I don't see why I should have been forced to put my career on hold to be forced into national service. You can't proclaim to live in a free society if your forced past adult age to do something you don't want to do.
It should be optional, if you can't get a job within X time on benefits then it's suggested you sign up for it.
In which case you've got a potential method of population control rolled in.
I'm very much against the idea of national service myself - largely because I want to minimize in all ways my chances of getting shot, blown up or poisoned. I also don't like being shouted at by people who can order me to be shot, blown up, etc.
Now some paid work creation schemes (we could do with more cycle tracks, and a few of the Sustrans tracks were built this way) might be a more effective option. Not compulsory work as such, but a bonus to basic benefits applied to those who can demonstrate a willingness to contribute in return.
maybe but if we were brought up being told that when we reach 16 we either go into national service or care. we would not known any different would we lets be honest if society had seen this coming this could have been implemented years ago, its only a opinion DrChees were all entitled to say what we think would be a good idea
Maybe if soldiers were paid a better wage more people would choose to go into military service, but forcing people to do so is immoral.
ok but the point is if the country don't do anything then the young are gunna be unemployed and the eldery are going to still be emloyed, there has to be a change somewhere!!!!
There seems to be an assumption that removing the retirement age would automatically mean no one ever again left their job. Some people already work on past retirement, some retire early, and some retire at the retirement age. You may even find that the actual numbers involved would barely change, it just expands people's options and changes the expectations on them.
gizmo2005 (29th July 2010)
cant really argue with that one jamesb
a universal state pension should stay, and the condems have restored the link with earnings. But in all honesty, i don't think the current generation approaching retirement, 55-65....are at all in bad financial shape. Inspite of any inter-generational wealth transfer.
It's not as if they don't have a mountain of housing equity, and there does exist pension credit for those without the full salary or private pension or BTL empire ;0)....all in all for most, state pension and means tested benefits isn't that bad as a basic level of income. Plus, on pension credit mortgage interest relief was until recently paid at 6.08%!!! benefiting tens of thousands of pensioners who bizarrely still have a mortgage, despite 15 years of house price inflation. must be all that MEW! and the wealth transfer i mentioned above.
Last edited by torledo; 29th July 2010 at 06:19 PM.
Means testing is fine in theory, but for benefits such as winter fuel allowance it would probably cost more to administer than the savings that might be made.
Also, don't forget that many 'baby-boomers' may be 'asset-rich' but remain 'cash-poor', having spent years putting all their money into house purchase & raising a family & making sacrifices along the way. My children where teenagers before we could afford to take them on a foreign holiday.
Selling the family home may release asset value, but you still need somewhere to live.... how would it be if baby-boomers sold their big expensive family homes & bought up starter homes, driving up the prices of these?
I've come to this one late, excuse me if it has been covered already.
We are facing a demographic crisis, and not just the UK. The baby boom is long over, and those babies are nearing retirement. There are not enough kids being born today to support tomorrows ageing population. If those ageing continue to work, and if we continue to attract economic migrants, that stress on the economy will be lessened.
There are many conflicting pressures on the economy (broadest sense) and I suspect it will only become apparent with hindsight which pressure was the greatest.
I do understand that people work all their lives to buy their homes and want something to leave to their family when they are gone, but I also think that the welfare state should be a saftey net and not a god given right. If I was to find myself in an asset-rich cash-poor situation when I come to retire then I'd feel morally bound to free up some of those assets before going cap in hand to the state. There are schemes that free up to 75% of the value of your home once you retire and let you live their rent free. Of course it does mean that you have no house to leave to your kids when you die.Selling the family home may release asset value, but you still need somewhere to live.... how would it be if baby-boomers sold their big expensive family homes & bought up starter homes, driving up the prices of these?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)