the 20th century shifted many pro free trade middle class Liberal businessmen to become Tories.
Remember too it was the Liberals who introduced the workhouse, many old school Tories opposed it
I don't think you're right there.
I don't think there was a Liberal party when the workhouse was introduced or indeed a Tory one!
It was Earl Grey's Whig government which introduced the workhouse and the Whigs of course became the Liberals
The Whig govt. formalised the system but workhouses existed for many many years before. At least according to Wikipedia!
It was the New Poor Law Act of 1834 though that discouraged relief for the poor who were not in the workhouse and thus forced far more of the poor and unemployed into it. Previously there had been a few local workhouses but it was the New Poor Law Act that created mandatory confederations of parishes across the country to build and provide workhouses
A few days ago I commented that the problem with the strike was that it didn't have a clearly articulated purpose.
Well, the Mick Lynch media blitz has fixed that... And more. The big shift in support has come from a lot of people recognizing the argument and saying "hey, that applies to me too."
Yes, Lynch is really earning his salary - I can't remember a union leader who puts the case as clearly, calmly and with a dash of dry wit. (I don't care what he thinks about the Labour Party, Ukraine, or anything else.)
In fairness he's sitting there with 7 or 8 hearts in his hand and the government has just declared them trumps, having completely misread the situation.
In what regard? I get that people might be thinking "yeah, they deserve a higher pay rise, and so do I", but there was a notable lack of "chaos" yesterday. The government can afford to sit back and let them go on strike again and again and again.
In regard to public opinion. The majority are not annoyed at the inconvenience and support the strikes. That is not what the government wanted. The government has come across as completely unreasonable by not allowing the management to make an offer until the day after the first strike. Claims that the Union were not negotiating have been effectively demolished by Lynch whose blunt style is well suited to such disingenuousness.
The number annoyed may increase as the number of strike days increase but other unions settling for circa 7% in the same industry show where this needs to go.
But isn't it to the government's advantage that people aren't annoyed? The media are obsessed with the strikes at the moment. They might not be so interested when they are on strike for the 10th time later this year.
No, the government chose this fight for the political advantage they thought it would give them (Labour's strikes etc). It has nothing to do with economics or the running of the railway business. If it was the focus would be on different points and a genuine attempt to resolve it would have been made before the strikes began. People being sympathetic and not cross was not the desired outcome.
Really? Surely the most important thing is that government doesn't give in on pay because they'll have the rest of the public sector queuing up for similar pay increases.
Let's give pensioners a pension freeze, how about 0% for two years.
The problem is there a lot of very poor pensioners. But you can't freeze rich pensioners pensions because they're private.
Indeed and it is poor pensioners who are most likely to vote Labour and would be hardest hit by a state pension freeze
BTW are you going to apologise for saying that all people over 47 voted for Brexit, which is self evidently untrue? I am only asking because in a similar situation where I said something that wasn't literally true as a shorthand for something that was, you insisted that I apologise for misleading people and I did. Whereas you seem unable to ever admit to making a mistake. If you are going to try to impose these kinds of standards on other people then the least you can do is follow them yourself.
So is it CPI that is 9.1%? And that excludes housing cost inflation?
Christ.
It is going higher still so a lot of pain ahead
Pain felt by younger working people and not the asset classes or the retired.
Many pensioners receive the state pension of just £9,600 pa and are really hurting
True, but the state pensioners now are the ones who voted for Thatcher from '79 onwards. The current stingy state pension follows on from policies of her governments.
I have some sympathy, but fairly limited amounts.
They also voted for Brexit. And yet ... "The Resolution Foundation thinktank and academics from the London School of Economics said the average worker in Britain was now on course to suffer more than £470 in lost pay each year by 2030 after rising living costs are taken into account, compared with a remain vote in 2016." Of course, stuff the workers - the pensioners are OK.
Yet inflation was low after Brexit, it is only the war in Ukraine and the limited energy supplies and excess demand post Covid that have really seen inflation rise.
It was of course not just pensioners who voted for Brexit either, all voters over 47 did therefore including many still of working age. Plus pensioners who were graduates voted Remain while working under 35 non graduates voted Leave
Inflation rose to 3.4% at the end of 2017 because of the GBP devaluation that followed the Brexit vote, which drove up inflation for food and other imported goods. The introduction of new costs and trade restrictions under our new post Brexit trade regime has further pushed up core goods inflation to levels well above those on the Continent (7.2% in the UK versus 4.2% in the Euro Area). And the government wants workers to just suck this up while their pensioner client voters get protected? No fucking way.
EU inflation is now just 0.9% less than the UK average. It is the Russia and Ukraine war and failure to expand energy supplies to meet demand post lockdown with the focus on net zero that has had the biggest impact on UK inflation not Brexit
I really wouldn't be envious of EU economic performance.
Our employment market is red hot and we are first in Europe for new tech/digital start-ups, first or second for FDI (depending on the measure) and our services industry is extremely strong.
The challenges we have here are the usual ones of aging demographics and left behind areas.
If you think things are functioning well in the UK you really should go out more. You can't get a doctor's aopointment.... you wait up to 13 hours for A&E ....you can't get a policeman for love nor money. The hospitality industry has all but collapsed .....You have waits of three or four hours at airports-if your plane takes off at all-the trains aren't running. The traffic jams are appalling....
What is this "Red Hot employment" market doing? It seems the only person who hasn't noticed apart from you works in Dubai!
(Sandpit. Why don't you come back to this Nirvana?)
I drove to the airport on Sunday, and flew and I am now in Bulgaria with my extended family. None of those things were true. I work with western EU countries regularly as part of my job, and I am aware of their chronic economic problems- particularly in Italy and Spain. And it's well documented the UK has over a million vacancies it currently is struggling to fill and a huge war for talent driving up salaries. I've also just had my doctor's surgery contact me two days after my 40th birthday asking me to come in for a free health check up, as they offer everyone aged 40-74. I know my local bobby and my sister and brother in law both work in the police, and are happy.
As I've reported previously - you can get a GP appointment. Six weeks ago I filled in an e-consult, was called later that day and had an appointment in person that evening.
You are doing the classic thing of seeing headline news and thinking it is the experience of everybody. It isn't. Chaos at airports - well yes, but it was strongly correlated with half term, and I think that extra demand often causes problems. Traffic jams - anything in particular? I've not seen anything out of the normal. We currently have rail strikes. Other countries have strikes at times too. France seems particularly prone.
Roger always favours anecdotes over data. It's how he will bang on about how awful Britain is due to some story he has read whilst ignoring the vast political support for the Le Pen mob.
A few days ago I commented that the problem with the strike was that it didn't have a clearly articulated purpose.
Well, the Mick Lynch media blitz has fixed that... And more. The big shift in support has come from a lot of people recognizing the argument and saying "hey, that applies to me too."
Yes, Lynch is really earning his salary - I can't remember a union leader who puts the case as clearly, calmly and with a dash of dry wit. (I don't care what he thinks about the Labour Party, Ukraine, or anything else.)
In fairness he's sitting there with 7 or 8 hearts in his hand and the government has just declared them trumps, having completely misread the situation.
In what regard? I get that people might be thinking "yeah, they deserve a higher pay rise, and so do I", but there was a notable lack of "chaos" yesterday. The government can afford to sit back and let them go on strike again and again and again.
In regard to public opinion. The majority are not annoyed at the inconvenience and support the strikes. That is not what the government wanted. The government has come across as completely unreasonable by not allowing the management to make an offer until the day after the first strike. Claims that the Union were not negotiating have been effectively demolished by Lynch whose blunt style is well suited to such disingenuousness.
The number annoyed may increase as the number of strike days increase but other unions settling for circa 7% in the same industry show where this needs to go.
The problem for the union though is that being annoyed at the inconvenience is how strikes are supposed to work.
If your workers withholding their labour isn't inconvenient, then why are your workers employed and why should they get a pay rise?
The RMT should perhaps be a little bit concerned that their strike isn't inconveniencing many people, as much as the London-based media loves to bore everyone to death over it.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
What rubbish. If our own income wasn't being taken from us to prop up the selfish generation, we wouldn't need an inheritance when we are already old ourselves to get an inheritance.
I would rather work for a living and keep my own income than rely upon my parents dying and getting an inheritance, what about you?
HYUFD's statement (and he can back it up with whatever spurious evidence takes his fancy) is an absolute crock anyway.
Unless lifetime gifts have been given over time, care home costs run inheritance values down in next to no time.
I wish I lived in HYUFD's alternative reality.
As I already said 3/4 of over 65s will never need social care or will die before they do
Is compulsory euthanasia at 65 a manifesto commitment for GE2024?
That might have electoral implications for your party.
P.S. As someone currently transferring five and a half grand of my own savings every month to pay my mother-in-law's care home costs as we desperately try to complete the sale of her property I can confirm you don't have a Scooby-Doo as to how late life care works and costs!
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
So your want us to die rather than have to have social care paid out of your inheritance
You really are unpleasant and hopefully a labour government may relieve you of some of your entitlements
To be fair, Mr G neither you nor I. or our wives, appear to need social care at the moment although I regret to say I am beginning to make demands on social services. And we all, I think, have passed four score years!
Indeed and we are fortunate but in my son in laws parents case they were both 84 when they suddenly needed care and to date have paid over £200,000, though with his mothers death this is now about £55,000 pa for as long as his father survives
Can indeed come on suddenly. My own fall a few weeks ago seems to have accelerated a whole lot of deterioration, and consequently need for assistance.
I can't even type easily now; have to use the dictation facility; which isn't very satisfactory, although I'm beginning to get better at it.
Hope things take a turn for the better soon.
Thx. Not optimistic I'm afraid. I have an appointment at UCH requested, but apparently it will not be for several weeks at least!
I hope it goes well. Unfortunately, things can take a turn for the worse quite quickly, but take heart, because they can also take a turn for the better quite quickly!
As I've reported previously - you can get a GP appointment. Six weeks ago I filled in an e-consult, was called later that day and had an appointment in person that evening.
You are doing the classic thing of seeing headline news and thinking it is the experience of everybody. It isn't. Chaos at airports - well yes, but it was strongly correlated with half term, and I think that extra demand often causes problems. Traffic jams - anything in particular? I've not seen anything out of the normal. We currently have rail strikes. Other countries have strikes at times too. France seems particularly prone.
Roger always favours anecdotes over data. It's how he will bang on about how awful Britain is due to some story he has read whilst ignoring the vast political support for the Le Pen mob.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
What rubbish. If our own income wasn't being taken from us to prop up the selfish generation, we wouldn't need an inheritance when we are already old ourselves to get an inheritance.
I would rather work for a living and keep my own income than rely upon my parents dying and getting an inheritance, what about you?
HYUFD's statement (and he can back it up with whatever spurious evidence takes his fancy) is an absolute crock anyway.
Unless lifetime gifts have been given over time, care home costs run inheritance values down in next to no time.
I wish I lived in HYUFD's alternative reality.
As I already said 3/4 of over 65s will never need social care or will die before they do
Is compulsory euthanasia at 65 a manifesto commitment for GE2024?
That might have electoral implications for your party.
