By Isle of Wight Observer
When Labour said they planned for growth, who knew they only meant growth in unemployment benefits, debts and taxes?
Those of us born in the ’60s had it good, but we’ve also witnessed the steady decline of our once great nation.
When we left school, we knew what was expected of us and got on with it. Whatever their job, people took real pride in their work.
We arrived on time, without the stress of money-grabbing mobile speed cameras lurking around every corner. No-one was distracted by social media or similar nonsense. Pronouns were of no concern and those who suffered poor mental health carried on regardless -they were mission focussed.
Women tended to be home-makers and raised families. Those who did need childcare, they relied on their mum, sister or neighbours stepping in. Working women usually paused until the kids were old enough to start school.
We were usually paid weekly, and a majority of us bought homes. Average wages and overtime provided just enough to pay the mortgage and bills. Many people had great pensions to look forward to, sometimes final salary schemes enabling retirement in their 50s. Few of us realised that all this good fortune would make our kids’ lives harder in the next century.
The number of adults in their 30s or 40s who don’t have children is incredible. That can be because they don’t have or even want a partner, but when you’re single, buying property is really challenging these days. In the ’70s, living at home in mid-life was unusual; now it really isn’t.
My generation has witnessed so much societal change, but we all felt great when our house values soared. In 12 months, my £35,000 flat became a £50,000 flat, then our £60,000 house became a £200,000 house.
I recently attended the funeral of an ex-policeman. He died in his 80th decade, and several former colleagues were there. I asked them: “How much service did you have in, before you retired?” “Thirty years,” they chimed in unison. At that point, they were able to retire and receive the equivalent of two-thirds pay. As one explained: “After that, we got most of the money we were getting before without turning up.”
Retired police officers don’t just get two-thirds of the money they earned 30 years ago. It’s grown along with inflation – so it has the same purchasing power that it did then. When they die, their wives still get half of that.
Funding public sector pensions was never planned to be like this. Policemen, nurses, firemen and most other public servants starting work, aged 20, had no expectation of living so long. Successive governments who employed them can’t possibly have imagined that so many employees would still be drawing pensions 30 years after hanging up their uniforms. No government or council likes to upset public servants; there are far too many of them – and all have a vote. The cost of public sector pensions grew and grew like Topsy, creating the most enormous drain on every subsequent government’s finances. Unapologetically, the extraordinary sums involved are just passed to present day taxpayers.
I don’t blame the cops or public servants; good luck to them. They contributed while working, just nowhere near enough.
January’s tax receipts were disappointing and that’s created another £15 billion black hole in Rachel Reeve’s wildly optimistic budget predictions. Don’t blame me; like so many other business-people, I handed over a small fortune on January 31.
Just like every chancellor since Denis Healey, Rachel says she’s confident she can find ‘Whitehall efficiency savings’. However unlikely, I pray she does, because, thanks to her terrible budget, this time next year Britain’s small businesses will be even less profitable. Which means there’ll be even less of our hard-earned money to take from us.