To think this government are ageist

(82 Posts)

But because it's not against older people no one seems up in arms about it.
If the government said 'over 75s are only allowed a room in a house because thats all they need' there would quite rightly be uproar. Why is it ok to tell younger people that they are only entitled to that?
arguably over 75s aren't going to be having children so don't need a family home...
I think ageism has swung the other way now and it's not fair. Ageism in any respect isn't fair - why must it be age that dictates how you live- why not circumstance?

ComposHat Mon 11-Feb-13 21:18:36

silveroldie

But average houseprices have risen completely out of proportion to average incomes. There is simply no comparison. The baby boomers who are now coming up to retirement age have been the main beneficeries of this. They have also enjoyed early retirements, sizeable pensions, all of which their children will have to pay for.

This is no justification to hand over fuel allowances, free TV licences and free bus passes to wealthy pensioners. Expecially when younger neddier people are getting hammered by a heartless government.

Think about what has happened a generation of us will have lower living standards than our parents. In historical terms this is almost unprecedented.

SilverOldie Mon 11-Feb-13 21:47:59

I retired at 60 (retirement age at the time for women), even though I was disabled and could have retired earlier. My pension is very modest; priority was paying off the mortgage. In no way could I be described as wealthy.

I don't claim for my disability, not old enough yet for a free TV license and don't use buses and no longer own a car.

Having worked for over 40 years I consider my tax contributions during that time now pay for my old age pension.

However, I do agree that wealthy pensioners, and there are plenty, should not be receiving these handouts. They should be means tested.

I don't have any information about current house price/salary ratios so can't comment on that.

juule Tue 12-Feb-13 09:35:43

I'm not sure why so many younger people think that it was so much easier to buy a house in the past.

" In 1991 mortgage repossessions – people losing their homes – hit a record of 75,000. It was horrendous. Interest rates went from 8 per cent to 13 per cent in six months – I remember, because I was a homeowner who had just increased his mortgage when interest rates doubled. The repayments were massive."

I remember 18% interest on mortgages in the 80s.

Not all older people have had the easy time that some people seem to make out.

juule Tue 12-Feb-13 09:39:28

Quote was from here

expatinscotland Tue 12-Feb-13 09:44:40

This thread isn't about how easy it is to buy a house, juule.

It's about the reduction in housing benefit and how the policy discriminates against younger people in social housing who claim housing benefit.

hmm

Salbertina Tue 12-Feb-13 09:55:59

Juule- it was much, much much more affordable to buy a house in the past- all the evidence proves it.
Repossessions obv different but related issue- i appreciate many older people had to cope with sky-high interest rates of 1980s but most came through and didn't have university fees or flat deposit to find for their offspring

juule Tue 12-Feb-13 10:08:51

expat I realise that and so probably won't add anything more to this thread. However, there have been disparaging remarks aimed at older people. It's just that some of the descriptions of how easy older people had it in the past bears no relation to past that I and others I know lived through. It's difficult not to respond to things said which are inconsistent with personal experience I suppose.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now