P.S. As someone currently transferring five and a half grand of my own savings every month to pay my mother-in-law's care home costs as we desperately try to complete the sale of her property I can confirm you don't have a Scooby-Doo as to how late life care works and costs!
No as 75% of over 65s will still not need social care and certainly not residential social care
Let's give pensioners a pension freeze, how about 0% for two years.
The problem is there a lot of very poor pensioners. But you can't freeze rich pensioners pensions because they're private.
Indeed and it is poor pensioners who are most likely to vote Labour and would be hardest hit by a state pension freeze
BTW are you going to apologise for saying that all people over 47 voted for Brexit, which is self evidently untrue? I am only asking because in a similar situation where I said something that wasn't literally true as a shorthand for something that was, you insisted that I apologise for misleading people and I did. Whereas you seem unable to ever admit to making a mistake. If you are going to try to impose these kinds of standards on other people then the least you can do is follow them yourself.
Majorities of all age groups over 47 then if you want to be pedantic
A few days ago I commented that the problem with the strike was that it didn't have a clearly articulated purpose.
Well, the Mick Lynch media blitz has fixed that... And more. The big shift in support has come from a lot of people recognizing the argument and saying "hey, that applies to me too."
Yes, Lynch is really earning his salary - I can't remember a union leader who puts the case as clearly, calmly and with a dash of dry wit. (I don't care what he thinks about the Labour Party, Ukraine, or anything else.)
In fairness he's sitting there with 7 or 8 hearts in his hand and the government has just declared them trumps, having completely misread the situation.
In what regard? I get that people might be thinking "yeah, they deserve a higher pay rise, and so do I", but there was a notable lack of "chaos" yesterday. The government can afford to sit back and let them go on strike again and again and again.
In regard to public opinion. The majority are not annoyed at the inconvenience and support the strikes. That is not what the government wanted. The government has come across as completely unreasonable by not allowing the management to make an offer until the day after the first strike. Claims that the Union were not negotiating have been effectively demolished by Lynch whose blunt style is well suited to such disingenuousness.
The number annoyed may increase as the number of strike days increase but other unions settling for circa 7% in the same industry show where this needs to go.
But isn't it to the government's advantage that people aren't annoyed? The media are obsessed with the strikes at the moment. They might not be so interested when they are on strike for the 10th time later this year.
No, the government chose this fight for the political advantage they thought it would give them (Labour's strikes etc). It has nothing to do with economics or the running of the railway business. If it was the focus would be on different points and a genuine attempt to resolve it would have been made before the strikes began. People being sympathetic and not cross was not the desired outcome.
Really? Surely the most important thing is that government doesn't give in on pay because they'll have the rest of the public sector queuing up for similar pay increases.
You think they won't? You think NHS staff and teachers are going to look at this and say, well the railway staff didn't get anywhere so may as well accept the 3% on offer? LOL.
So is it CPI that is 9.1%? And that excludes housing cost inflation?
Christ.
It is going higher still so a lot of pain ahead
Pain felt by younger working people and not the asset classes or the retired.
Many pensioners receive the state pension of just £9,600 pa and are really hurting
True, but the state pensioners now are the ones who voted for Thatcher from '79 onwards. The current stingy state pension follows on from policies of her governments.
I have some sympathy, but fairly limited amounts.
They also voted for Brexit. And yet ... "The Resolution Foundation thinktank and academics from the London School of Economics said the average worker in Britain was now on course to suffer more than £470 in lost pay each year by 2030 after rising living costs are taken into account, compared with a remain vote in 2016." Of course, stuff the workers - the pensioners are OK.
Yet inflation was low after Brexit, it is only the war in Ukraine and the limited energy supplies and excess demand post Covid that have really seen inflation rise.
It was of course not just pensioners who voted for Brexit either, all voters over 47 did therefore including many still of working age. Plus pensioners who were graduates voted Remain while working under 35 non graduates voted Leave
Inflation rose to 3.4% at the end of 2017 because of the GBP devaluation that followed the Brexit vote, which drove up inflation for food and other imported goods. The introduction of new costs and trade restrictions under our new post Brexit trade regime has further pushed up core goods inflation to levels well above those on the Continent (7.2% in the UK versus 4.2% in the Euro Area). And the government wants workers to just suck this up while their pensioner client voters get protected? No fucking way.
EU inflation is now just 0.9% less than the UK average. It is the Russia and Ukraine war and failure to expand energy supplies to meet demand post lockdown with the focus on net zero that has had the biggest impact on UK inflation not Brexit
I really wouldn't be envious of EU economic performance.
Our employment market is red hot and we are first in Europe for new tech/digital start-ups, first or second for FDI (depending on the measure) and our services industry is extremely strong.
The challenges we have here are the usual ones of aging demographics and left behind areas.
If you think things are functioning well in the UK you really should go out more. You can't get a doctor's aopointment.... you wait up to 13 hours for A&E ....you can't get a policeman for love nor money. The hospitality industry has all but collapsed .....You have waits of three or four hours at airports-if your plane takes off at all-the trains aren't running. The traffic jams are appalling....
What is this "Red Hot employment" market doing? It seems the only person who hasn't noticed apart from you works in Dubai!
(Sandpit. Why don't you come back to this Nirvana?)
As I've reported previously - you can get a GP appointment. Six weeks ago I filled in an e-consult, was called later that day and had an appointment in person that evening.
You are doing the classic thing of seeing headline news and thinking it is the experience of everybody. It isn't. Chaos at airports - well yes, but it was strongly correlated with half term, and I think that extra demand often causes problems. Traffic jams - anything in particular? I've not seen anything out of the normal. We currently have rail strikes. Other countries have strikes at times too. France seems particularly prone.
I am not 'doing the classic thing of looking at headlines'. All those things I have mentioned I have encountered myself in the last several months. I specifically didn't mention things like the costs of living because it hasn't yet affected me. You obviopusly haven't been anywhere or tried to use any services yourself or you'd know these things.
.........Or perhaps you live in Dubai with their access to rose tinted TV sets? I spend time in France and if you think it's as bad there then you should take a trip and you'll be in for a pleasant surprise.
Nope - I live in Wiltshire and have accessed health very easily, and seen no more traffic jams than before. Each to their own. You have brexit and the government perhaps this colours how you see things?
A few days ago I commented that the problem with the strike was that it didn't have a clearly articulated purpose.
Well, the Mick Lynch media blitz has fixed that... And more. The big shift in support has come from a lot of people recognizing the argument and saying "hey, that applies to me too."
Yes, Lynch is really earning his salary - I can't remember a union leader who puts the case as clearly, calmly and with a dash of dry wit. (I don't care what he thinks about the Labour Party, Ukraine, or anything else.)
In fairness he's sitting there with 7 or 8 hearts in his hand and the government has just declared them trumps, having completely misread the situation.
In what regard? I get that people might be thinking "yeah, they deserve a higher pay rise, and so do I", but there was a notable lack of "chaos" yesterday. The government can afford to sit back and let them go on strike again and again and again.
In regard to public opinion. The majority are not annoyed at the inconvenience and support the strikes. That is not what the government wanted. The government has come across as completely unreasonable by not allowing the management to make an offer until the day after the first strike. Claims that the Union were not negotiating have been effectively demolished by Lynch whose blunt style is well suited to such disingenuousness.
The number annoyed may increase as the number of strike days increase but other unions settling for circa 7% in the same industry show where this needs to go.
But isn't it to the government's advantage that people aren't annoyed? The media are obsessed with the strikes at the moment. They might not be so interested when they are on strike for the 10th time later this year.
No, the government chose this fight for the political advantage they thought it would give them (Labour's strikes etc). It has nothing to do with economics or the running of the railway business. If it was the focus would be on different points and a genuine attempt to resolve it would have been made before the strikes began. People being sympathetic and not cross was not the desired outcome.
Really? Surely the most important thing is that government doesn't give in on pay because they'll have the rest of the public sector queuing up for similar pay increases.
Yeah this negotiation isn't even directly with the government. I think the Gov't is entirely within their rights to tell the TOCS to sort it from existing budgets.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
So your want us to die rather than have to have social care paid out of your inheritance
You really are unpleasant and hopefully a labour government may relieve you of some of your entitlements
To be fair, Mr G neither you nor I. or our wives, appear to need social care at the moment although I regret to say I am beginning to make demands on social services. And we all, I think, have passed four score years!
Indeed and we are fortunate but in my son in laws parents case they were both 84 when they suddenly needed care and to date have paid over £200,000, though with his mothers death this is now about £55,000 pa for as long as his father survives
Can indeed come on suddenly. My own fall a few weeks ago seems to have accelerated a whole lot of deterioration, and consequently need for assistance.
I can't even type easily now; have to use the dictation facility; which isn't very satisfactory, although I'm beginning to get better at it.
Hope things take a turn for the better soon.
Thx. Not optimistic I'm afraid. I have an appointment at UCH requested, but apparently it will not be for several weeks at least!
I hope it goes well. Unfortunately, things can take a turn for the worse quite quickly, but take heart, because they can also take a turn for the better quite quickly!
That is a very kind thought indeed and much appreciated!
Let's give pensioners a pension freeze, how about 0% for two years.
The problem is there a lot of very poor pensioners. But you can't freeze rich pensioners pensions because they're private.
Indeed and it is poor pensioners who are most likely to vote Labour and would be hardest hit by a state pension freeze
BTW are you going to apologise for saying that all people over 47 voted for Brexit, which is self evidently untrue? I am only asking because in a similar situation where I said something that wasn't literally true as a shorthand for something that was, you insisted that I apologise for misleading people and I did. Whereas you seem unable to ever admit to making a mistake. If you are going to try to impose these kinds of standards on other people then the least you can do is follow them yourself.
Majorities of all age groups over 47 then if you want to be pedantic
Thank you for your gracious apology, which I happily accept.
So is it CPI that is 9.1%? And that excludes housing cost inflation?
Christ.
It is going higher still so a lot of pain ahead
Pain felt by younger working people and not the asset classes or the retired.
Yep it's a disgrace and I am a beneficiary but don't agree with it.
And the pensioners were overwhelmingly Brexiteers so if there was any justice they'd have their pensions wrenched from them
We are always told this. Has anyone any data about the way the various age groups voted 40 years ago, in the original EEC referendum? I just wonder whether, or why, my age group changed their view! I know I didn't!
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
So your want us to die rather than have to have social care paid out of your inheritance
You really are unpleasant and hopefully a labour government may relieve you of some of your entitlements
To be fair, Mr G neither you nor I. or our wives, appear to need social care at the moment although I regret to say I am beginning to make demands on social services. And we all, I think, have passed four score years!
Indeed and we are fortunate but in my son in laws parents case they were both 84 when they suddenly needed care and to date have paid over £200,000, though with his mothers death this is now about £55,000 pa for as long as his father survives
Can indeed come on suddenly. My own fall a few weeks ago seems to have accelerated a whole lot of deterioration, and consequently need for assistance.
I can't even type easily now; have to use the dictation facility; which isn't very satisfactory, although I'm beginning to get better at it.
Hope things take a turn for the better soon.
