Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

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?

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.

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

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

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

Quote was from here

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.

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.

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 20:58:56

ethelb

I saved up for longer than two years for the deposit. I know house prices are way higher now but so are salaries. In my first job I earned £7 a week.

I was making the point that life is difficult for everyone.

So why is it young people who are bearing the brunt?

ethelb Mon 11-Feb-13 20:31:42

@silveroldie did you save up two years salary to put a deposit on it?

SilverOldie Mon 11-Feb-13 20:27:35

"Old people have had their whole lives to provide for their old age"

So won't that apply to younger people with their lives ahead of them?

I live alone and have a two bedroom flat. I had a mortgage all my working life and now own outright. It wasn't easy, same as it isn't easy for younger people to buy now but we all have different priorities.

manicinsomniac Mon 11-Feb-13 20:04:58

One room in a shared house is fine for childless under 25s, I really can't see a problem. Think about when we graduated from university and started our first jobs - how many of use seriously bought or rented our own house to ourselves straight away?!? The vast majority go into a house share or move back in with parents for a bit. I don't see why those who need housing benefit should be any different. I would imagine a house share is actually quite a fun way to spend your early 20s.

fluffyraggies Mon 11-Feb-13 19:18:34

I think the government should have said this need not apply to those of 70+. A more reasonable age, in this day and age, to be assumed 'vulnerable'.

Those aged 65 - 70 perhaps should have their cases looked at on a more individual basis. Not to be enforced if you cannot be re-housed within x miles of your existing property, for eg, or not to be enforced if the new property is not reasonably easily accessable. Thinking ahead to mobility problems.

It seems to me that all this governments so called 'solutions' are causing such conflict amongst ourselves sad

No I'm not saying over 75s should live in one room or be moved at all - what I'm saying is that it's unfair to say that young people should have to- if the shoe was on the other foot everyone would be up in arms and rightly so about ageism but because it's against young people no one cares

Saski Mon 11-Feb-13 11:52:01

Elderly people in the private housing market might often have to move homes after the death of a spouse. It's not nice, but it's reality: financial situations change. I don't agree with your arguments at all, cloud.

Salbertina Mon 11-Feb-13 11:49:56

Cloud, i disagree! Even many of the most upwardly mobile young are saddled with student debt (not an issue for the 60+s) and unable to buy the smallest property (again unlike the 60+s at same age!) . Average age of first time buyer in 1960s was 25, 80s was 28 now its 38!

Old people have had their whole lives to provide for their old age.

CloudsAndTrees Mon 11-Feb-13 11:42:48

Yes, but like I already said, young people are better placed to help themselves to move forward than older people are.

Unkindness affects young people too.

CloudsAndTrees Mon 11-Feb-13 11:40:41

But being old and not having much money could be a knock-on effect of them having kids they couldn't afford when they were younger.

Yes, it could. Which is why it's a good idea to only pay HB for the number of rooms needed so that people are encouraged to downsize as soon as their children leave home, and we don't end up with elderly people who are unable to make a successful move.

I agree with Expat that in may cases, 61 is still young enough to move, but in many cases it isn't. I think the last government missed the boat with them, and it does seem unkind to me to make these people move when they will find it extremely hard to find another job if they are still working, or when they will find it hard to reform local social ties to friends that might help them and services they might need.

Well no. In that situation the entitlement would be a 2 bed house.

BUT, what will happen when the blanket ban comes in?

gordyslovesheep Mon 11-Feb-13 11:28:10

So 24, married, one child, working on NMW you can only have 1 room? Yes that's fair!

Saski Mon 11-Feb-13 11:19:41

But being old and not having much money could be a knock-on effect of them having kids they couldn't afford when they were younger.

CloudsAndTrees Mon 11-Feb-13 11:08:29

you are forever on any sort of benefits threads banging on about people who don't provide for themselves getting it all free from the state.

You know, you wouldn't have noticed that if you weren't interested in exactly the same type of threads! grin

I find that you often comment on older people and the protections that have with regards to the benefit reforms, but as that's something you clearly have an opinion on, I wouldn't expect you not to give your thoughts on related threads. That's what they are they for!

Anyway, I realise that disabled people may be negatively affected by the new HB rules about under occupying, and my opinion on that is probably the same as most people's. It's wrong.

But the fundamentals of this change, I agree with. HB should only be provided according to need, and if people have housing bigger than they actually need, then they should pay for it themselves. Ideally, people would pay for their own housing either way, but I understand that that can't always happen.

Younger people don't need anymore than a room in a shared house. Therefore, that's all that should be funded for them. Some older people might not need the homes that they have, and while I can understand parole thinking that it's unfair that they get them, I don't think that older people should be first in the firing line to be affected.

I think that because they are not in the best position to change their circumstances, whereas younger people can choose to house share more easily, sometimes have the option of living with parents, often don't have the ties to a local area that older people have. They can choose to delay having children until they are in secure housing, or until they have started earning a decent salary.

I have far more sympathy with older people who claim for the basics than I do with people who claim for children that they couldn't afford to have.

Salbertina Mon 11-Feb-13 11:03:44

Totally with you, Expat. Wonder if cd be subject to any EU age discrimination law?? No reason it shouldn't work both ways

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