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?

ZillionChocolate Mon 11-Feb-13 09:08:39

Younger people are allowed to have a whole mansion to themselves, they just have to pay for it.

ethelb Mon 11-Feb-13 09:09:43

@jazz yanbu but pointing this out on MN seems to get you accused of ageism at the moment

expatinscotland Mon 11-Feb-13 09:11:01

Actually, the reduction in housing benefit does not apply to anyone age 61+, so people under the pension age are exempt.

nefertarii Mon 11-Feb-13 09:12:56

They have decided nit to implement it against people already of that age.

It it applys to you now it will apply when you are over 75.

people currently over 75 shouldn't have to move or get a job because of these changes. Because due to their age its not appropriate.

Its not ageist.

Oh you can come on here and slag off the youth of today all you like, but dont even try to address the issues in the OP. Thats ageist.

And lord forbid you should describe anyone as old. Doing that makes you A Horrible Person.

YANBU!

CloudsAndTrees Mon 11-Feb-13 09:15:55

Younger people have earning potential that older people don't have. They are at the start of their working lives and have the ability to improve their situation. People who are over 75 don't have that.

Circumstance does dictate how you live. If you are young and need more than a room in a shared house, because you have a child, then you get it. If your circumstances are such that you can pay for your own housing, then you live where you want.

nerfertarii

And what, under 25s should live on the streets?

I'm not saying people over 75 should move or get a job!! Ha!
I'm saying that changing things based on age in any circumstance is wrong.
Change should be based on circumstance? What's the difference between a 24 year old single man and a 33 year old single man? Nothin but age.

CloudsAndTrees Mon 11-Feb-13 09:19:20

There has to be a cut off age somewhere.

Saski Mon 11-Feb-13 09:20:14

Is this about the so-called bedroom tax?

landofsoapandglory Mon 11-Feb-13 09:21:37

YANBU, and don't forget the money that could be saved if they didn't give rich pensioners winter fuel allowance, free TV licenses and free bus passes. But they won't touch that, they'd rather take it from disabled people and families!

ethelb Mon 11-Feb-13 09:23:09

It it applys to you now it will apply when you are over 75.
Younger people have earning potential that older people don't have.

^^ not true.

I am 26 and I think you are on planet lala if you think that when I am 75 will have access to social housing if I need it.

Plus, younger people are starting work in a triple dip recession (or have already started it) facing the biggest drop in salaries in real terms since the 1930s. Compare that to someone who lived through a period of the greatest social mobility in the UK ever, and then reconsider who has/had the better earning potential.

nefertarii Mon 11-Feb-13 09:26:25

No. Under 25 will find moving less traumatic (old people have known to have died when moved from the home they have always lived in, often) and under 25s have more earning potential left in their lives to provide for themselves.

I don't like the bedroom tax. But it is not ageist against young people to exclude the elderly already living in those houses.

That's the point there are reasons so its not ageist. Shit, yes. Not ageist.

nefertarii Mon 11-Feb-13 09:28:24

Yes Ethel that's what I said. When we we reach our 70s the same rules that apply to us now will apply then.

They are so.ply choosing not to apply it to elderly people at the moment because of their age. Those of us in social housing know the rules and know what will happen as we get older.

ethelb Mon 11-Feb-13 09:29:05

@nefertarii but don't you realise that many of those 75 year old have the houses as they moved into them when they were 25 or younger? An option not open to young people today.

nefertarii Mon 11-Feb-13 09:29:55

Yeah these old people are teats because they didn't have to live through a triple dip recession. Their lives have been loss easy. Obviously.

ethelb Mon 11-Feb-13 09:30:38

@nefertarii you really think that potentially 10 different administrations are going to keep these rules so it is 'fair' when we are in our 70s? Madness.

ethelb Mon 11-Feb-13 09:31:20

@nefertarii financially yes it has been easier for them.

TroublesomeEx Mon 11-Feb-13 09:31:23

It's nothing to do with fairness.

It's because older people are more likely to vote than single people under 25 (which is who I believe the one room thing applies to) and government policies are all about protecting their votes.

There is a blanket cut of HB for under 25s coming in.

