If we all in this together what cuts have oaps faced?(273 Posts)
As my title says im struggling to see any.
Winter fuel allowance -stays universil-too expensive to means tesrt
same with free bus passes.
part of their social care is paid so they can leave wealth to their families
They excempt from bedroom subsidy so they allowed to under occupy and biggest group.
Pensions I think went up
This new married couples allowance maybe another additional benefit to them if they large proportion of this group.
Housing-they brought at right time probably paid off mortgage and have lots equity.
They moan about interest rates but they fortunate enough to be able to save.
If social-how many homeless pensioners are there? Are they always band a?
Maybe im being harsh and some pensioners have it hard.
But locally they have several holidays a year, holiday homes, brand new cars.
wondering how exactly we all in this together ad should there be mass turnouts under 60 to vote at next general election.
Oldlady - the majority of the Welfare budget is spent on pensions. I forget the actual percentage, but it's high.
WFA should be means tested, but then they did that for Child Benefit and what a massive fuck up that was
Considering that a pensioner receiving full state pension and credit gets double what a job seeker or carer gets, is exempt from the bedroom tax and council tax contribution, may also recieve attendance allowance and has had no cuts whatsoever, I think they are doing fine.
Plus soon, the unemployed on workfare will be cooking their meals and other community jobs.
We are not in it all together.
Whoops my post was directed at beast, not oldlady, sorry!
YABU.. Pensioners have no opportunity to go out and earn more money and they are often heavily reliant on healthcare or other public services. If they were reliant on an income from their savings the interest rates are well below inflation. If they had investments, they'll have lost a big chunk of the value in the 2008 crash. If they've got good lifestyles today they're probably financially supporting DCs and DGCs behind the scenes.
how welfare benefits are broken down
Pensions cost 74 billion a year, jobseekers 4.9 billion. Crazy
OAPs vote and a lot of them vote Conservative.
How about all the money that was invested (from salary) to fund pensions that has been 'stolen' by government so that pension pots are nowhere near what had been expected/planned for?
How about the fact that I should have retired at 60, then it was changed to 63 - fair enough, I had time to plan for that. Then it moved to 66 and I have no time to plan for that.
And many of us are supporting children and elderly parents.
I don't think pensioners are that well cared for by any government.
I'm going to stick my neck out and express a minority view that will probably get me a big shouting at... But I don't really understand why pensioners can't go out and earn money unless they're infirm - which is the same as a young person being unable to earn money due to ill health surely? So that should be covered by the same ill health provision that young people have. Why do people HAVE to retire if they're not ill?
Housing-they brought at right time probably paid off mortgage and have lots equity - Yes, the majority of which they will see going in escalating care home fees if they need to go into one.
I read in the economist recently that pensioners used to be the poorest group in society, so lots of benefits were rightly given to them. They are now the richest group, the poorest being families with young children, but benefits are still being given to them.
Pensioners mostly vote conservative, the average age of a Tory party member is 70...
I have no doubt that whichever party wins this election, Ben the Tories, will bring in cuts to pensioner benefits next parliament.
Firstly, we are not 'all in this together far from it.
Secondly, YABVU. I want older people to be looked after in my society. Pensioners may be willing to work but employers aren't alway keen to take them on. Also, if pensioners keep working for lots longer then surely that'd mean less job openings for younger people. There is not an endless supply of jobs in the UK...
There was the 'Granny Tax' - can't remember the details. It lowered the tax threshold to bring it in line with rest of population.
Don't underestimate the effect of low interest rates. Many pensioners rely on interest to top up pensions. How much is your mortgage interest? Pensioners lived through times when it was 15%. Not much left for savings then. They didn't spend nearly as much on nights out, holidays, children's parties etc. A much less extravagant lifestyle.
Being old is expensive. Your employer pays your heating costs during the day. My energy dd has just gone up 50%. An extra £360 p.a. They have to pay people to do what they used to do themselves - decorating, gardening, etc. Opticians and dentists - the elderly need them more. Only the eye test is free. 'Part of social care is paid' - only if they have less than £23,000 in savings. I bet they'd pay not to NEED social care, some random having to come in to sort out the commode, make them a cup of tea, get them up in the mornings. Most LA's only do it for extreme cases.
You're talking about a huge demographic. But the one thing they all have in common is extra expense, just because they're older. And they can't go out and get more work to make ends meet.
becs my parents still work, they are 68&70. They run their own business, so yes I do agree with you. MIL does voluntary work, I am sure if she was poor she would be able to get a job.
becs lots of them do. B&Q is good for employing older people. I think though that they find it hard to get jobs as employers prefer younger people, for all kinds of reasons.
Overall, people have more years of healthy life than they used to, followed by quite a lot of years of impaired life. Those later years used not to exist because people were carried off in their first winter by pneumonia, but now they stay alive and in poor health for a lot longer.
So really we ought to think of the two groups separately.
Healthy, well-off baby-boomers with equity, pension funds and savings- roughly equivalent to the squeezed middle classes. They may feel poorer, but in the big scheme of things, they are not badly off. No justification IMHO for them getting universal benefits.
Health-impaired, older OAPs on small fixed incomes, not well enough to work, no Plan B, lots of expenses- I don't see the evidence that they are unduly protected from cuts.
State pension- is it a benefit or a savings plan? I would say it is a savings plan and people who have after all done more than their fair share in their time ought to be allowed to retire and claim it.
pensioners are the biggest recipients of welfare, immigrants the smallest I believe, but that's not what the government or certain newspapers want you to believe. The Tories will never piss them off because they form a huge percentage of their support.