Thx. Not optimistic I'm afraid. I have an appointment at UCH requested, but apparently it will not be for several weeks at least!
Sorry to hear that OKC. Keep buggering on. Hope you're pleasantly surprised and see an improvement.
As I've reported previously - you can get a GP appointment. Six weeks ago I filled in an e-consult, was called later that day and had an appointment in person that evening.
You are doing the classic thing of seeing headline news and thinking it is the experience of everybody. It isn't. Chaos at airports - well yes, but it was strongly correlated with half term, and I think that extra demand often causes problems. Traffic jams - anything in particular? I've not seen anything out of the normal. We currently have rail strikes. Other countries have strikes at times too. France seems particularly prone.
Roger always favours anecdotes over data. It's how he will bang on about how awful Britain is due to some story he has read whilst ignoring the vast political support for the Le Pen mob.
The problem for the union though is that being annoyed at the inconvenience is how strikes are supposed to work.
No, it's "the company loses money" that is how they are supposed to work. If there's a strike at a steelworks or a car factory for a week, that inconveniences the general public not at all. But it does cause the company to lose money or face the prospect of losses if the strikes were to continue indefinitely. Similarly even if 100% of strike-day passengers WFH or get a paid holiday, this still represents lost revenue for the train companies, which is what their management wants to avoid.
So is it CPI that is 9.1%? And that excludes housing cost inflation?
Christ.
It is going higher still so a lot of pain ahead
Pain felt by younger working people and not the asset classes or the retired.
Many pensioners receive the state pension of just £9,600 pa and are really hurting
True, but the state pensioners now are the ones who voted for Thatcher from '79 onwards. The current stingy state pension follows on from policies of her governments.
I have some sympathy, but fairly limited amounts.
They also voted for Brexit. And yet ... "The Resolution Foundation thinktank and academics from the London School of Economics said the average worker in Britain was now on course to suffer more than £470 in lost pay each year by 2030 after rising living costs are taken into account, compared with a remain vote in 2016." Of course, stuff the workers - the pensioners are OK.
Yet inflation was low after Brexit, it is only the war in Ukraine and the limited energy supplies and excess demand post Covid that have really seen inflation rise.
It was of course not just pensioners who voted for Brexit either, all voters over 47 did therefore including many still of working age. Plus pensioners who were graduates voted Remain while working under 35 non graduates voted Leave
I don't think all voters over 47 voted for Brexit?
The majority of all age groups over 47 did vote Leave in 2016
But you said that all voters aged over 47 voted for Brexit. That is a lie.
I voted remain but support brexit following the vote, but also would support re-joining the single market with FOM
Bit of a mix to be honest, but I do not support re-joining and expect this is probably where the majority view is at present
The story is complex. Lots of people voted Leave reluctantly because they wanted a reformed EU. Lots of people voted Remain reluctantly because they wanted a reformed EU. The majority choice wasn't on the table.
A simple derogation from some aspects of FoM would have been enough, but the rigid fundamentalists on both sides prevailed.
This gave parliament (not government - parliament is sovereign) a unique task and opportunity to be wise, creative, unified and bold. The obvious answer - 'Norway for Now' would have hit a populist reaction, and therefore required a united front. Parliament failed either to do this, or to do better than this.
Brexit voters (I am one) take responsibility for doing so. But not for either the intransigence of the EU or the self interested failures of parliament.
Obviously you feel that the EU should take responsibility for their intransigence and parliamentarians for their self interested failure, but I’m unclear for what you’re taking responsibility. Is it just the bare act of voting for Brexit?
Yes. I'm an ordinary democrat. I am responsible for how I vote when asked to do so. My powers in this are limited to the choices available. Like most people (I think) I wanted a reformed EU, and I wanted a series of referendums going back over 30 years we were never given, and which would have both shaped the EU differently and avoided the divisive nature of the 2016 one.
The 2016 one would have just as divisive whoever won. The democratic deficit had been built in well before.
There are some very silly things in that article. Yes, I agree that NR could employ general builders to replace things like sockets. But some of the other examples? What does the walking time example have to do with this strike? Network Rail do not employ drivers, nor are drivers on strike.
And the maintenance crews example? The railway has been organised into companies and then zones and then sectors in zones since forever. "I can't do that / go there" is literally how previous governments have modernised practices. Its hardly something the RMT have invented and are holding onto.
The specific example - maintenance issue out of Kings Cross that a Euston crew can't resolve. There are likely to be very good reasons for that. Signalling and electric systems entirely different for starters - are LNW engineers actually trained on LNE equipment?
Same with the signal centre example. Can someone jump on a terminal and manage a route they are not familiar with? No. The article says competent and qualified. Great! But are they on that particular route? Its the same with drivers - they are competent on qualified on route A and vehicle type 1, but that doesn't mean they can jump straight onto route B and vehicle type 2.
So is it CPI that is 9.1%? And that excludes housing cost inflation?
Christ.
It is going higher still so a lot of pain ahead
Pain felt by younger working people and not the asset classes or the retired.
Yep it's a disgrace and I am a beneficiary but don't agree with it.
And the pensioners were overwhelmingly Brexiteers so if there was any justice they'd have their pensions wrenched from them
We are always told this. Has anyone any data about the way the various age groups voted 40 years ago, in the original EEC referendum? I just wonder whether, or why, my age group changed their view! I know I didn't!
In 1975, the younger votes were more anti EEC than the older voters, probably due to their experiences of the war and the aftermath.
My grandma voted Remain in 2016, having driven an ambulance through the horror of the Blitz in Plymouth and having spent 25 years of her retirement in Spain and seeing the benefits of the EU up close. It was probably the only election that we voted the same way in, as she was a classic working class Tory made good.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
So your want us to die rather than have to have social care paid out of your inheritance
You really are unpleasant and hopefully a labour government may relieve you of some of your entitlements
To be fair, Mr G neither you nor I. or our wives, appear to need social care at the moment although I regret to say I am beginning to make demands on social services. And we all, I think, have passed four score years!
Indeed and we are fortunate but in my son in laws parents case they were both 84 when they suddenly needed care and to date have paid over £200,000, though with his mothers death this is now about £55,000 pa for as long as his father survives
Can indeed come on suddenly. My own fall a few weeks ago seems to have accelerated a whole lot of deterioration, and consequently need for assistance.
I can't even type easily now; have to use the dictation facility; which isn't very satisfactory, although I'm beginning to get better at it.
I really really for you and can only wish you all the best
Well, my rail commute this morning was a massive mission despite it being a 'no-strike' day. Trains were cancelled because of mysterious 'train faults'. Apparently, because of yesterday's disruption, the signalmen couldn't start work until late. And there were one-an-hour services where they'd normally run three times an hour. In short, a journey that should take me one hour took three. Had I known I wouldn't have bothered. They should have just closed everything all week - at least we'd have known where we stood.
The problem for the union though is that being annoyed at the inconvenience is how strikes are supposed to work.
No, it's "the company loses money" that is how they are supposed to work. If there's a strike at a steelworks or a car factory for a week, that inconveniences the general public not at all. But it does cause the company to lose money or face the prospect of losses if the strikes were to continue indefinitely. Similarly even if 100% of strike-day passengers WFH or get a paid holiday, this still represents lost revenue for the train companies, which is what their management wants to avoid.
Yes, but the employer still needs to be able to make some money, in order to pay the employees staff over the long term.
In the past the RMT have been successful because customers and taxpayers would demand a swift resolution to the strikes, because of the inconvenience. If now the customers and taxpayers find they can live just fine with the strikes, then moves onto rather more existential questions which are probably not what the RMT wish to discuss.
Tomorrow my devil is due to be admitted to the Scottish bar. I have the honour of presenting him to the Faculty. As per tradition we will go out for a rather nice lunch afterwards. Which will not involve drink on my part because of the rail strikes. Later in the day I am invited to a Dean's reception as are all the other devil masters. Ditto.
Devilling is a bit weird, and not just the name. My devil has not been paid for the work he has done for me over the year but I have paid for his food, drink and accomodation when required. I have also given him a lot of my time and given him vivid demonstrations of how not to do various things. He has also had training from the Faculty which is generally acknowledged to be some of the best advocacy training in the world for free.
It seems a legacy of times past where professionals often used to have to pay for their apprenticeships. There are obviously concerns that it may be a barrier to those from poorer backgrounds. But it has its charms. It should be a good day.
So is it CPI that is 9.1%? And that excludes housing cost inflation?
Christ.
It is going higher still so a lot of pain ahead
Pain felt by younger working people and not the asset classes or the retired.
Yep it's a disgrace and I am a beneficiary but don't agree with it.
And the pensioners were overwhelmingly Brexiteers so if there was any justice they'd have their pensions wrenched from them
We are always told this. Has anyone any data about the way the various age groups voted 40 years ago, in the original EEC referendum? I just wonder whether, or why, my age group changed their view! I know I didn't!
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
So your want us to die rather than have to have social care paid out of your inheritance
You really are unpleasant and hopefully a labour government may relieve you of some of your entitlements
To be fair, Mr G neither you nor I. or our wives, appear to need social care at the moment although I regret to say I am beginning to make demands on social services. And we all, I think, have passed four score years!
Indeed and we are fortunate but in my son in laws parents case they were both 84 when they suddenly needed care and to date have paid over £200,000, though with his mothers death this is now about £55,000 pa for as long as his father survives
Has the care cap come in yet ? (Yes I know it's not a cap)
A few days ago I commented that the problem with the strike was that it didn't have a clearly articulated purpose.
Well, the Mick Lynch media blitz has fixed that... And more. The big shift in support has come from a lot of people recognizing the argument and saying "hey, that applies to me too."
Yes, Lynch is really earning his salary - I can't remember a union leader who puts the case as clearly, calmly and with a dash of dry wit. (I don't care what he thinks about the Labour Party, Ukraine, or anything else.)
In fairness he's sitting there with 7 or 8 hearts in his hand and the government has just declared them trumps, having completely misread the situation.
In what regard? I get that people might be thinking "yeah, they deserve a higher pay rise, and so do I", but there was a notable lack of "chaos" yesterday. The government can afford to sit back and let them go on strike again and again and again.
In regard to public opinion. The majority are not annoyed at the inconvenience and support the strikes. That is not what the government wanted. The government has come across as completely unreasonable by not allowing the management to make an offer until the day after the first strike. Claims that the Union were not negotiating have been effectively demolished by Lynch whose blunt style is well suited to such disingenuousness.
The number annoyed may increase as the number of strike days increase but other unions settling for circa 7% in the same industry show where this needs to go.
But isn't it to the government's advantage that people aren't annoyed? The media are obsessed with the strikes at the moment. They might not be so interested when they are on strike for the 10th time later this year.
No, the government chose this fight for the political advantage they thought it would give them (Labour's strikes etc). It has nothing to do with economics or the running of the railway business. If it was the focus would be on different points and a genuine attempt to resolve it would have been made before the strikes began. People being sympathetic and not cross was not the desired outcome.
Really? Surely the most important thing is that government doesn't give in on pay because they'll have the rest of the public sector queuing up for similar pay increases.
