AIBU to wonder why a pensioner struggling financially would not use housing equity?

Emotive language. It's an emotive topic and I am in good company:

"Asset hoarders."

"Those with the broadest shoulders should pay their fair share."

"Working people." (Well, unless they're working people earning more than £39k.)

All courtesy of Labour.

As for the children. Which children? What support? The children whose parents have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own? The children arriving at school with such poor vocabulary they can't access the curriculum? The ones who aren't toilet trained? (Ask any primary school teacher.) Children whose parents are disengaged from their education? Children with serious behavioural problems? Children with SEN who need varying levels of support? Perhaps some of those promised 6,500 new teachers will be able to help. Oh wait...

It'll take a lot more than just handouts to fix those problems. You can advocate for more money if you want. I'd rather see the broken system fixed and people given a hand up rather than just another handout that simply manages poverty instead of helping people escape it. There's plenty of research showing that early intervention can transform children's lives, with benefits lasting well into adulthood.

As for where this discussion has gone... the irony is that you've framed it as though anyone who disagrees with you about pensioners somehow values children less. That's a pretty emotional argument.

No, there was a small overlap.

IHT on unused pensions
IHT thresholds frozen
Tax allowances frozen
House sale funds being used to effectively cross subsidise the care costs of those without a house of savings. What are we paying tax, NI and council tax for?
Proposed council tax changes
Mooted PPT or LVT changes
Mooted changes to retirement ages

Who are the "old" and do they all equally benefit?

Of course we need growth

And yet it does not seem a priory.

https://www.ft.com/content/3a675f7f-ff46-4b8d-9744-08dfed18d23a?syn-25a6b1a6=1

It hurt to admit that, didn’t it?

The emotive language is just constant on these threads isn’t it? As if we are big, bad wolves for suggesting we’d rather more of taxpayers’ money went to support children than pensioners.

It’s so boring, yet another thread about pensions that could have been an interesting discussion and it descends into this.

But too often age is weaponised purely to defend raid after raid on one or two sections of the population because it's easier to take and waste, than pursuing policies that grow the economy, create wealth and raise living standards for everyone.

What raids are you referring to? Economic policy has tended to favour the old over the young in recent years. Of course we need growth but an ageing population inhibits that which is part of the problem.

We partially agree on one aspect.

It’s demographic changes that are the problem.

Just to have “paid”’enough tax to fund a state pension you would need career average earnings of 50k which we know is not the norm. And then there are healthcare costs, education costs etc so today’s pensioners haven’t paid enough tax vs what they are taking out of the system. Thats the issue & there aren’t enough young people to support this cost.

Exactly.

No one is claiming there aren't wealthy pensioners. Of course there are. The problem is the assumption that everyone of a certain age has benefited in the same way or is sitting on significant assets. Like you acknowledged, there are pensioners in £1 million homes, there are also pensioners with modest homes, pensioners who rent, and pensioners living in HMOs with virtually nothing. They are not one homogeneous group.

If the debate is genuinely about wealth, then target true wealth, fairly and consistently (Not the family home). But too often age is weaponised purely to defend raid after raid on one or two sections of the population because it's easier to take and waste, than pursuing policies that grow the economy, create wealth and raise living standards for everyone.

I can’t direct quote sections of your post on the app, but the bit where you say if someone’s home needs to be sold to pay for their care (or indeed anything else, in my view), the proceeds should be used exclusively for them - yes, that’s exactly what I think should happen.

No supplementary benefits until personal assets are used for personal needs. I’m not talking about redistribution at all, I’m talking about personal responsibility. So we appear to be in agreement.

Probably because this thread is about pensioners and , in your naivety, you've fallen for the guff about the woman in the OP.

You keep saying that people shouldn't live beyond their means. Fine. Then let's apply that principle consistently.

If someone has savings, they are expected to use them before asking taxpayers to step in. If someone has housing equity, you believe they should use that too. I don't necessarily disagree with you on that. But if the principle really is that people shouldn't expect others to fund a lifestyle they can't afford, then surely that has to apply across the board, regardless of why someone has no money.

Those "undeserving" pensioner homeowners are effectively being expected not only to fund their own care but also to cross subsidise the care of others. If we are following your logic, let's stop doing that. If someone's home has to be sold to pay for their care, the proceeds should be used exclusively for their care and wellbeing. Once those assets are exhausted, they can receive the same level of state support as everyone else.

If, however, your objective is that the value of someone's home should help fund the wider care system, then that's redistribution. It's disingenuous to criticise those homeowners on the basis of personal responsibility when you're advocating for something fundamentally different. There's nothing wrong with arguing for redistribution, but don't pretend it's simply about people paying their own way.

It’s the “including pensioners” bit that always sends MN into a tailspin. I wonder why.

No it's the lazy generalisatons.

Well said and far better than I could have said it. Like your mother my only extra is a bus pass. In fact her circumstances are very similar to mine. I'm sick of the assumption that we're all living in £1m homes. It's ignorance.

My point is literally that we should target actual wealth. Which should include the house that a person owns. Every person should be expected to utilise the assets they have if they are living beyond their means before being able to apply for supplementary benefits, including pensioners.

It’s the “including pensioners” bit that always sends MN into a tailspin. I wonder why.

So is assuming that the pensioners in this cohort are one homogenous mass, receiving high levels of support.

My mum has no wealth. She worked until she was 75, often holding down two jobs (one full time + one part-time), paid tax and National Insurance throughout her working life, and still pays income tax today. She has a full state pension and a small workplace one. She keeps herself fit and well and other than a bus pass, claims nothing else from the state. So do tell me about the high levels of support she is getting?

No one is saying the world revolves around them. They are saying your generalisation doesn't describe their experience, and that enough exceptions should make you question whether age alone is the right basis on which to draw your conclusions. But you won't, because those exceptions don't fit the narrative you are pushing.

There are wealthy pensioners, poor pensioners, and every other type of pensioner in between. Just as there are wealthy young people, struggling families, and everyone else in the middle. If your argument is really about wealth inequality, then target actual wealth. Don't use age as a scapegoat and pretend an entire group has shared the same experience.

Thanks for that diatribe but I'm no wiser about your previous comment about 'support'. Seems you made it because you got carried away and now can't justify it. I mean, it's not a difficult question but it's beyond you for all your wittering on.

Okay, I know this seems to be such a difficult concept for so many people on this thread but just to say it one more time: this is not about you as an individual. The UK government did not wake up one day and think “Oh, what does Pepperlee need today?”

This is about how fiscal decisions are made across the board for different age groups, and how those decisions, which are often rooted in historic cultural norms, need to be updated to take account for the vast wealth disparities that exist in society today across the different age groups. I genuinely do not understand what is so difficult about that concept.

I don’t go onto a thread about child benefit and start waxing lyrical about the fact that I don’t receive child benefit, so therefore I don’t understand the concept of other people receiving it. Because I appreciate that the world doesn’t revolve around me.

Well explain then. You mentioned 'highest levels of support'. I haven't a clue what you're on about. As a 77 year old pensioner I want to know what high level of support I'm getting.

The faux naivety is so boring.

What support are you talking about?

I wonder why my post got deleted about simple arithmetic?

God knows and he's not gonna let on.

£12.71 per hour x 16 hrs = £203.36 per week x 52 weeks = £10574.72.

Tax free allowance = £12570.

Yet they somehow pay tax