I agree with you. WFA is an absolute life savers amongst the poorest pensioners, but certainly none of the pensioners I know need it, nor free bus passes or TV licenses. They don't seem to care that young people and families today will not benefit from things that they did - universal child benefit (don't think either my parents not PILs needed it, what with all their children in private school!), cheaper housing, more jobs, better pensions, early retirement. My mum, thank God, does think it's outrageous that she gets, for example, WFA. The rest just say 'I paid taxes, I'm due this'. My MiL, who is generally lovely, was chuffed to bits that the Tories got into power 'because they'll look after the old people'. Wow, thanks for that generous viewpoint!
LittleMissWise - my parents are both still working too! Aged 78 and 77. My mum's in hospital atm, and she's taking next week off work to recover then going back. "What else am I going to do, watch fucking 'Bargain Hunt'?" she says. God but my Mum is ace. My DGrandad worked to 92 when he needed to retire to care for my DGrandma. She worked to 85. My grandparents on the other side retired at 60. Watched daytime tv for thirty years. Complained about immigration and the cost of living as their world got smaller and smaller. Urgh. I cannot imagine a worse fate. Strap me to this desk, I'll be here til my heart packs in!
kittiecat quote: surely that'd mean less job openings for younger people. There is not an endless supply of jobs in the UK... Noooo! This is the classic anti-immigration argument and it just doesn't hold water! There isn't a finite supply of jobs that 'them pensioners' or 'them foreigners' can take off us. There is an economy which can shrink or grow. When more people work, they spend more money, sell more goods abroad and the economy grows, creating MORE JOBS. When people stop spending, stop working, stop allowing people to come here to work the economy shrinks, and there are LESS JOBS. (This is totally open to debate obviously)
YABU... why do you want more people to suffer? Retired people are often on fixed incomes, their savings don't generate much at the moment and they don't have the same opportunities as younger people to go out and earn more money. They are more reliant on healthcare and social services than younger people. The ones I know that made good provision for their old age are helping out younger members of the family financially.
YABU. Most of them have worked all their lives and brought up families with no tax credits or State assistance.
YABU, because you are directing your anger at one section of society. YANBU to intimate that benefits at the moment are a complete mess, with people in need suffering big time and on the other side of the fence people who are quite comfortable anyway, getting a more help than they strictly need.
The problem is how to fix it.
I don't think I agree with a society where no one earns a wage, and instead everyone is handed exactly the same amount each week/month to live off regardless of the efforts they have made either in the past or right now. That's not fair. But, it is unacceptable that in this day and age there are people having to choose between food or heating, whatever age they are.
Any means tested benefits create cottage industries which often cost more to administer than they save. So, a double edged sword.
Our tax system in the UK is among the most complex in the world, with more (often unintended) loopholes than you can shake a stick at. I would imagine a simple flat rate tax on everything earned and everything purchased would be fairer and save an absolute fortune in administration - but that would put an awful lot of HMRC employees/accountants/tax advisors etc out of work which would be a Bad Thing, and probably annoy the Very Rich who currently exploit the loopholes (and donate to politics?).
I am not sure it is all Conservatives fault, to me, it seems all the parties are broadly the same and spout whatever they think will get them votes (without necessarily delivering). Labour were particularly short sighted in building up debt during the boom years.
And if you think that Bank of England sets the interest without any government influence I think you are being slightly naive. They are keeping it low to try and encourage anyone who has any money in their pocket to spend it not save it in an effort to boost the economy and keep the money flowing. It's not working so well, from what I have read. (anyone with money is paying down mortgages or saving as they are scared it will all get much worse and they need a bit aside to cover the soaring energy and food prices). Low interest batters pensioners disproportionately as they are purely living off 'savings' in the form of a pension pot.
I do agree that ring fencing under occupancy charges to avoid pensioners seems particularly unfair, given the shortage of suitable, affordable, housing and that pensioners are most likely to still be in a 'family sized' home long after the family has flown.
becs up to a point Lord Copper on the jobs.
let us suppose that our economy has created one job. Two people want it. One is an OAP and one isn't.
The economy will grow the exact same amount whoever gets the job.
Would we rather have the young person working or the OAP working? Currently national policy says, the young person, because (a) the OAP will get their state pension regardless on top of their salary, whereas the young person will be coming off benefits and (b) it builds their skills for a longer working life than the OAP can expect, and it has a bigger influence on child poverty and other social policies.
Not saying the elderly shouldn't work. My mother is 76 and works in a charity shop for no money, but she doesn't have to heat her house all day and she gets to buy things from the shop so she spends very little on stuff- which on the basic state pension, is just as well. My MIL worked for about five years in her entire life and was well retired by her 50s.
My mother spends her WFA in Harvey Nicks
She gets pensioner and single person discount on both her band H houses
her savings income has dropped lots, but she's still well in the 40% tax band
her free bus pass is useful for when she does not want to take the Jag to Covent Garden
Why not ask 'If we're all in it together what cuts have the vastly wealthy faced?'
Why is your complaint that pensioners had good pensions schemes? Why isn't your complaint that we don't have good pension schemes?
Why not ask why the government have made all these cuts? Were they really necessary? Why not ask why your taxes are paying Tesco's staff bill?
talk Nigella Lawson is pretty well-off too, but I don't think that all single mothers are in the same boat
ps your mum sounds rich. Would she like to marry one of my nice boys
and leave them all her money?
mind you, talk that is an excellent example of why I agree that universal benefits are crap.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.