You think they won't? You think NHS staff and teachers are going to look at this and say, well the railway staff didn't get anywhere so may as well accept the 3% on offer? LOL.
Perhaps they will go on strike, and their strike action might be more effective as it will cause more disruption. But at least the government can claim to being consistent.
Has anyone heard from General Dvornikov recently? Rumour is that he has been relieved of his duties due to excessive drinking and lack of support amongst the troops.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
What rubbish. If our own income wasn't being taken from us to prop up the selfish generation, we wouldn't need an inheritance when we are already old ourselves to get an inheritance.
I would rather work for a living and keep my own income than rely upon my parents dying and getting an inheritance, what about you?
HYUFD's statement (and he can back it up with whatever spurious evidence takes his fancy) is an absolute crock anyway.
Unless lifetime gifts have been given over time, care home costs run inheritance values down in next to no time.
I wish I lived in HYUFD's alternative reality.
As I already said 3/4 of over 65s will never need social care or will die before they do
Is compulsory euthanasia at 65 a manifesto commitment for GE2024?
That might have electoral implications for your party.
P.S. As someone currently transferring five and a half grand of my own savings every month to pay my mother-in-law's care home costs as we desperately try to complete the sale of her property I can confirm you don't have a Scooby-Doo as to how late life care works and costs!
Has anyone heard from General Dvornikov recently? Rumour is that he has been relieved of his duties due to excessive drinking and lack of support amongst the troops.
It’s not a good time to be a Russian General. If I had a life expectancy measured in weeks, I’d have an excessive drinking problem too.
So is it CPI that is 9.1%? And that excludes housing cost inflation?
Christ.
It is going higher still so a lot of pain ahead
Pain felt by younger working people and not the asset classes or the retired.
Many pensioners receive the state pension of just £9,600 pa and are really hurting
True, but the state pensioners now are the ones who voted for Thatcher from '79 onwards. The current stingy state pension follows on from policies of her governments.
I have some sympathy, but fairly limited amounts.
Blair/Labour were in office for 13 years from 1997-2010
This period of Conservative government will comfortably exceed that but it doesn't feel it, still less the Thatcher-Major period of 18 years.
At no time has it felt secure and transformatory.
It has certainly been the latter, and not in a good way.
I'm not so sure it has. Blair and Thatcher both permanently shifted the dial.
It's not clear this one has.
Nothing is permanent in a democracy. But leaving the EU will be harder to reverse than anything Thatcher or Blair did. These Tory years have been completely transformatory, they will long be remembered.
As far as I can tell the Tory government has achieved a moderate change in our political relationship and trading arrangements with our near neighbour (at great political cost) whilst seeing its economic policy shift notably to the Left and the ongoing triumph of the Left in social and cultural matters over the last 12 years.
If I were you I wouldn't be too downhearted.
Well that is the problem of the Tories losing a lot of their old Remain vote and acquiring new voters who favour porkbarrelling and economic protectionism. It is a fundamental clash with the old pro-business free trade Tories.
They sold out business and financial rigour for a mess of pooterish populism. British Peronism in effect.
In the 19th century and early 20th century the Tories were often protectionist, it was the Whigs and Liberals who were most pro free trade.
It was just keeping Labour out after universal suffrage that in the 20th century shifted many pro free trade middle class Liberal businessmen to become Tories.
Remember too it was the Liberals who introduced the workhouse, many old school Tories opposed it
I don't think you're right there.
I don't think there was a Liberal party when the workhouse was introduced or indeed a Tory one!
It was Earl Grey's Whig government which introduced the workhouse and the Whigs of course became the Liberals
It may have been the Liberals who introduced the workhouse, but it will be the Tories who bring it back.
Workhouses are like Mr HYUFD's hero W. S. Churchill. They started as LIberal, they'll end as Tory.
A few days ago I commented that the problem with the strike was that it didn't have a clearly articulated purpose.
Well, the Mick Lynch media blitz has fixed that... And more. The big shift in support has come from a lot of people recognizing the argument and saying "hey, that applies to me too."
Yes, Lynch is really earning his salary - I can't remember a union leader who puts the case as clearly, calmly and with a dash of dry wit. (I don't care what he thinks about the Labour Party, Ukraine, or anything else.)
In fairness he's sitting there with 7 or 8 hearts in his hand and the government has just declared them trumps, having completely misread the situation.
In what regard? I get that people might be thinking "yeah, they deserve a higher pay rise, and so do I", but there was a notable lack of "chaos" yesterday. The government can afford to sit back and let them go on strike again and again and again.
In regard to public opinion. The majority are not annoyed at the inconvenience and support the strikes. That is not what the government wanted. The government has come across as completely unreasonable by not allowing the management to make an offer until the day after the first strike. Claims that the Union were not negotiating have been effectively demolished by Lynch whose blunt style is well suited to such disingenuousness.
The number annoyed may increase as the number of strike days increase but other unions settling for circa 7% in the same industry show where this needs to go.
But isn't it to the government's advantage that people aren't annoyed? The media are obsessed with the strikes at the moment. They might not be so interested when they are on strike for the 10th time later this year.
No, the government chose this fight for the political advantage they thought it would give them (Labour's strikes etc). It has nothing to do with economics or the running of the railway business. If it was the focus would be on different points and a genuine attempt to resolve it would have been made before the strikes began. People being sympathetic and not cross was not the desired outcome.
Really? Surely the most important thing is that government doesn't give in on pay because they'll have the rest of the public sector queuing up for similar pay increases.
You think they won't? You think NHS staff and teachers are going to look at this and say, well the railway staff didn't get anywhere so may as well accept the 3% on offer? LOL.
Perhaps they will go on strike, and their strike action might be more effective as it will cause more disruption. But at least the government can claim to being consistent.
The news agenda is back onto a straight traditional Tory/Labour dividing line - unions and striking. It's been a long long time since that happened - parties were all about Boris, Brexit crossed many party lines. This is the first time in ages we're back to straight right-left ground and that's good for the government.
Tomorrow my devil is due to be admitted to the Scottish bar. I have the honour of presenting him to the Faculty. As per tradition we will go out for a rather nice lunch afterwards. Which will not involve drink on my part because of the rail strikes. Later in the day I am invited to a Dean's reception as are all the other devil masters. Ditto.
Devilling is a bit weird, and not just the name. My devil has not been paid for the work he has done for me over the year but I have paid for his food, drink and accomodation when required. I have also given him a lot of my time and given him vivid demonstrations of how not to do various things. He has also had training from the Faculty which is generally acknowledged to be some of the best advocacy training in the world for free.
It seems a legacy of times past where professionals often used to have to pay for their apprenticeships. There are obviously concerns that it may be a barrier to those from poorer backgrounds. But it has its charms. It should be a good day.
A few days ago I commented that the problem with the strike was that it didn't have a clearly articulated purpose.
Well, the Mick Lynch media blitz has fixed that... And more. The big shift in support has come from a lot of people recognizing the argument and saying "hey, that applies to me too."
Yes, Lynch is really earning his salary - I can't remember a union leader who puts the case as clearly, calmly and with a dash of dry wit. (I don't care what he thinks about the Labour Party, Ukraine, or anything else.)
In fairness he's sitting there with 7 or 8 hearts in his hand and the government has just declared them trumps, having completely misread the situation.
In what regard? I get that people might be thinking "yeah, they deserve a higher pay rise, and so do I", but there was a notable lack of "chaos" yesterday. The government can afford to sit back and let them go on strike again and again and again.
In regard to public opinion. The majority are not annoyed at the inconvenience and support the strikes. That is not what the government wanted. The government has come across as completely unreasonable by not allowing the management to make an offer until the day after the first strike. Claims that the Union were not negotiating have been effectively demolished by Lynch whose blunt style is well suited to such disingenuousness.
The number annoyed may increase as the number of strike days increase but other unions settling for circa 7% in the same industry show where this needs to go.
But isn't it to the government's advantage that people aren't annoyed? The media are obsessed with the strikes at the moment. They might not be so interested when they are on strike for the 10th time later this year.
No, the government chose this fight for the political advantage they thought it would give them (Labour's strikes etc). It has nothing to do with economics or the running of the railway business. If it was the focus would be on different points and a genuine attempt to resolve it would have been made before the strikes began. People being sympathetic and not cross was not the desired outcome.
Really? Surely the most important thing is that government doesn't give in on pay because they'll have the rest of the public sector queuing up for similar pay increases.
Queueing up for a real terms pay cut. How very dare they.
Whereas the wasters in the city don't need to bother queueing up, as the wheelbarrows full of cash are couriered directly to their front doors.
But somehow that does not result in an inflationary spiral.
So is it CPI that is 9.1%? And that excludes housing cost inflation?
Christ.
It is going higher still so a lot of pain ahead
Pain felt by younger working people and not the asset classes or the retired.
Many pensioners receive the state pension of just £9,600 pa and are really hurting
True, but the state pensioners now are the ones who voted for Thatcher from '79 onwards. The current stingy state pension follows on from policies of her governments.
I have some sympathy, but fairly limited amounts.
Blair/Labour were in office for 13 years from 1997-2010
This period of Conservative government will comfortably exceed that but it doesn't feel it, still less the Thatcher-Major period of 18 years.
At no time has it felt secure and transformatory.
It has certainly been the latter, and not in a good way.
I'm not so sure it has. Blair and Thatcher both permanently shifted the dial.
It's not clear this one has.
Nothing is permanent in a democracy. But leaving the EU will be harder to reverse than anything Thatcher or Blair did. These Tory years have been completely transformatory, they will long be remembered.
As far as I can tell the Tory government has achieved a moderate change in our political relationship and trading arrangements with our near neighbour (at great political cost) whilst seeing its economic policy shift notably to the Left and the ongoing triumph of the Left in social and cultural matters over the last 12 years.
If I were you I wouldn't be too downhearted.
Well that is the problem of the Tories losing a lot of their old Remain vote and acquiring new voters who favour porkbarrelling and economic protectionism. It is a fundamental clash with the old pro-business free trade Tories.
They sold out business and financial rigour for a mess of pooterish populism. British Peronism in effect.
In the 19th century and early 20th century the Tories were often protectionist, it was the Whigs and Liberals who were most pro free trade.
It was just keeping Labour out after universal suffrage that in the 20th century shifted many pro free trade middle class Liberal businessmen to become Tories.
Remember too it was the Liberals who introduced the workhouse, many old school Tories opposed it
I don't think you're right there.
I don't think there was a Liberal party when the workhouse was introduced or indeed a Tory one!
It was Earl Grey's Whig government which introduced the workhouse and the Whigs of course became the Liberals
It may have been the Liberals who introduced the workhouse, but it will be the Tories who bring it back.
Workhouses are like Mr HYUFD's hero W. S. Churchill. They started as LIberal, they'll end as Tory.
Churchill started as Tory before switching to Liberals where he invented national insurance and tea breaks before going back (re-ratting) to the blue team.
Well, my rail commute this morning was a massive mission despite it being a 'no-strike' day. Trains were cancelled because of mysterious 'train faults'. Apparently, because of yesterday's disruption, the signalmen couldn't start work until late. And there were one-an-hour services where they'd normally run three times an hour. In short, a journey that should take me one hour took three. Had I known I wouldn't have bothered. They should have just closed everything all week - at least we'd have known where we stood.
