Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

To think this government are ageist

81 replies

JazzAnnNonMouse · 11/02/2013 08:47

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?

OP posts:

ZillionChocolate · 11/02/2013 09:08

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

ethelb · 11/02/2013 09:09

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

expatinscotland · 11/02/2013 09:11

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

nefertarii · 11/02/2013 09:12

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.

wannabedomesticgoddess · 11/02/2013 09:14

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 · 11/02/2013 09:15

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.

wannabedomesticgoddess · 11/02/2013 09:16

nerfertarii

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

Original poster

JazzAnnNonMouse · 11/02/2013 09:16

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.

OP posts:

CloudsAndTrees · 11/02/2013 09:19

There has to be a cut off age somewhere.

Saski · 11/02/2013 09:20

Is this about the so-called bedroom tax?

landofsoapandglory · 11/02/2013 09:21

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 · 11/02/2013 09:23

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 · 11/02/2013 09:26

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 · 11/02/2013 09:28

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 · 11/02/2013 09:29

@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 · 11/02/2013 09:29

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 · 11/02/2013 09:30

@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 · 11/02/2013 09:31

@nefertarii financially yes it has been easier for them.

TroublesomeEx · 11/02/2013 09:31

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.

wannabedomesticgoddess · 11/02/2013 09:31

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 · 11/02/2013 09:31

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

wannabedomesticgoddess · 11/02/2013 09:36

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 · 11/02/2013 09:39

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.

CloudsAndTrees · 11/02/2013 09:39

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.

expatinscotland · 11/02/2013 09:39

'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.'

Flip

1 2 3 4