They could move house but they have no money because they could get a job when there arent enough jobs to go round.

Yes. Thats logical.

TroublesomeEx Mon 11-Feb-13 09:31:51

Oh and the rules won't apply when we're in our 70s either. What a daft thing to say!

By the time we are in our 70s we will still be working because the gov will have made sure the plebs stopped having children so the workforce will need us.

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep Mon 11-Feb-13 09:39:13

There's also the fact that voters are generally keener on giving money to old folks than young.

You're basically asking, "Would you like to have more money yourself in the future, or would you like other people to have more money now?"

So social policy is always going to be skewed towards the elderly.

expatinscotland Mon 11-Feb-13 09:39:22

'people currently over 75 shouldn't have to move or get a job because of these changes. Because due to their age its not appropriate.

Its not ageist.'

But this doesn't even apply to those only over 75, but to those who are 61. That's not old or even pension age.

So they shouldn't move? It's not appropriate?

Why not? What happened to all the, 'Well, it's not their house it's the governments and there are so many families in need.'

CloudsAndTrees Mon 11-Feb-13 09:39:22

Why does this have to turn into a battle of old versus young?

As long as each individual feels their needs are being met, then it shouldn't matter to them what someone else has had off the state.

The problem comes because not everyone provides for themselves and so they think the government should do it for them. Then when they don't get what they need, or what they think they need, they turn on another section of society with jealousy. I find it all a bit pathetic tbh.

If you aren't getting what you are legally entitled to and what you genuinely need, then you have every right to complain. But that doesn't mean you have to start attacking someone else.

ethelb Mon 11-Feb-13 09:44:25

@clouds because young people's needs aren't being met due to policy that has favoured a generation that has pulled the ladder up after them.

I'm not saying that the baby boomer (or older generation) necessarily had a choice in their behaviour, or knew the impact of what they were doing, but I do think it is unfair that when the fact that ickle, wickle, elderly granny's are actually sitting on a pretty cushy deal in comparison you young people, disabled people and familes, that you are accused of jealousy.

Should people just be happy with their lot? Know thy place etc?

TroublesomeEx Mon 11-Feb-13 09:46:49

young people's needs aren't being met due to policy that has favoured a generation that has pulled the ladder up after them

Yes.

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep Mon 11-Feb-13 09:47:26

Because when we're talking about cuts that say if you're under 25 you don't need a roof over your head, to then say in the same breath that over 61s can live in as big a house as they want...is a bit unfair.

And the welfare state really stands or falls on its perceived fairness.

CloudsAndTrees Mon 11-Feb-13 09:48:41

But the older generation who are living in social housing aren't to blame for what is happening to younger people now, so there is no reason to bring them into the debate. If they are in social housing, their circumstances were back then, probably very similar to those that young people are facing now. If they had the option to buy their homes, then many of them would have done, and did when their council houses were offered to them at a bargain price.

It isn't their fault, they didn't knowingly cause this, so I honestly can't understand why they are seen as worthy of attack.

TroublesomeEx Mon 11-Feb-13 09:50:34

Clouds but there are a lot of people suffering from the cuts etc who aren't to blame either.

Oh for gods sake.

No one is attacking them. Why does pointing out unfairness equal attack?

If anyone is being attacked its the under 25s who are facing homelessness because of their age.

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep Mon 11-Feb-13 09:52:25

The government has made the rhetoric of the cuts, 'we're all in this together'.

Their justification is that the country is broke, blah blah, we see it on here all the time.

But somehow we can afford to keep every single one of pensioners' benefits and perks?

It's not about attacking old people - but it is about taking a long hard look at where we spend money.

expatinscotland Mon 11-Feb-13 09:55:56

'But the older generation who are living in social housing aren't to blame for what is happening to younger people now,'

Nor are younger people. And by your whole premise of providing for yourself, if they didn't buy their houses when they were cheap, now they are not subject to reduction in benefit and younger people are? How is that fair?

Why is that construed as an attack?

CloudsAndTrees Mon 11-Feb-13 09:56:45

Clouds but there are a lot of people suffering from the cuts etc who aren't to blame either.

That may be, but I still don't think it's right to state that something should be taken away from one group just because another can't get it.

