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.

see i always thought it was a benefit. hence it being means tested.

that it was only there for those who had failed to sort their own pension out through work or whatever.

I did say in my op that i am not questioning the fact that they do get more, just asking why.

I had no idea that pensioners couldn't get help with council tax and had to pay this out of their pensions. I think that's pretty bad actually.

A young person's life on benefits should not be too comfortable otherwise they would have no moviation to take a dead end or boring job. Living on income support needs to be grim. Prehaps income support is too cushy for long term claiments, but that is another thread.

People who aren't lazy with proper reasons to be on benefits like disablity get more than income support.

The welfare state for younger people should be a temporary safety net not a way of life.

A pensioner has no means of bettering themselves

I've never understood it either. We used to have a neighbour who got pension credit which is about £130 pw now. She got council tax benefit and housing benefit as well, so it was much more than a single person (who gets about £65 on JSA/IS).

She didn't have to spend nearly as much as a younger person, she didn't go out often but there was a cheap pensioners social club. But she didn't have to buy new items like clothes or appliances and furniture because she just kep the ones she'd had for years. She also got a discounted gas bill as a pensioner and free telephone rental which was paid by a local organisation.

It's not true either that she had paid into the system for years - that's why she had to get a pension credit rather than a pension, as she hadn't paid in enough.

It is all true that we need to look after the older generations, but I think the pensions reform is such a big issue because OAPs are more likely to vote than younger people.

Sorry for the cynical comment.

"People who aren't lazy with proper reasons to be on benefits like disablity get more than income support."

Those on income support do have proper reasons to be on benefits - you can only get it if you're on a low income and you're:

*  a lone parent
* on parental or paternity leave
* a carer
* a refugee learning English who arrived less than a year ago

You can't get Income Support if you're able to seek work - you have to apply for Jobseeker's Allowance instead. But the rates for JSA are the same for IS. So there's no differentiation in rates for those who have different reasons for being on benefits.

How many oaps have big tvs & all the gadgets compared to some families on benefits? All the elderly I see seem to be just managing.

"But she didn't have to buy new items like clothes or appliances and furniture because she just kep the ones she'd had for years"

Erm..that's a good thing isn't it?

I guess heating, council tax, and limited mobility meaning more expensive travel and maybe limited ability to access bargains, also likelihood of increasingly frequent healthcare requirements requiring travel to Drs or hospital and potentially other healthcare expenses (yes I know some are free but not all).

And also the key point that benefits for non-pensioners (excluding incapacity and DLA which are completely different IMO) designed to be stop-gap between jobs, so as one of the earlier posters has said, not designed to really provide anything but the essentials as they are supposed to be a short term measure. Old age pension is a long term measure so is designed to pay for a little more comfort and long-term provision. E.g. if I was on JSA and the TV broke, I wouldn't expect to be able to replace it if I couldn't afford it, until I was back in work. Pensioners aren't expected to ever 'improve' their situation so an amount suitable for long term is needed.

D

I can't believe anyone would begrudge pensioners the money they receive? How many of you are not in receipt of ANY benefits?? Very few I'd imagine. Handouts to people nowadays didn't exist to most of the retired when they were in work. No working tax credits, child tax credits etc. Part of the problem in this country is that the welfare state is so bloated with dishing out money where it isn't absolutely necessary. If you want a better lifestyle, earn it, stop leeching of the taxpayer.

Like jumpandpop said, Pension Credit is a minimum weekly income guarantee of £132 for a single person, £202 for a couple. Then Council Tax benefit and Housing Benefit too.

Why is it higher? Random thoughts...

Like gingercat says, pensioners more likely to vote (and to vote Conservative).

Grannies marching in the street looks very bad on TV.

Also, if you ask the general population, "should we cut pensions or JSA?", for example, you are actually asking them; "should we take money from you in the future, or from someone else entirely?" with predictable results.

I didn't say it was a bad thing, GoreRenewed. But it meant that she didn't need much spending money. In fact she wasn't keen on spending it, never went on holiday and just put it away for her grandkids. Most people on benefits can't afford to save!

There would be little incentive to seek work if jsa was higher.

Elder people can't seek work and lots have paid into the system for years anyway.

It's the right way round IMO.

jumpandpop - that is a ridiculous argument.

Of course pensioners need to buy new items, what happens when existing things break or wear out? Should they then be without them for the rest of their lives?
And of course they should be able to afford to go out, and not just to a 'cheap pensioners social club'.

