Comments on: Generational Theft?

By: No geek is an island » Blog Archive » Power to the people (if they’re middle-aged)

Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:23:56 +0000

[...] My jaw dropped when I read that. In a document which calls for the age at which people can stand for the Commons to be reduced to 16, this is an extremely odd suggestion. Well meaning, certainly, but woefully misguided (and I can hear James Graham muttering the word “gerontocracy” as I type). Apparently David Cameron is old enough to be considered a potential prime minister but too young to sit in the second chamber. [...]

By: Quaequam Blog! » Feedback please!

Quaequam Blog! » Feedback please! — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:39:01 +0000

[...] Generational Theft?, or my rant against wrinklies (joke!). [...]

By: Angus J Huck

Angus J Huck — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:41:45 +0000

It is ordinary folk like you and I who are footing the bill for the “retirement” scrapheap.

Big business has off-loaded the cost on to the public purse, while politicians and the media are deceiving the people into thinking they are getting the best possible deal.

It is all about further enriching the already very rich, and pauperising the rest of us.

By: Will

Will — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:27:55 +0000

A lot of sense, and an issue I remain interested in.

I was thinking about tax deductibility of education costs the other day, but aren’t the current generation of student loans already tax dedcuctible in the sense that they are deducted via PAYE before the tax is calculated? If I’m wrong, then it’s scandalous…

By: Gareth

Gareth — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:01:05 +0000

Sounds like this was a good event - pity I couldn’t be there. I wonder whether the debate can be taken further for Harrogate, maybe taking on the turner agenda and the Lib Dem response which nobody seems to want to debate - at least in public.

By: James

James — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:26:20 +0000

As I said above, gerontocracy is a fact - a high proportion of old people vote and a low proportion of young people vote. But I would agree that it doesn’t adequately describe what is going on. That’s why I prefer to talk about a new form of feudalism, with a mass landed class holding a new serfdom under foot.

I do think that the cash poor, asset poor old need more support. What I don’t accept is that with so much wealth in the hands of older people, it should be younger people who foot the bill.

By: Angus J Huck

Angus J Huck — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 00:42:37 +0000

The notion that we have a gerontocracy in this country is a complete fantasy.

What we actually have is a system which denies older people the right to earn a living and forces very many of them to live in extreme poverty.

The Turner Commission tinkered around the edges. That’s because very many people hold to the erroneous belief that they will end up with a pension which will give them a decent lifestyle - and you have tabloid newspapers and trade-union numbskulls who encourage this idiocy.

Not so. The average private sector pension NOW is £6,000 per annum. What will it be in 20 years time, when life expectancy could have increased by 10 to 15 years?

If you get those older people who are capable of working into employment (about a half), you solve the problem.

Why is the government not doing this? Because big business doesn’t want to lose its ability to employ cheap labour.

Tony Blair doesn’t have to worry. He has a £3 million house. The rest of us can look forward to 20 to 30 years starving and freezing to death, or Beachey Head.

By: Neil

Neil — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:58:24 +0000

That’s a fair point - although it’s not what I would describe as ‘grade inflation’.

By: James

James — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:10:35 +0000

It may not automatically lead to grade inflation, but it certainly has thus far.

When I was at school (86-93) I was told that the actual title of your degree didn’t matter; it was the fact of having done a degree that really mattered. By the time I graduated in 1997 that was no longer the case (and I had a degree in… theology!).

Similarly, my sister became a Vice President of Merril Lynch having crawled her way up after leaving school without doing A-Levels. By the time she left in 2002, they weren’t even looking at people without degrees in business studies.

By: Neil

Neil — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:51:00 +0000

This is an important debate - both in terms of the policies themselves and the party’s strategy.

The one point I don’t agree with is about higher education. I don’t believe that ‘grade inflation’ or massive numbers doing meaningless degrees is inevitable with expansion.

We should be aiming for steady improvement in pre-school, primary and secondary education and this should lead to a steadily growing proportion who are able to benefit from higher education.

The economic results of this will mean, in turn, that the investment in education pays for itself, as it has largely done so far.