Why does pointing out unfairness equal attack?

Because you can talk about it being wrong that young people are not getting what they deserve without bringing anyone else into it. By pointing out unfairness, it often implies that the group that are being treated the best don't deserve it, and that's not the case.

Startail Mon 11-Feb-13 09:58:44

I don't get this, we still descended on DMIL when she was 75 or my grandparents when they were 85.
We used their bedrooms and my younger cousins played in their garden.

DMIL still did all her own garden and loved it, grandpa still did woodwork in his big garage.

My 74 year old dad has computers and model boats all over their spare room. There is no where for us to stay.

Just because you are old doesn't mean you want to sit in one room and wait to die.

My Dad was out in the snow in his 4x4 messing about like he would have in his 20's. DMIL rode every week.

At ~ 88 my grandparents did move, they were both dead within the year sad

ethelb Mon 11-Feb-13 09:59:19

I don't think anyone is attacking elderly individuals @cloud. It's just the policy is awful, and to suggest that pointing this out is jealousy is unfair.

Plus many people in social housing didn't have to fulfil the same criteria as people today have to do today as there was lots more of it.

expatinscotland Mon 11-Feb-13 09:59:40

'That may be, but I still don't think it's right to state that something should be taken away from one group just because another can't get it.'

Really? Even though it is welfare? So by that token, no one should have child benefit removed just because another group can't get it, tax credits, the whole shebang.

If it's about having provided for yourself and providing for yourself than you make it apply to everyone or no one at all.

expatinscotland Mon 11-Feb-13 10:00:32

And again, this reduction doesn't apply to anyone age 61+. Is that old to you? That's not even pension age!

expatinscotland Mon 11-Feb-13 10:01:15

Free bus passes for all over 60s? WTF? So they get to ride free to work, but everyone else subsidising them?

Salbertina Mon 11-Feb-13 10:01:24

Yanbu--oldies cosseted by all govs as so much more likely to vote--

ethelb Mon 11-Feb-13 10:03:34

@salbertina it is a self-fulfilling prophesy imo

Salbertina Mon 11-Feb-13 10:04:24

I worked with one woman, lovely incidentally, who having reached pension age, "retired", claimed said pension and returned to work as freelance consultant 5dsyd a week at a cost of £100s per day to taxpayer )public sector) . I yhoughy hmm but no one else seemed to question it!

A 61 year old doesnt deserve a home any more or any less than a 25 year old.

CloudsAndTrees Mon 11-Feb-13 10:07:19

Really? Even though it is welfare? So by that token, no one should have child benefit removed just because another group can't get it, tax credits, the whole shebang.

Not the same thing.

Everyone needs housing. Not everyone needs extra money in the form of benefits. It's about need.

And again, this reduction doesn't apply to anyone age 61+. Is that old to you? That's not even pension age!

I think you and I have had this conversation before expat. I do think that 61 is young, but people in their early sixties vary a great deal. Some are older than their years, some are fit and healthy and years of active work left in them. I do see where you are coming from on that, but I think 61 is fair if it is in place to protect those who would find it too much to move at that age.

If things carry on the way they are and more homes are built, this so called 'bedroom tax' will be a good thing. It will encourage people to downsize when they are still young and their dc have left home. Then we won't have his problem where you have people in their sixties and seventies who have been living in a home too big for their needs for 10/15/20+ years.

Are more affordabe homes being built though? I dont think they are.

CloudsAndTrees Mon 11-Feb-13 10:13:34

Are more affordabe homes being built though? I dont think they are.

I don't think they are either, but thats where the problem is. It isn't with the older generation.

It makes the government crap at sorting out the housing problem. It doesn't make them ageist. They are two different things.

expatinscotland Mon 11-Feb-13 10:17:18

'I do think that 61 is young, but people in their early sixties vary a great deal. Some are older than their years, some are fit and healthy and years of active work left in them. I do see where you are coming from on that, but I think 61 is fair if it is in place to protect those who would find it too much to move at that age.'

But it's okay for young people who also vary a great deal in that, well, the reduction also applies to those under 61 who are disabled, because the disabled are not exempted from the reduction, unless of course, they are 61.