A young person on JSA/IS is much better able to manage with what they have until such time as they get a job, and I certainly don't think that we should be factoring a going out budget into IS which is what you seem to be suggesting?
It is supposed to be a safety net - subsistance level to keep people from going cold and hungry while they seek to better their situation.

She loved her pensioner's social club! It wasn't because that was all she could afford to do, as I said, she had so much left over every week that she just squirrelled it away. She never had to replace anything, furniture doesn't wear out if you don't have kids jumping on them and clothes don't get much wear if you're at home most of the day. She told me herself that she felt she had too much, she was happy to pass it on to her grandkids.

People on IS can't get a job, they're not jobseekers and they often can't seek to better their situation. IS is not the same as JSA, as another poster pointed out above. It shouldn't be a subsistence level because they often have to be on it for decades.

So all of you saying how pensioners have paid in for 40 years etc etc, how is that going to work when I get to retiring age? Because I'll have paid in for more than that but will have to retire later and get less.

I'm not saying it's wrong that they get it, but that argument doesn't wash. We're all paying for lots of things, doesn't mean we will definitely get them.

But then the same applies to a single young person on benefits, which is what we are talking about here.

Families on benefits with children receive additional benefits, tax credits etc to ensure a decent quality of life - which is precisely the way it should be.
But a young, single person on benefits who is fit and healthy has no reason to be out of work forever.

"People on IS can't get a job, they're not jobseekers and they often can't seek to better their situation."

Why? If someone is able bodied they can work. The problem is that many people on IS are far too choosy about the jobs they take.

There are families where no one has worked for generations.

jumpandpop, are you on income support? If so, why do you feel you can never better yourself.

Pensioners can get hb and ctb, but it depends on the level of their pensions and their savings. My late Grandmother said she had never been as well off as when she drew her pension, which was sad, as she could have had pension credit but wouldn't claim as it was charity.

What you are forgetting is that many women of about 65-70 and over didn't pay full NI as they were conned into paying married woman's stamp, which means they have bog all pension now to live on despite having worked for years in many cases. Therefore they need the pension credit to get by. They won't have had the opportunity like us to save as much, and also, some gave up work when they had kids as it was the norm at that time to do so.

By computernerd Tue 26-Oct-10 13:54:15

Those on income support do have proper reasons to be on benefits - you can only get it if you're on a low income and you're:

• a lone parent
• on parental or paternity leave
• a carer
• a refugee learning English who arrived less than a year ago

You can't get Income Support if you're able to seek work

---

Which is why people on IS can't get a job, because by definition if you are on IS you are officially deemed to be someone who can't get a job at the moment. If you are in the category of "person who can get a job" then you move on to JSA (which, as computernerd also points out, is paid at the same rate, just requires you to be actively looking for work).

I've been on IS twice in my life, as a single parent, for about 3 months both times. It was there to tide me over whilst I applied for jobs, certainly didn't intend to stay on it just because I was entitled to it. Yes I had a small child but I found work and childcare.

No reason someone on IS cannot get work.

Pensioners have to be able to budget for the unexpected, it isn't just day-to-day stuff. My parents have just had to pay out nearly £1000 to repair a collapsed drain. They couldn't exactly get a bank loan or borrow it off their parents.

well I'm assuming pensioners can't get bank loans tbh (could be wrong) but the banks aren't even lending to young people with jobs so I doubt it.

Just maybe because that pensioner has paid taxes and NI for decades unlike a youg person.

I am between both ages but as I am paying in excess of £2.5K a month in tax and NI I will feel very entitled to my benifits even though I will have a very good private pension.

Being a lone parent is no reason for long unemployment. witcheseve made proper use of the benefits system. She used it as a safety net rather than a way of life.

"* on parental or paternity leave"

This is short term

" a carer"
There is disablity living allowance and carers allowances.

"a refugee learning English who arrived less than a year ago"

A refugee in such a situation has not had a chance to contribute to the country. Why should they get more than the bare minimum. In many countries there is no benefit system.

I find the sense of entitltement shocking on this thread. Being a single mum is not a reason to sponge of working people for the ext decade. Especially when people like witcheseve are single mums as well.

I think we should look after our vunerable. People should be able to live out their days in comfort and security.

But I dont think 'theyve earned it' is always the reason is it?

I am sure we are at the stage where we have a fair few pensioners (or very near) who have never worked a day or paid any tax in their lives.

Being old doesnt make you noble anymore than being disabled makes you brave or being young and on benefits makes you lazy.

As for the OP - if you are elderly you are more likely to have mobility issues, you cant get away with living on rice crispies, you need to keep warm, you may not be able to travel to take advantage of good deals, you may have to pay someone to do jobs you cant manage.