OK, so most people know my views. Here is the exam question. How do we stop older people bankrupting the younger generation with their increasing health needs despite them sitting on gold mines in pension pots and housing equity.

My first move, put NIC on pensions. It's bizarre that older people burn disproportionate amounts of social funds yet don't contribute any more. Move the thresholds up if necessary.

Edited by Mapletree (12 Jun 2017 11.25pm)

They also spend their 'pension pots' in the economy during the plenty of time they have each day and every day. The 'housing equity' often gets sold and another, different property bought, so even more money into the economy.

Can we just dispel this myth please - if you worked in the Public sector or for a large company, you would have got a final-salary pension scheme (and let's remember that even these were contributory), if you worked for a medium sized company you MAY have got a non-final salary pension scheme........and then there is the rest of us (and all the self-employed)who had no pensions schemes at all, and who may (or may not have been able to afford it) have contributed fully to provide themselves with a small annuity (which would have been a comfortable annuity if Gordon Broon hadn't wrecked it!).

As for NIC on pensions, don't forget that having already paid tax on the money that was contributed to my personal private pension scheme, I am now taxed on it again as it is lumped in with my State Retirement pension for taxation purposes, so how many more times must I pay tax on the same bloody hard earned money?

A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

Not only did you have the opportunity to pay no tax on your pension contributions, you have never paid any NIC on them or on the benefits you now draw. Most people 'paid in' to the social system for 40 to 45 years, they retire now with an expectation of at least 30 years of no NI contribution and a high expectation of health services. Does anyone really feel that their contribution and that of their employer is anywhere near enough to give them free health support in perpetuity? I see no reason why payment should stop at retirement, it's surely the same argument as for tax. It is of course dependent upon earning enough to hit the threshold.

Simply sponging from the younger generations that will have to fund them, then controlling the young people through their dominance over housing, the National Trust (don't get me started) and the promise of an inheritance at some point.

Theresa surely had a logic - and she wouldn't have launched such an unpopular initiative without cause.

You're right, no tax would have been paid initially on the pension contributions.

So if, as you seem to be saying, you should be hitting the elderly again for more tax or removing health benefits because they haven't paid in enough to cover it, does that also mean you plan on hitting the unemployed, as they've not contributed enough either? Or is it just the elderly you have issue with "sponging from the younger generation"? Aren't the unemployed sponging from all generations? And don't get me started on free dental care for kids - what have THEY ever contributed?

Last bit was tongue in cheek to emphasise the point by the way.