Yes, everyone needs housing, but it is ageist to declare that some require more housing benefit only because of their age, not their abilities, but their age.

They are crap at sorting out the problem full stop.

But their main point of change is the welfare budget. Which includes provisions for the elderly.

So they are ignoring a huge area of the thing they are trying to reform. Its based on age. Therefore it is ageist.

Salbertina Mon 11-Feb-13 10:20:33

Expat, indeed, ditto re free transport. Should not he universal benefit for older people but available for all in need. In that group i wd include unemployed younger people travelling to interviews/training.

expatinscotland Mon 11-Feb-13 10:21:15

'If things carry on the way they are and more homes are built, this so called 'bedroom tax' will be a good thing. It will encourage people to downsize when they are still young and their dc have left home.'

That won't happen until there is massive reform in private sector rented housing.

Why? Here is why: because people will move heaven and Earth to stay in a secure tenancy. This reduction in housing doesn't apply to those who do not receive housing benefit, even if they are under-occupying. Think those folks are going to move/downsize? LOL! They'll stay and then retire and then, 'Oh, this doesnt apply to anyone over 61. That's me sorted.'

And here is the other thing: moving people from social housing to private sector rentals, even with the LHA caps, will increase the housing benefit bill.

Why? Because many who can pay full rent and council tax in a social housing home will need to claim LHA if they move into a private-sector home.

ethelb Mon 11-Feb-13 10:21:29

It makes the government crap at sorting out the housing problem. It doesn't make them ageist. They are two different things.

^^ sucessive governments have been 'crap at sorting out the housing problem' who were voted in by the age group that are now being prioritised for housing.

CloudsAndTrees Mon 11-Feb-13 10:34:43

Well of course the reduction in HB doesn't apply to those that don't claim it! Why would it? Why should people move when they are paying their own way and then claiming what they are entitled to claim when they retire?

Sorry, can't see the problem there.

And it wouldn't be a problem for anyone if there were more homes built. You wouldn't need to hope that people will downsize.

I take your point about the HB bill, and in many cases it will work as you say. But I just can't get upset about older people claiming HB when they retire when they have housed themselves for the whole of their working lives.

If this thread I'd based on the bedroom tax thing (not sure if it is or isn't) then I think it's a separate problem to this perceived unfairness towards younger people over older people. You could just as easily blame single parents and separated families for the housing problem, but it would be pointless. Whatever group of society has has caused us to need more homes, this is the situation we have now, and the only real thing that is going to make a difference is building more homes.

nefertarii Mon 11-Feb-13 10:34:43

I can't believe people think the older generation it easy. especially those in social housing and still live in social housing.

I don't like the changes but alot are missing the point. The changes are NOT ageist. Which I what the OP was actually about.

And yes accusing the older generation as 'pulling the ladder up after them' is attacking them.

That's not what they did nor their intention.

expatinscotland Mon 11-Feb-13 10:41:25

'But I just can't get upset about older people claiming HB when they retire when they have housed themselves for the whole of their working lives.'

You can't, when they didn't 'provide for themselves' without help from the state, as you've banged on about time and again?

You're 100% certain all those age 61 and over had never done anything but house themselves, in social housing, all their working lives?

So it's okay to assume anyone 61 or over has done nothing but work all their lives, never claiming HB or other benefit, and therefore shouldn't have any reduction in their housing benefit, the only criteria being their age, but anyone younger than that is a feckless scrounger who deserves to lose it?

How incredibly odd.

CloudsAndTrees Mon 11-Feb-13 10:44:39

What? confused

I don't understand everything you've posted, but it seems you are making some very wild assumptions!

expatinscotland Mon 11-Feb-13 10:55:53

Cloud/Outraged, 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.

This is no exception. People, who are not even pensionable age, are not having their housing benefit reduced for under-occupying in council/social housing, for one reason only: their age, of 61.

By your own definition, these are people who are not 'providing for themselves'. They are claiming HB for low-rent housing they are under-occupying.

This is an exemption which has only one criterion: age. NOT ability. Disabled people under 61 will be reduced.

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

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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.

Unkindness affects young people too.

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.

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

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!

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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