Interesting - in their own round of driver strikes the Scots did a reduced but inherently more deliverable timetable so everyone knew where they were, and would be (so to speak).
So is it CPI that is 9.1%? And that excludes housing cost inflation?
Christ.
It is going higher still so a lot of pain ahead
Pain felt by younger working people and not the asset classes or the retired.
Many pensioners receive the state pension of just £9,600 pa and are really hurting
True, but the state pensioners now are the ones who voted for Thatcher from '79 onwards. The current stingy state pension follows on from policies of her governments.
I have some sympathy, but fairly limited amounts.
Blair/Labour were in office for 13 years from 1997-2010
This period of Conservative government will comfortably exceed that but it doesn't feel it, still less the Thatcher-Major period of 18 years.
At no time has it felt secure and transformatory.
It has certainly been the latter, and not in a good way.
I'm not so sure it has. Blair and Thatcher both permanently shifted the dial.
It's not clear this one has.
Nothing is permanent in a democracy. But leaving the EU will be harder to reverse than anything Thatcher or Blair did. These Tory years have been completely transformatory, they will long be remembered.
As far as I can tell the Tory government has achieved a moderate change in our political relationship and trading arrangements with our near neighbour (at great political cost) whilst seeing its economic policy shift notably to the Left and the ongoing triumph of the Left in social and cultural matters over the last 12 years.
If I were you I wouldn't be too downhearted.
Well that is the problem of the Tories losing a lot of their old Remain vote and acquiring new voters who favour porkbarrelling and economic protectionism. It is a fundamental clash with the old pro-business free trade Tories.
They sold out business and financial rigour for a mess of pooterish populism. British Peronism in effect.
In the 19th century and early 20th century the Tories were often protectionist, it was the Whigs and Liberals who were most pro free trade.
It was just keeping Labour out after universal suffrage that in the 20th century shifted many pro free trade middle class Liberal businessmen to become Tories.
Remember too it was the Liberals who introduced the workhouse, many old school Tories opposed it
I don't think you're right there.
I don't think there was a Liberal party when the workhouse was introduced or indeed a Tory one!
It was Earl Grey's Whig government which introduced the workhouse and the Whigs of course became the Liberals
It may have been the Liberals who introduced the workhouse, but it will be the Tories who bring it back.
Workhouses are like Mr HYUFD's hero W. S. Churchill. They started as LIberal, they'll end as Tory.
TBF Churchill started out as a Tory and then became a Liberal! Then he swapped back to being a Tory again!
A few days ago I commented that the problem with the strike was that it didn't have a clearly articulated purpose.
Well, the Mick Lynch media blitz has fixed that... And more. The big shift in support has come from a lot of people recognizing the argument and saying "hey, that applies to me too."
Yes, Lynch is really earning his salary - I can't remember a union leader who puts the case as clearly, calmly and with a dash of dry wit. (I don't care what he thinks about the Labour Party, Ukraine, or anything else.)
In fairness he's sitting there with 7 or 8 hearts in his hand and the government has just declared them trumps, having completely misread the situation.
In what regard? I get that people might be thinking "yeah, they deserve a higher pay rise, and so do I", but there was a notable lack of "chaos" yesterday. The government can afford to sit back and let them go on strike again and again and again.
In regard to public opinion. The majority are not annoyed at the inconvenience and support the strikes. That is not what the government wanted. The government has come across as completely unreasonable by not allowing the management to make an offer until the day after the first strike. Claims that the Union were not negotiating have been effectively demolished by Lynch whose blunt style is well suited to such disingenuousness.
The number annoyed may increase as the number of strike days increase but other unions settling for circa 7% in the same industry show where this needs to go.
But isn't it to the government's advantage that people aren't annoyed? The media are obsessed with the strikes at the moment. They might not be so interested when they are on strike for the 10th time later this year.
No, the government chose this fight for the political advantage they thought it would give them (Labour's strikes etc). It has nothing to do with economics or the running of the railway business. If it was the focus would be on different points and a genuine attempt to resolve it would have been made before the strikes began. People being sympathetic and not cross was not the desired outcome.
Really? Surely the most important thing is that government doesn't give in on pay because they'll have the rest of the public sector queuing up for similar pay increases.
You think they won't? You think NHS staff and teachers are going to look at this and say, well the railway staff didn't get anywhere so may as well accept the 3% on offer? LOL.
Perhaps they will go on strike, and their strike action might be more effective as it will cause more disruption. But at least the government can claim to being consistent.
The news agenda is back onto a straight traditional Tory/Labour dividing line - unions and striking. It's been a long long time since that happened - parties were all about Boris, Brexit crossed many party lines. This is the first time in ages we're back to straight right-left ground and that's good for the government.
I'm not sure it is. A government not in control tends to lose.
Plus we are half a century nearly from the winter of discontent etc. As a working age right winger I have to say I don't see how it's justifiable for the government to be raising our taxes to give 10% pension increases, plus repeated "cost of living" gifts to pensioners too (why are they needed given we have a triple lock already) but people who work for a living should be fucked over.
If I as a right winger think that, I'm curious where the government plans to get its support from?
Well, my rail commute this morning was a massive mission despite it being a 'no-strike' day. Trains were cancelled because of mysterious 'train faults'. Apparently, because of yesterday's disruption, the signalmen couldn't start work until late. And there were one-an-hour services where they'd normally run three times an hour. In short, a journey that should take me one hour took three. Had I known I wouldn't have bothered. They should have just closed everything all week - at least we'd have known where we stood.
They effectively have. One day gaps between strikes mean that stock is in the wrong locations at the start of the day's service. As are crews when it is a long-distance stay away turn. So there is a limited number of services that can be run in the gap between strikes.
Here's the thing about your modern strikes - due to Labour laws over the years they are now the results of fairly robust democratic votes. Especially so as questionable ones are regularly challenged in the courts.
You may think the leaders have duped the voters, you may think the workers are wrong, but nobody who said we should hard Brexit on a 52:48 vote would be in any position to bleat about even an all- out strike on the basis of the 16 or so individual strike majorities that underpin this dispute.
We had endless debates on the nature of democracy and the interplay between varying different, often contradictory, democratic decisions on the road to Brexit, but this democratic decision is clear in permitting the action the rail workers are taking, and that demands a certain level of respect for democracy.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
So your want us to die rather than have to have social care paid out of your inheritance
You really are unpleasant and hopefully a labour government may relieve you of some of your entitlements
To be fair, Mr G neither you nor I. or our wives, appear to need social care at the moment although I regret to say I am beginning to make demands on social services. And we all, I think, have passed four score years!
Indeed and we are fortunate but in my son in laws parents case they were both 84 when they suddenly needed care and to date have paid over £200,000, though with his mothers death this is now about £55,000 pa for as long as his father survives
Has the care cap come in yet ? (Yes I know it's not a cap)
No and we are in Wales
On 7 September 2021 the Prime Minister announced that from October 2023, the government will introduce a new £86,000 cap on the amount anyone in England will need to spend on their personal care over their lifetime.
Yes I know hotel and food elements aren't included (But you need to eat and have a roof over your head when not in care still)... but top credit for the government for introducing this as it should be able to create an insurance market for the 86k. I think it's a shame people in Wales and Scotland won't benefit for ideological reasons (Being seen to reward 'rich' pensioners).
So is it CPI that is 9.1%? And that excludes housing cost inflation?
Christ.
It is going higher still so a lot of pain ahead
Pain felt by younger working people and not the asset classes or the retired.
Many pensioners receive the state pension of just £9,600 pa and are really hurting
True, but the state pensioners now are the ones who voted for Thatcher from '79 onwards. The current stingy state pension follows on from policies of her governments.
I have some sympathy, but fairly limited amounts.
Blair/Labour were in office for 13 years from 1997-2010
This period of Conservative government will comfortably exceed that but it doesn't feel it, still less the Thatcher-Major period of 18 years.
At no time has it felt secure and transformatory.
It has certainly been the latter, and not in a good way.
I'm not so sure it has. Blair and Thatcher both permanently shifted the dial.
It's not clear this one has.
Nothing is permanent in a democracy. But leaving the EU will be harder to reverse than anything Thatcher or Blair did. These Tory years have been completely transformatory, they will long be remembered.
As far as I can tell the Tory government has achieved a moderate change in our political relationship and trading arrangements with our near neighbour (at great political cost) whilst seeing its economic policy shift notably to the Left and the ongoing triumph of the Left in social and cultural matters over the last 12 years.
If I were you I wouldn't be too downhearted.
Well that is the problem of the Tories losing a lot of their old Remain vote and acquiring new voters who favour porkbarrelling and economic protectionism. It is a fundamental clash with the old pro-business free trade Tories.
They sold out business and financial rigour for a mess of pooterish populism. British Peronism in effect.
In the 19th century and early 20th century the Tories were often protectionist, it was the Whigs and Liberals who were most pro free trade.
It was just keeping Labour out after universal suffrage that in the 20th century shifted many pro free trade middle class Liberal businessmen to become Tories.
Remember too it was the Liberals who introduced the workhouse, many old school Tories opposed it
I don't think you're right there.
I don't think there was a Liberal party when the workhouse was introduced or indeed a Tory one!
It was Earl Grey's Whig government which introduced the workhouse and the Whigs of course became the Liberals
It may have been the Liberals who introduced the workhouse, but it will be the Tories who bring it back.
Workhouses are like Mr HYUFD's hero W. S. Churchill. They started as LIberal, they'll end as Tory.
Churchill started as Tory before switching to Liberals where he invented national insurance and tea breaks before going back (re-ratting) to the blue team.
Beg your pardon, hard to keep up. But then the workhouses began bvefore 1834 as you pointed out!
I'm surprised there's not more mention of the Speenhamland System which has a great deal of affinity with the modern situation, come to think of it. Though one of us was pointing out the issue of supplementary benefits-in-work earlier this morning, ISTR.
A few days ago I commented that the problem with the strike was that it didn't have a clearly articulated purpose.
Well, the Mick Lynch media blitz has fixed that... And more. The big shift in support has come from a lot of people recognizing the argument and saying "hey, that applies to me too."
Yes, Lynch is really earning his salary - I can't remember a union leader who puts the case as clearly, calmly and with a dash of dry wit. (I don't care what he thinks about the Labour Party, Ukraine, or anything else.)
In fairness he's sitting there with 7 or 8 hearts in his hand and the government has just declared them trumps, having completely misread the situation.
In what regard? I get that people might be thinking "yeah, they deserve a higher pay rise, and so do I", but there was a notable lack of "chaos" yesterday. The government can afford to sit back and let them go on strike again and again and again.
In regard to public opinion. The majority are not annoyed at the inconvenience and support the strikes. That is not what the government wanted. The government has come across as completely unreasonable by not allowing the management to make an offer until the day after the first strike. Claims that the Union were not negotiating have been effectively demolished by Lynch whose blunt style is well suited to such disingenuousness.
The number annoyed may increase as the number of strike days increase but other unions settling for circa 7% in the same industry show where this needs to go.
