to wonder why a single pensioner needs more in benefits than a single younger person?

[GiganGORE]

What expenses would they have that a younger person wouldn't?

I am not making a judgement as to whether benefits are right or wrong or any of that.

just pondering why it is felt that the pension should be more per person than the single person income for someone not yet at pensionable age.

Old folk can't get out and about so easily, they don't want to. So they stay at home more. They feel the cold A LOT worse than people with faster (younger) metabolisms. So I don't begrudge things like the TV licence or winter heating allowance (although maybe those should be means tested). Also they have many fewer job opportunities; you try getting a job when you're 55+, plenty of places won't consider employing you. So I think fair enough on a higher tax allowance (or something like that, which is (?I think) means tested).

What else were you thinking of?

As they are on that money for the rest of their lives and needs to cover everything for ever. A younger person should be aspiring to work. Also, more than likely they have paid decades worth of tax & NI. When I was out of work, my benefits just covered food & the basics. I didn't buy a single item of clothing the whole time. Pensioners can't be expected to live like this and nor should they.

Perhaps because the pensioner may well have spent 40 years working before they get it and have therefore earnt the right to a little comfort in their old age after after making contributions all their lives. Think the pensioner should get much more actually.

extra heating is all i can think of

younger people dont get free bus passes,so not travel.

don't know, but it could be that a pensioner has likely paid stamp for 40+ years and is just recouping some of what they've put in.

Perhaps also that we need to provide pensioners with enough money to live without worrying about paying bills and stuff because they can't work, whereas single people can.

I think there's quite a difference between DLA and JSA as well for, presumably a similar reason

I think it's to do with the fact that they can't get council tax benefit, so they have to pay their council tax, which a younger person on benefits doesn't have to do.

what are the amounts/figures out of interest?

Perhaps the younger person could at some stage get a job, therefore it would only be short term, whereas the pensioner cannot and the income they get is for life. They have contributed toward the pension, national insurance etc, the younger person has not.

Actually, I think I have misread the thread

My mum worked hard all her life and now she's a pensioner, she tires very easily, feels the cold horrendously, she had a 24 hour tummy bug last week and it's totally knocked her for six, she can't work again. As a single mum who fled DV she wasn't able to save for a comfortable retirement through no fault of her own.

I've been a young 20 something who juts finsihed uni with no job and I lived on JSA for 6 months while trying to find work. I found work and now I'm ok. A young person can get off their arse and find work a pensioner can't. So what you're saying is that able bodied youngsters should get high benefits when they're capable of working while pensioners freeze and starve for the rest of their lives?

oh, after your post 1980 maybe I dind't misread the thread! I agree with what you have written.

Heating, care expenses, taxis for appointments, food that is easier to cook (cant see a pensioner lugging a sack of value potatoes to their sheltered accommodation flat), adaptations to their home. etc.

I was thinking about it earlier when it was on the news and it said that the single person allowance was ninety odd pounds.
i think the single person IS/JSA/Whatever is about £60.

My only reasoning would be that because they are no longer seeking work. I guess they make the "back to work" benefits lower to entice people to try and look for employment, something that a pensioner wouldn't be expected to do.

Not that i disagree with this you understand. just wondering if there was any more to it.

I'd say heating and council tax too. DH's widowed grandmother is ninety, has limited mobility and sometimes has to buy food from overpriced local shops so there's that too I suppose.

She is a marvel with money though. I'd like to think of her getting a bit more but she'd probably just be more generous than she already is to her grandchildren

A pension is from the state but it's not a benefit. A person has paid in at least 30 yrs worth of contributions in order to get it and cannot and should not be expected to look for a job. Stands to reason that they should get more than a basic subsistence amount that someone who is able to work gets.

Because most young people CAN work, and many elderly people can't.

They feel the cold more. They are more likely to get ill and illnesses have more serious consequences. They are more likely to need to use transport to get about. And most importantly, their situation will never improve - ie they won't be able to go out and get a job which presumably the younger person will at some point.

IMO benefits aren't about what you have put in, it's about giving people what they need. So the argument of 'they have paid' doesn't make sense to me.

It does sound as if it is because pensioners "deserve" to be more comfortable than jobless youngsters.

YABU, and will be old one day too. Dont cut off your nose to spite your face.

There IS an inconsistency here that suggests that two pensioners living together need twice as much as a single pernsioner, whereas other benefits reduce the amount per person when a couple are living together.

Though, I can see that it makes is simpler and cheaper to administer, as well as being better for women.

Can anyone tell me if a pensioner would be able to claim housing benefit on top of this?
(I am really confused by all this benefit talk and what each amount is supposed to include).

And yes, i think the basic idea is that old people are not expected to work and are therefore allowed to be looked after without any moral blame being attached. Fair enough. We have far too much pensioner poverty in this country and it is miserable being old,cold and lonely.

People who can't find work on the other hand clearly need to be punished for their predicament and forced back into work as soon as possible

A pensioner can claim housing benefit yes, if they are renting a property then the state pension wouldn't cover rent. Most home owner will have paid off the mortgage by retirement age, so are less of a burden on the state just as in working years.

rich tea and harvey's bristol cream

Wow. YABU to even question this tbh, I would think it obvious. That said, although there are multiple reasons for pensioners (single or otherwise) to receive more, to me it is the work issue, in that they don't have the ability to go out and earn more, where as younger people do.

yabu - we need to respect the elderly & their pensions. I would ask why does the young person need benefits?