To think this government are ageist

[JazzAnnNonMouse]

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?

[ethelb]

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]

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]

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]

'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]

What?

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

[expatinscotland]

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]

Totally with you, Expat. Wonder if cd be subject to any EU age discrimination law?? No reason it shouldn't work both ways

[CloudsAndTrees]

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!

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]

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]

So 24, married, one child, working on NMW you can only have 1 room? Yes that's fair!

[wannabedomesticgoddess]

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

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

[CloudsAndTrees]

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.

[wannabedomesticgoddess]

Unkindness affects young people too.

[CloudsAndTrees]

Yes, but like I already said, young people are better placed to help themselves to move forward than older people are.

[wannabedomesticgoddess]

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

[Salbertina]

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]

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.

[JazzAnnNonMouse]

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]

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 :(

[manicinsomniac]

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]

"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]

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

[wannabedomesticgoddess]

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

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

[SilverOldie]

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]

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.