But isn't it to the government's advantage that people aren't annoyed? The media are obsessed with the strikes at the moment. They might not be so interested when they are on strike for the 10th time later this year.
No, the government chose this fight for the political advantage they thought it would give them (Labour's strikes etc). It has nothing to do with economics or the running of the railway business. If it was the focus would be on different points and a genuine attempt to resolve it would have been made before the strikes began. People being sympathetic and not cross was not the desired outcome.
Really? Surely the most important thing is that government doesn't give in on pay because they'll have the rest of the public sector queuing up for similar pay increases.
You think they won't? You think NHS staff and teachers are going to look at this and say, well the railway staff didn't get anywhere so may as well accept the 3% on offer? LOL.
Perhaps they will go on strike, and their strike action might be more effective as it will cause more disruption. But at least the government can claim to being consistent.
The news agenda is back onto a straight traditional Tory/Labour dividing line - unions and striking. It's been a long long time since that happened - parties were all about Boris, Brexit crossed many party lines. This is the first time in ages we're back to straight right-left ground and that's good for the government.
How is it good for the government if most people side with the unions? Did you read the header?
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
What rubbish. If our own income wasn't being taken from us to prop up the selfish generation, we wouldn't need an inheritance when we are already old ourselves to get an inheritance.
I would rather work for a living and keep my own income than rely upon my parents dying and getting an inheritance, what about you?
HYUFD's statement (and he can back it up with whatever spurious evidence takes his fancy) is an absolute crock anyway.
Unless lifetime gifts have been given over time, care home costs run inheritance values down in next to no time.
I wish I lived in HYUFD's alternative reality.
As I already said 3/4 of over 65s will never need social care or will die before they do
Is compulsory euthanasia at 65 a manifesto commitment for GE2024?
That might have electoral implications for your party.
P.S. As someone currently transferring five and a half grand of my own savings every month to pay my mother-in-law's care home costs as we desperately try to complete the sale of her property I can confirm you don't have a Scooby-Doo as to how late life care works and costs!
No as 75% of over 65s will still not need social care and certainly not residential social care
As medical science improves life expectancy, compulsory euthanasia adds a little certainty to your warped political dynamic, go on-you know it makes sense!
Well, my rail commute this morning was a massive mission despite it being a 'no-strike' day. Trains were cancelled because of mysterious 'train faults'. Apparently, because of yesterday's disruption, the signalmen couldn't start work until late. And there were one-an-hour services where they'd normally run three times an hour. In short, a journey that should take me one hour took three. Had I known I wouldn't have bothered. They should have just closed everything all week - at least we'd have known where we stood.
Yes, this is often the case because the day after a strike, all the trains (and apparently the signal staff) are in the wrong place. This is why Grant Shapps was talking about outlawing striking every other day, although it is not clear how he'd enforce it without a lockout or what would be the political benefit of government-mandated week-long strikes.
A few days ago I commented that the problem with the strike was that it didn't have a clearly articulated purpose.
Well, the Mick Lynch media blitz has fixed that... And more. The big shift in support has come from a lot of people recognizing the argument and saying "hey, that applies to me too."
Yes, Lynch is really earning his salary - I can't remember a union leader who puts the case as clearly, calmly and with a dash of dry wit. (I don't care what he thinks about the Labour Party, Ukraine, or anything else.)
In fairness he's sitting there with 7 or 8 hearts in his hand and the government has just declared them trumps, having completely misread the situation.
In what regard? I get that people might be thinking "yeah, they deserve a higher pay rise, and so do I", but there was a notable lack of "chaos" yesterday. The government can afford to sit back and let them go on strike again and again and again.
In regard to public opinion. The majority are not annoyed at the inconvenience and support the strikes. That is not what the government wanted. The government has come across as completely unreasonable by not allowing the management to make an offer until the day after the first strike. Claims that the Union were not negotiating have been effectively demolished by Lynch whose blunt style is well suited to such disingenuousness.
The number annoyed may increase as the number of strike days increase but other unions settling for circa 7% in the same industry show where this needs to go.
But isn't it to the government's advantage that people aren't annoyed? The media are obsessed with the strikes at the moment. They might not be so interested when they are on strike for the 10th time later this year.
No, the government chose this fight for the political advantage they thought it would give them (Labour's strikes etc). It has nothing to do with economics or the running of the railway business. If it was the focus would be on different points and a genuine attempt to resolve it would have been made before the strikes began. People being sympathetic and not cross was not the desired outcome.
Really? Surely the most important thing is that government doesn't give in on pay because they'll have the rest of the public sector queuing up for similar pay increases.
You think they won't? You think NHS staff and teachers are going to look at this and say, well the railway staff didn't get anywhere so may as well accept the 3% on offer? LOL.
Perhaps they will go on strike, and their strike action might be more effective as it will cause more disruption. But at least the government can claim to being consistent.
The news agenda is back onto a straight traditional Tory/Labour dividing line - unions and striking. It's been a long long time since that happened - parties were all about Boris, Brexit crossed many party lines. This is the first time in ages we're back to straight right-left ground and that's good for the government.
How is it good for the government if most people side with the unions? Did you read the header?
Yes I have. somewhat justified is a very neutral answer. Plenty of things are "somewhat justified".
There'll be enough "oppose" within the somewhat justified category to tip the balance against the RMT.
Off topic - I am sorry to let regular readers know that the fairly frequent poster rpjs passed away last Thursday after a battle with cancer.
Apart from being the only person on this board that I knew in real life, he was also my oldest friend and his gentle style of reasoning reflected that he was a thoroughly good person in real life and leaves a hole in my life even though we have been separated by the Atlantic for the past decade. I will also miss being able to recognise his posts instantly from the way they were written.
Off topic - I am sorry to let regular readers know that the fairly frequent poster rpjs passed away last Thursday after a battle with cancer.
Apart from being the only person on this board that I knew in real life, he was also my oldest friend and his gentle style of reasoning reflected that he was a thoroughly good person in real life and leaves a hole in my life even though we have been separated by the Atlantic for the past decade. I will also miss being able to recognise his posts instantly from the way they were written.
Sorry to hear that. May he RIP. Look after yourself.
Off topic - I am sorry to let regular readers know that the fairly frequent poster rpjs passed away last Thursday after a battle with cancer.
Apart from being the only person on this board that I knew in real life, he was also my oldest friend and his gentle style of reasoning reflected that he was a thoroughly good person in real life and leaves a hole in my life even though we have been separated by the Atlantic for the past decade. I will also miss being able to recognise his posts instantly from the way they were written.
Off topic - I am sorry to let regular readers know that the fairly frequent poster rpjs passed away last Thursday after a battle with cancer.
Apart from being the only person on this board that I knew in real life, he was also my oldest friend and his gentle style of reasoning reflected that he was a thoroughly good person in real life and leaves a hole in my life even though we have been separated by the Atlantic for the past decade. I will also miss being able to recognise his posts instantly from the way they were written.
Very sorry to hear that. RIP rpjs and thoughts for yourself, his family and friends.
Offtopic, but thanks to whoever it was who posted the “Bored Ape Nazi Club” video on here the other day.
Very enlightening, and what was from the evidence quite clearly an epic troll on a bunch of gullible rich people, who now “own” something totally worthless! (Not that most of us thought them to be worth anything in the first place).
NFT value is seemingly almost entirely dependent on the seller. If Joe Public buys a monkey NFT they become worthless instantly - but celebs can sell them for a fair chunk of cash. That's quite unlike a house, a Rubens or heck even a bitcoin.
Off topic - I am sorry to let regular readers know that the fairly frequent poster rpjs passed away last Thursday after a battle with cancer.
Apart from being the only person on this board that I knew in real life, he was also my oldest friend and his gentle style of reasoning reflected that he was a thoroughly good person in real life and leaves a hole in my life even though we have been separated by the Atlantic for the past decade. I will also miss being able to recognise his posts instantly from the way they were written.
That is sad news. Condolences to you and to his family and friends.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Off topic - I am sorry to let regular readers know that the fairly frequent poster rpjs passed away last Thursday after a battle with cancer.
Apart from being the only person on this board that I knew in real life, he was also my oldest friend and his gentle style of reasoning reflected that he was a thoroughly good person in real life and leaves a hole in my life even though we have been separated by the Atlantic for the past decade. I will also miss being able to recognise his posts instantly from the way they were written.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Off topic - I am sorry to let regular readers know that the fairly frequent poster rpjs passed away last Thursday after a battle with cancer.
Apart from being the only person on this board that I knew in real life, he was also my oldest friend and his gentle style of reasoning reflected that he was a thoroughly good person in real life and leaves a hole in my life even though we have been separated by the Atlantic for the past decade. I will also miss being able to recognise his posts instantly from the way they were written.
RIP rpjs. If I'm not mistaken he was actively posting until quite recently was he not?
Off topic - I am sorry to let regular readers know that the fairly frequent poster rpjs passed away last Thursday after a battle with cancer.
Apart from being the only person on this board that I knew in real life, he was also my oldest friend and his gentle style of reasoning reflected that he was a thoroughly good person in real life and leaves a hole in my life even though we have been separated by the Atlantic for the past decade. I will also miss being able to recognise his posts instantly from the way they were written.
Off topic - I am sorry to let regular readers know that the fairly frequent poster rpjs passed away last Thursday after a battle with cancer.
Apart from being the only person on this board that I knew in real life, he was also my oldest friend and his gentle style of reasoning reflected that he was a thoroughly good person in real life and leaves a hole in my life even though we have been separated by the Atlantic for the past decade. I will also miss being able to recognise his posts instantly from the way they were written.
Off to the great posting in the sky with Mark Senior & Plato.
Here's the thing about your modern strikes - due to Labour laws over the years they are now the results of fairly robust democratic votes. Especially so as questionable ones are regularly challenged in the courts.
You may think the leaders have duped the voters, you may think the workers are wrong, but nobody who said we should hard Brexit on a 52:48 vote would be in any position to bleat about even an all- out strike on the basis of the 16 or so individual strike majorities that underpin this dispute.
We had endless debates on the nature of democracy and the interplay between varying different, often contradictory, democratic decisions on the road to Brexit, but this democratic decision is clear in permitting the action the rail workers are taking, and that demands a certain level of respect for democracy.
This is an important point - back in the "bad old days" of the 1970s a hardline clique in the union could easily manipulate things to force strikes even when there wasn't much underlying support for one. The various reforms have taken that away - any strike now has to have a strong case to get the very widespread support within the membership to go ahead. In my unionised days we had about 6 different ballots but only one led to a (narrow) vote for strike because it took a particularly bad offer to annoy people enough to vote for it.
So my view is that in most cases it takes particularly idiotic management to engineer a strike, and that's where I'd look first if I'm seeking to point a finger of blame at someone.
Off topic - I am sorry to let regular readers know that the fairly frequent poster rpjs passed away last Thursday after a battle with cancer.
Apart from being the only person on this board that I knew in real life, he was also my oldest friend and his gentle style of reasoning reflected that he was a thoroughly good person in real life and leaves a hole in my life even though we have been separated by the Atlantic for the past decade. I will also miss being able to recognise his posts instantly from the way they were written.
