I don't like old people

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
What is your opinion of old folks who have the money, power, and other rescources to do you over royally, should the fancy take them?

[Flubber]

I like all sorts of people . . .

My grandfather is 84 and still very sharp-- He can discuss current events and debate with the best of them-- He doesn't know pop music or much about computers but he has a wealth of experience from which ANYONE could learn.

I know a few teens. Some are incredibly tied up in computers and pop culture and don't seem interested in much else. Fair enough, there's nothing wrong with the fact that we gave nothing in common. But others are interested in local and national events. These teens have zip in experience but they can often look at something with fresh eyes.

A good discussion is a good discussion no matter how old the other party happens to be.


PAYING A FAIR SHARE


I understand the argument that many younger people are making today. They see governmnets hoist the idea of "user pays" in a whole host of areas that were largely government funded. Taxes are being cut which helps the established workforce while students face crushing tuition increases. They see their parents pulling in good incomes from their government subsidized educations but denying the same levels of funding to them. With pensions, the perception is that our parents paid far to little into the plans to maintain them and the current workfprce is being required to pay increased premiums to fund the previous generation that paid in too little.

While I respect what previous generations have done, including sacrifices in wartime, this issue is not about respect . . . its mainly about the population bulge of the babyboomers implementing policies which usually benerfit mainly BABYBOOMERS . .

[Brtndr4u]

You can hate us old people all you want, but you better respect us only for the reason that we are closer to death and have no fear.I will snuff out a young punk in a heartbeat.

REMEMBER:Old people don't fear DEATH,Do You?

[rah]

Originally posted by Flubber
its mainly about the population bulge of the babyboomers implementing policies which usually benerfit mainly BABYBOOMERS . .

When your generation is in the majority, I'm sure it too will implement policies that benefit themselves. It's hard to imagine a majority implementing policies that will harm themselves.

Democracies are seldom about fairness. It's all politics.

[Jack_www]

This is one of the problems that we have. Young people refusing to give their elders the respect they have earned. Old people have lot of wisdom to hand down if you take the time listen to them. That way you dont have to learn the hard way.

[rah]

Yeah, I would love to be able to send back a few messages to my younger self. But then again, my younger self would have probably said "ah, what does that old fart know" and ignored it.

[chequita guevara]

Older people are cool.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Older people are cool.

Because they'll be dead by the time your "revolution" comes around?

[Urban Ranger]

Cool, not cold.

[Jaguar]

I don't like old people either.

[David Floyd]

Daniel,

Their state payed pensions should be reduced to social welfare level.

Why should they get anything at all? It's my money.

duke,

You really don't understand how state pensions work do you? You have to accept that you are paying for the pensions of the retired people while you are at work, but that the generations below you will be paying your pension when you reach retirement age.

If this is how it was supposed to work from the beginning, then I have to wonder why it was set up in such a horribly inefficient manner. Let's try out a novel idea here. The point of Social Security programs is to ensure that older citizens can survive retirement. Great. Now I have a suggestion. If this system must be set up, why not simply dump each person's money into an individual account for that individual, payable upon retirement? This ensures that no one is being forced to pay for anyone else.

Of course, this then leads me to ask wby we should be forcing this type of system on people in the first place, given that these people can, AT THE VERY LEAST, accumulate interest on their money in actual bank accounts (not to mention help stimulate the economy through the workings of the banking system). Some people may choose not to save, but why should that be anyone's problem but their own? So a few old people starve to death - gee, I might be concerned if it wasn't their own damn fault. But I don't shed too many tears for stupidity and incompetence. I have a phrase for this, though: Natural Selection.

Isn't it a good thing that everyone else who came before you in history didn't share your views? etc.

That's funny, I wasn't aware that the person who invented the TV was forced to give it away for free. Oh, right, he wasn't.

DAVOUT,

The collective pension (paid by the state or any other collective organization) system was invented to obliged people selfish or lacking of foresight to provide for the pension funds and doing so to earn their right to receive a pension when their turn arrives.

So, basically, the pension system was put into place to help ensure the survival of stupid people, right?

Somehow I just can't see how the government should have anything to do with private decisions about saving for one's own retirement.

Under a purely individual pension scheme based on individual savings, there will be a significant portion of the population preferring not to save with the end result of becoming a burden for the society which will have to give them anyway a minimum income to live; this will be paid by the active citizens through taxes.

Why is this the end result? This is the only end result if you assume that I have a responsibility for someone else's stupidity.

No, the end result is - or at least should be - these old people being forced to rely on family and charity, and, ultimately, possibly even paying for their poor decisions by dying. They could have acted to prevent it, but their failure to act in their own interest doesn't automatically grant them a claim to my property. How could it?

In all cases, the active citizens pay for the not active:

Why shouldn't the active citizens save money to pay for themselves when they are inactive? Oh, you claim that many people are too stupid to do this? Yeah, you're probably right. And I can't hammer this point in hard enough. Stupidity. Stupidity. Stupidity. Not my problem. Not my problem. Not my problem. In the end, I don't give a **** if someone saves for their retirement or not - but if they choose not to, they better not try to lay a claim to MY money that I want to wisely save for MY retirement. And why do I want to do this? That's right, should be evident by now - unlike these other people, I'm not STUPID.

Rah,

When your generation is in the majority, I'm sure it too will implement policies that benefit themselves. It's hard to imagine a majority implementing policies that will harm themselves.

Democracies are seldom about fairness. It's all politics.

Then I have a solution. Get rid of democracy.

[Nubclear]

Down with democracy

[Joseph]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
I came here to hear young people from everywhere, and occasionnally to discuss with them. I am not desappointed.

BTW I am the only true old guy on this forum (64).

Well I'm not the oldest anymore, thank you.

Joseph

March 28, 1944

[Asher]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
That sounds like you're describing a pet.

Actually, that's about right.

I talk to many of the people with dimentia like I would a pet. They seriously seem to prefer it, otherwise they get lost in the sea of words.

[Snotty]

Originally posted by David Floyd

I have a phrase for this, though: Natural Selection.

Surely this phrase is irrelevant considering they have already bred?