Off topic - I am sorry to let regular readers know that the fairly frequent poster rpjs passed away last Thursday after a battle with cancer.
Apart from being the only person on this board that I knew in real life, he was also my oldest friend and his gentle style of reasoning reflected that he was a thoroughly good person in real life and leaves a hole in my life even though we have been separated by the Atlantic for the past decade. I will also miss being able to recognise his posts instantly from the way they were written.
RIP rpjs. If I'm not mistaken he was actively posting until quite recently was he not?
Yes, I saw him in March and he was still responding to treatment quite well. in the last month or so he went downhill quickly.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out. The degree of utility is going to depend on the size of inheritance and your, your kids and grandkids circs.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
Well, my rail commute this morning was a massive mission despite it being a 'no-strike' day. Trains were cancelled because of mysterious 'train faults'. Apparently, because of yesterday's disruption, the signalmen couldn't start work until late. And there were one-an-hour services where they'd normally run three times an hour. In short, a journey that should take me one hour took three. Had I known I wouldn't have bothered. They should have just closed everything all week - at least we'd have known where we stood.
Interesting - in their own round of driver strikes the Scots did a reduced but inherently more deliverable timetable so everyone knew where they were, and would be (so to speak).
Last trains at night were a bit dodgy. Indeed I was specifically advised not to rely on it but to get the earlier one by the person who sold me my ticket.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't useful but 30s is - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
The inheritance would have to be very very large indeed (In the millions at least) in order for the grandkids to have a comfortable standard of living and not 'achieve an income on their own merits'.
"why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place" - most people's wealth is locked up in their house when they're alive. Equity release is in the round... expensive.
Well, my rail commute this morning was a massive mission despite it being a 'no-strike' day. Trains were cancelled because of mysterious 'train faults'. Apparently, because of yesterday's disruption, the signalmen couldn't start work until late. And there were one-an-hour services where they'd normally run three times an hour. In short, a journey that should take me one hour took three. Had I known I wouldn't have bothered. They should have just closed everything all week - at least we'd have known where we stood.
Yes, this is often the case because the day after a strike, all the trains (and apparently the signal staff) are in the wrong place. This is why Grant Shapps was talking about outlawing striking every other day, although it is not clear how he'd enforce it without a lockout or what would be the political benefit of government-mandated week-long strikes.
Off the top of my head, how about saying that when staff are balloted to take industrial action, that ballot must name a single, continuous bloc of dates the action will be over? After that strike, then any further strike would require a new ballot.
That would prevent industrial action from being in alternate dates, since you couldn't have a new ballot done in the day inbetween. It would still allow industrial action to be taken, and allow a fresh mandate as to whether to continue it or not after the first bloc of dates has happened.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
They can do both but in London and much of the Home counties inheritances are key to getting deposits and on the property ladder for all but the highest earners
Off topic - I am sorry to let regular readers know that the fairly frequent poster rpjs passed away last Thursday after a battle with cancer.
Apart from being the only person on this board that I knew in real life, he was also my oldest friend and his gentle style of reasoning reflected that he was a thoroughly good person in real life and leaves a hole in my life even though we have been separated by the Atlantic for the past decade. I will also miss being able to recognise his posts instantly from the way they were written.
Very sorry to hear this. Condolences.
Always very much enjoyed his posts. Balanced and thoughtful.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't useful but 30s is - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
The inheritance would have to be very very large indeed (In the millions at least) in order for the grandkids to have a comfortable standard of living and not 'achieve an income on their own merits'.
"why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place" - most people's wealth is locked up in their house when they're alive. Equity release is in the round... expensive.
Which goes back to the fact that inheritances are pretty damned useless to rely upon. People should be able to, and need to, work to support themselves. An inheritance might be nice to have, but an income is necessary to have. So any system that relies upon inheritances is pretty damned useless.
Renting because you're so heavily taxed you can't afford a deposit prior to a loved one dying is in the round... expensive too.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
The average property in the South East is now over £400k and in London over £600k, there is plenty to inherit
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
They can do both but in London and much of the Home counties inheritances are key to getting deposits and on the property ladder for all but the highest earners
So fix that. That isn't good enough.
Inheritances should never be required for anyone who works for a living to get a deposit.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out. The degree of utility is going to depend on the size of inheritance and your, your kids and grandkids circs.
I expect that I will inherit in my 60's, though split with my sibs. I plan to pass the money straight through to my boys. I would rather they had it.
So is it CPI that is 9.1%? And that excludes housing cost inflation?
Christ.
It is going higher still so a lot of pain ahead
Pain felt by younger working people and not the asset classes or the retired.
Many pensioners receive the state pension of just £9,600 pa and are really hurting
True, but the state pensioners now are the ones who voted for Thatcher from '79 onwards. The current stingy state pension follows on from policies of her governments.
I have some sympathy, but fairly limited amounts.
They also voted for Brexit. And yet ... "The Resolution Foundation thinktank and academics from the London School of Economics said the average worker in Britain was now on course to suffer more than £470 in lost pay each year by 2030 after rising living costs are taken into account, compared with a remain vote in 2016." Of course, stuff the workers - the pensioners are OK.
Yet inflation was low after Brexit, it is only the war in Ukraine and the limited energy supplies and excess demand post Covid that have really seen inflation rise.
It was of course not just pensioners who voted for Brexit either, all voters over 47 did therefore including many still of working age. Plus pensioners who were graduates voted Remain while working under 35 non graduates voted Leave
Inflation rose to 3.4% at the end of 2017 because of the GBP devaluation that followed the Brexit vote, which drove up inflation for food and other imported goods. The introduction of new costs and trade restrictions under our new post Brexit trade regime has further pushed up core goods inflation to levels well above those on the Continent (7.2% in the UK versus 4.2% in the Euro Area). And the government wants workers to just suck this up while their pensioner client voters get protected? No fucking way.
EU inflation is now just 0.9% less than the UK average. It is the Russia and Ukraine war and failure to expand energy supplies to meet demand post lockdown with the focus on net zero that has had the biggest impact on UK inflation not Brexit
I really wouldn't be envious of EU economic performance.
Our employment market is red hot and we are first in Europe for new tech/digital start-ups, first or second for FDI (depending on the measure) and our services industry is extremely strong.
The challenges we have here are the usual ones of aging demographics and left behind areas.
If you think things are functioning well in the UK you really should go out more. You can't get a doctor's aopointment.... you wait up to 13 hours for A&E ....you can't get a policeman for love nor money. The hospitality industry has all but collapsed .....You have waits of three or four hours at airports-if your plane takes off at all-the trains aren't running. The traffic jams are appalling....
What is this "Red Hot employment" market doing? It seems the only person who hasn't noticed apart from you works in Dubai!
(Sandpit. Why don't you come back to this Nirvana?)
I drove to the airport on Sunday, and flew and I am now in Bulgaria with my extended family. None of those things were true. I work with western EU countries regularly as part of my job, and I am aware of their chronic economic problems- particularly in Italy and Spain. And it's well documented the UK has over a million vacancies it currently is struggling to fill and a huge war for talent driving up salaries. I've also just had my doctor's surgery contact me two days after my 40th birthday asking me to come in for a free health check up, as they offer everyone aged 40-74. I know my local bobby and my sister and brother in law both work in the police, and are happy.
Off topic - I am sorry to let regular readers know that the fairly frequent poster rpjs passed away last Thursday after a battle with cancer.
Apart from being the only person on this board that I knew in real life, he was also my oldest friend and his gentle style of reasoning reflected that he was a thoroughly good person in real life and leaves a hole in my life even though we have been separated by the Atlantic for the past decade. I will also miss being able to recognise his posts instantly from the way they were written.
Really really sorry to hear that. I am aware of various exchanges I have had with him.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
What rubbish. If our own income wasn't being taken from us to prop up the selfish generation, we wouldn't need an inheritance when we are already old ourselves to get an inheritance.
I would rather work for a living and keep my own income than rely upon my parents dying and getting an inheritance, what about you?
HYUFD's statement (and he can back it up with whatever spurious evidence takes his fancy) is an absolute crock anyway.
Unless lifetime gifts have been given over time, care home costs run inheritance values down in next to no time.
I wish I lived in HYUFD's alternative reality.
As I already said 3/4 of over 65s will never need social care or will die before they do
Is compulsory euthanasia at 65 a manifesto commitment for GE2024?
That might have electoral implications for your party.
P.S. As someone currently transferring five and a half grand of my own savings every month to pay my mother-in-law's care home costs as we desperately try to complete the sale of her property I can confirm you don't have a Scooby-Doo as to how late life care works and costs!
No as 75% of over 65s will still not need social care and certainly not residential social care
Rather than quoting utter b******* and Government propaganda at me, why don't you, as someone with serious political ambitions avail yourself of the facts. Ring around a few local care homes, find out the monthly costs, look at average pension incomes plus carers allowance, be astonished at the shortfall. Calculate how long it would take for the cost of an average property less the inheritance allowance would be eaten up on the basis of that shortfall, then campaign Frank Field-like to make late life social and residential care more affordable and of better quality. If you did all that, you would get my vote!
Better still as an elected official ring around and visit some. When, after his car accident the Princess of Wales Hospital decided to discharge my fully infirmed father home, I looked into local care homes, the one I settled on The Manor House in St. Hilary was excellent, it was like a country house hotel. Some of the others I visited were so grim, and still very expensive. One I visited was awash with the aroma of cabbage water and stale urine. Care of the elderly is a national disgrace, and you, and it would seem your party, are only interested in ensuring the stately home remains in the family.
Off topic - I am sorry to let regular readers know that the fairly frequent poster rpjs passed away last Thursday after a battle with cancer.
Apart from being the only person on this board that I knew in real life, he was also my oldest friend and his gentle style of reasoning reflected that he was a thoroughly good person in real life and leaves a hole in my life even though we have been separated by the Atlantic for the past decade. I will also miss being able to recognise his posts instantly from the way they were written.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
They can do both but in London and much of the Home counties inheritances are key to getting deposits and on the property ladder for all but the highest earners
So fix that. That isn't good enough.
Inheritances should never be required for anyone who works for a living to get a deposit.
Well tough, London is a global city and always will be expensive no matter how many new properties you build or tighter immigration rules you implement. That then spills over to the Home Counties commuter belt too as Londoners move out to buy.
So inheritances will remain key if you want to buy in London and much of the Home counties and are only on an average wage
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
They can do both but in London and much of the Home counties inheritances are key to getting deposits and on the property ladder for all but the highest earners
So fix that. That isn't good enough.
Inheritances should never be required for anyone who works for a living to get a deposit.
Well tough, London is a global city and always will be expensive no matter how many new properties you build or tighter immigration rules you implement. That they spills over time the Home Counties commuter belt too as Londoners move out to buy.
So inheritances will remain key if you want to buy in London and the Home counties and are only on an average wage
Then tough to anyone who "needs" an inheritance if they don't get it then either.
If people who aren't able to work can't get a deposit, I fail to see why an inheritance should be protected either.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
Interesting perspective with the possibility of personal bitterness/envy thrown in. I have received no inheritance due to a bit of a twist of fate, but it doesn't stop me wanting to pass on a large one (vast if possible) to my kids. I will use every legal means to ensure they get as much as possible. Assuming my wife and I live to a reasonable age, maybe mid 80s, that will put them in their late 40s, so could be a useful time to inherit.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out. The degree of utility is going to depend on the size of inheritance and your, your kids and grandkids circs.
I expect that I will inherit in my 60's, though split with my sibs. I plan to pass the money straight through to my boys. I would rather they had it.
Yep, there's the utility of your inheritance - the ability to help your own kids out more than you otherwise would.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out. The degree of utility is going to depend on the size of inheritance and your, your kids and grandkids circs.
I expect that I will inherit in my 60's, though split with my sibs. I plan to pass the money straight through to my boys. I would rather they had it.
If you do plan to do that - look at not having the money at all yourself but letting it go even more directly. Deeds of variation, and get the lawyer to do them for safety. Just in case you follow them within 7 years. (Not cheerful, I know, but ...).
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
What rubbish. If our own income wasn't being taken from us to prop up the selfish generation, we wouldn't need an inheritance when we are already old ourselves to get an inheritance.
I would rather work for a living and keep my own income than rely upon my parents dying and getting an inheritance, what about you?
HYUFD's statement (and he can back it up with whatever spurious evidence takes his fancy) is an absolute crock anyway.
Unless lifetime gifts have been given over time, care home costs run inheritance values down in next to no time.
I wish I lived in HYUFD's alternative reality.
As I already said 3/4 of over 65s will never need social care or will die before they do
Is compulsory euthanasia at 65 a manifesto commitment for GE2024?
That might have electoral implications for your party.
P.S. As someone currently transferring five and a half grand of my own savings every month to pay my mother-in-law's care home costs as we desperately try to complete the sale of her property I can confirm you don't have a Scooby-Doo as to how late life care works and costs!
No as 75% of over 65s will still not need social care and certainly not residential social care
Rather than quoting utter b******* and Government propaganda at me, why don't you, as someone with serious political ambitions avail yourself of the facts. Ring around a few local care homes, find out the monthly costs, look at average pension incomes plus carers allowance, be astonished at the shortfall. Calculate how long it would take for the cost of an average property less the inheritance allowance would be eaten up on the basis of that shortfall, then campaign Frank Field-like to make late life social and residential care more affordable and of better quality. If you did all that, you would get my vote!
Better still as an elected official ring around and visit some. When, after his car accident the Princess of Wales Hospital decided to discharge my fully infirmed father home, I looked into local care homes, the one I settled on The Manor House in St. Hilary was excellent, it was like a country house hotel. Some of the others I visited were so grim, and still very expensive. One I visited was awash with the aroma of cabbage water and stale urine. Care of the elderly is a national disgrace, and you, and it would seem your party, are only interested in ensuring the stately home remains in the family.
I assume then you will be voting Tory next time in gratitude for Boris capping residential and social care costs paid out of estates for those who do need care at £86,000
Well, my rail commute this morning was a massive mission despite it being a 'no-strike' day. Trains were cancelled because of mysterious 'train faults'. Apparently, because of yesterday's disruption, the signalmen couldn't start work until late. And there were one-an-hour services where they'd normally run three times an hour. In short, a journey that should take me one hour took three. Had I known I wouldn't have bothered. They should have just closed everything all week - at least we'd have known where we stood.
Interesting - in their own round of driver strikes the Scots did a reduced but inherently more deliverable timetable so everyone knew where they were, and would be (so to speak).
Last trains at night were a bit dodgy. Indeed I was specifically advised not to rely on it but to get the earlier one by the person who sold me my ticket.
Doesn't surprise me in the circs. 'more deliverable' is relative!
Comments
For 95%+ of Britons this is all that they ever need so this is somewhat overblown.
I remember some awfully old NHS buildings dating back to Victorian times that were barely heated.
Anyway, your description of Britain is not one I recognise. I had to call my GP on Monday, was seen the same day. My current GP is the best one I've ever had, I really respect them - they answer the phone, the receptionist is polite and friendly, and they always seem happy to help. Utterly alien from any GP service I'd had in the past, including when Blair was PM.
As for traffic - not seen much of that more than usual. Did a lot of driving last week as been on holiday, and chose to holiday domestically this year, and the only traffic issue I experienced was a detour due to the M6 being closed northbound due to an overturned lorry, other than that and scheduled roadworks reducing speeds down to 50mph where the roadworks are happening, the traffic was perfectly normal.
The hospitality industry seems to be running just fine too. Eaten out a few times last week as on holiday and taking parents/grandparents out for Father's Day too, the food was good, the service was good and the tables were fully booked. Whatever hospitality issues you may be experiencing, might be because you're rude to wait staff from the way you present yourself here.
As I explained at start of this thread, no, I don’t think so.
Energy prices may have started the fire, but they now walk off smirking, job done. Other things can now prolong the inflation spike. Like surrendering to union demands for higher pay.
It’s gone beyond the point economists can now say where when it will peak, how quickly drop to what level, there’s too many moving parts.
Although the precise type is unclear, it appears to be based on the UA PD-1 or PD-2 series of reconnaissance UAVs. The area is around 150km from the front line.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1539520241906159616
Translation of the commentary, anyone ?
I am only asking because in a similar situation where I said something that wasn't literally true as a shorthand for something that was, you insisted that I apologise for misleading people and I did. Whereas you seem unable to ever admit to making a mistake. If you are going to try to impose these kinds of standards on other people then the least you can do is follow them yourself.
You really are a colossal prat, Roger.
If your workers withholding their labour isn't inconvenient, then why are your workers employed and why should they get a pay rise?
The RMT should perhaps be a little bit concerned that their strike isn't inconveniencing many people, as much as the London-based media loves to bore everyone to death over it.
That might have electoral implications for your party.
P.S. As someone currently transferring five and a half grand of my own savings every month to pay my mother-in-law's care home costs as we desperately try to complete the sale of her property I can confirm you don't have a Scooby-Doo as to how late life care works and costs!
In 1975, the younger votes were more anti EEC than the older voters, probably due to their experiences of the war and the aftermath.
The 2016 one would have just as divisive whoever won. The democratic deficit had been built in well before.
And the maintenance crews example? The railway has been organised into companies and then zones and then sectors in zones since forever. "I can't do that / go there" is literally how previous governments have modernised practices. Its hardly something the RMT have invented and are holding onto.
The specific example - maintenance issue out of Kings Cross that a Euston crew can't resolve. There are likely to be very good reasons for that. Signalling and electric systems entirely different for starters - are LNW engineers actually trained on LNE equipment?
Same with the signal centre example. Can someone jump on a terminal and manage a route they are not familiar with? No. The article says competent and qualified. Great! But are they on that particular route? Its the same with drivers - they are competent on qualified on route A and vehicle type 1, but that doesn't mean they can jump straight onto route B and vehicle type 2.
In the past the RMT have been successful because customers and taxpayers would demand a swift resolution to the strikes, because of the inconvenience. If now the customers and taxpayers find they can live just fine with the strikes, then moves onto rather more existential questions which are probably not what the RMT wish to discuss.
Devilling is a bit weird, and not just the name. My devil has not been paid for the work he has done for me over the year but I have paid for his food, drink and accomodation when required. I have also given him a lot of my time and given him vivid demonstrations of how not to do various things. He has also had training from the Faculty which is generally acknowledged to be some of the best advocacy training in the world for free.
It seems a legacy of times past where professionals often used to have to pay for their apprenticeships. There are obviously concerns that it may be a barrier to those from poorer backgrounds. But it has its charms. It should be a good day.
Whereas the wasters in the city don't need to bother queueing up, as the wheelbarrows full of cash are couriered directly to their front doors.
But somehow that does not result in an inflationary spiral.
Plus we are half a century nearly from the winter of discontent etc. As a working age right winger I have to say I don't see how it's justifiable for the government to be raising our taxes to give 10% pension increases, plus repeated "cost of living" gifts to pensioners too (why are they needed given we have a triple lock already) but people who work for a living should be fucked over.
If I as a right winger think that, I'm curious where the government plans to get its support from?
You may think the leaders have duped the voters, you may think the workers are wrong, but nobody who said we should hard Brexit on a 52:48 vote would be in any position to bleat about even an all- out strike on the basis of the 16 or so individual strike majorities that underpin this dispute.
We had endless debates on the nature of democracy and the interplay between varying different, often contradictory, democratic decisions on the road to Brexit, but this democratic decision is clear in permitting the action the rail workers are taking, and that demands a certain level of respect for democracy.
Yes I know hotel and food elements aren't included (But you need to eat and have a roof over your head when not in care still)... but top credit for the government for introducing this as it should be able to create an insurance market for the 86k.
I think it's a shame people in Wales and Scotland won't benefit for ideological reasons (Being seen to reward 'rich' pensioners).
I'm surprised there's not more mention of the Speenhamland System which has a great deal of affinity with the modern situation, come to think of it. Though one of us was pointing out the issue of supplementary benefits-in-work earlier this morning, ISTR.
There'll be enough "oppose" within the somewhat justified category to tip the balance against the RMT.
2/1 on the Tories to win Tiverton.
If the Tories win you walk away with £100. Enough to drown your sorrows
If the Tories lose its a nail in Johnson's coffin. With such good news you wouldn't even notice the £50
Apart from being the only person on this board that I knew in real life, he was also my oldest friend and his gentle style of reasoning reflected that he was a thoroughly good person in real life and leaves a hole in my life even though we have been separated by the Atlantic for the past decade. I will also miss being able to recognise his posts instantly from the way they were written.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses
b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless)
c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
So my view is that in most cases it takes particularly idiotic management to engineer a strike, and that's where I'd look first if I'm seeking to point a finger of blame at someone.
The degree of utility is going to depend on the size of inheritance and your, your kids and grandkids circs.
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
"why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place" - most people's wealth is locked up in their house when they're alive. Equity release is in the round... expensive.
That would prevent industrial action from being in alternate dates, since you couldn't have a new ballot done in the day inbetween. It would still allow industrial action to be taken, and allow a fresh mandate as to whether to continue it or not after the first bloc of dates has happened.
property ladder for all but the highest earners
Always very much enjoyed his posts. Balanced and thoughtful.
Renting because you're so heavily taxed you can't afford a deposit prior to a loved one dying is in the round... expensive too.
Inheritances should never be required for anyone who works for a living to get a deposit.
Better still as an elected official ring around and visit some. When, after his car accident the Princess of Wales Hospital decided to discharge my fully infirmed father home, I looked into local care homes, the one I settled on The Manor House in St. Hilary was excellent, it was like a country house hotel. Some of the others I visited were so grim, and still very expensive. One I visited was awash with the aroma of cabbage water and stale urine. Care of the elderly is a national disgrace, and you, and it would seem your party, are only interested in ensuring the stately home remains in the family.
So inheritances will remain key if you want to buy in London and
much of the Home counties and are only on an average wage
If people who aren't able to work can't get a deposit, I fail to see why an inheritance should be protected either.