To be raging at Dispatches "rich and on benefits"

[crashdoll]

It's talking about pensioners and all they get from the welfare state regardless of income or savings. Cue clip of David Scameron saying he won't touch their benefits.

Read your post again, it lays blame of teenage pregnancy on the feet of teenage girls.
You may of not intended it to come across that way, but your words do just that.

'UK atlast you were referring to if teens want to sleep around they can at least go on the pill" so you were referring to girls "sleeping around" as boys cant take the pill.'

If I had a daughter, I would never suggest she rely on her male partner to provide the contraception because there is more at stake for her than him. This is commonsense.

Paid work is not the only contribution people make to the stability of society and the wellbeing of its citizens

Im well aware of that. Im a carer.

Sorry, but I think a lot of nonsense is being spouted on this thread.

I'm 60.
I have worked full-time since I was 16. I have one child and took only 5 weeks maternity leave off work (in total).
My work pension contributions were paid every month from age 17 to age 55 and were today's equivalent of £150 - £250 per month. Every month for 38 years worked in the NHS. I retired at 55 as I had what was known as 'Mental Health Officer Status, which allows early retirement.
I now work full-time in a different job and to date I have paid the equivalent of at least £200,000 in income tax (since 1972).
I have never claimed any benefits or used the NHS (except for the birth of my son).
My husband paid 39 years contributions into his state pension and never lived to receive it.
I have been robbed of 6 years' state pension. Having been told that I would receive a state pension at age 60 it has suddenly jumped to age 66. Quite frankly, this is a scam and has done me out of about £38,000 (roughly).

And here is the part most of you will really disagree with:
We had it harder in the 70s & 80s.
I furnished my home second hand and very cheaply.
Couldn't afford a car so cycled 15 miles to work in all weathers at 5am for years.
No central heating (even as a child) etc till I was about 27 and we could afford to have it installed.
Saved every penny for several years for the deposit on a small house.
No benefit culture - we worked or starved. I did two jobs for years to pay my mortgage. I spent years feeling permanently exhausted
No expensive 'toys'...smartphones, telly packages, nice cars, spa days, acrylic nails or suchlike. No expensive nights out - I rarely went out. And before you say they are necessary - no, they are not. A basic internet connection may be necessary for work purposes/writing CVs but that's about all.
No expensive wedding - all our income went on paying the mortgage and paying the bills.
I took a degree in my own time (whilst working full time) and I paid to do so.
I only had one child because I knew that I couldn't afford anymore if I was to lose my job or become ill.
I never had a holiday abroad till I was 35.

And yes, I have a lovely life today - a nice house, a good NHS pension, a well paid private sector job and a good state pension to come in a few years' time.
After 30+ years scrimping and saving I think I deserve it.

And yet today we have young families having several children, living on benefits with no intention of working and feeling that it's their right to be supported by the state, whilst saying that pensioners should be hit in the pocket.

I think lots of women of a similar age do feel let down re retirement age.

It's OK keep pushing the retirement age up but in effect it means the babyboomers everyone hates are sitting on jobs and their grandchildren can't get work.

Eliza my DH is 63 and he disagrees with you saying it was easier in the 70s. I did explain why to you on a previous thread. Ive searched for that post but cant find it. When i do i will repost it here.

It might have been easier in the 1970s. But we did have to put up with the stikes, power cuts and high inflation.

I have awful memories of the Thatcher/Major years. If you had money the high interest rates/utility sell offs were fantastic. If you were just starting out with a mortgage and had a private sector job in industry life was bloody awful. Poll tax wasn't great either.

I believe in fairness. Why should a pensioner who hasn't worked get help from the government but one that has worked get nothing? That's not fair as it rewards people that haven't worked hard.

It doesn't matter what income you are on, it's about being fair.

Eliza, you deserve it?
So what about all of the people in my generation who work just as hard as you did but will come away with nothing you have ended up with?
What you have now is not only due to hard work, you had the benefit of buying a house in times when the Market was fairer and reflected against average wages.
You had the benefit of better pension options, I do feel for you that you were 'robbed' injustice can make you feel bitter and resentful.
I don't see how you can think anyone born after 1984 has it easier.

It is true that the generation born after 1984 has had a decrease in quality of life greater than any other generation since WW2.

I find it hard to believe you haven't used the NHS apart from the birth of your son either.
You are either a liar, or you have been fortunate enough to pay for private medical care.

Those born after 1994 will have it even harder! That's the generation that have been really stuffed with £9000 per year tuition fees.

Eliza, it's not the permanent benefit dwellers that are saying rich pensioners should be hit. As far as I can see there is no-one like that on this thread, although of course they do exist.

It's the people who are doing exactly what you did, but are going to have little to no return for exactly the same effort you put in, and an awful lot of us don't have (or in some cases particularly want) some of the stuff you listed as 'stuff people have nowadays'.

When will we learn?

Dispatches was trying to create exactly the furore that has been shown here. They deliberately showed well off pensioners in well off situations and carefully edited it to give the impression they were sticking two fingers up at the rest of us.

I can remember the last Tory government when pensioners froze to death every winter and struggled on pensions that didn't cover their meagre living expenses. I can remember the high unemployment, the sky high house prices that crashed, causing repossessions on a scale you haven't seen yet.

So far, we haven't seen inflation spiralling out of control - it was 15% then and I think that's yet to come.

This is the start of pensioner-hate, just like single mothers, unemployed people and disabled people were vilified so that their benefits could be cut and removed without a general outcry.

Pensioners are next, by the look of it. I wonder who they'll target after that...

some of the maths on that program had a lot of journalist licence (i.e. a good headline but don't stand up to simple analysis).

at one point they said making x, y and z changes would save 5bn but that was over 3 years, not the annual saving they made out.

while its likely that winter fuel payments etc. will move to means testing, it is not going to save a vast sum of money: most pensioners are on low incomes, with longer life expectancy, poor returns on savings and investments, this number can only grow.

I can't see a reason to attack anyone in Eliza's position. She did what she was supposed to do in the circumstances she was born into, the same as we all do, or should be doing.

Someone in her position does have more right to money out of the pot than someone who has created children they can't afford to bring up.

It's interesting that she says they didn't have heating until she was well into adulthood. Nowadays we have young people claiming that they can't afford heating, as if its something they have an automatic right to, not a relative luxury. As if its something that other taxpayers should be providing for them despite the fact that they made bad choices in life and had children they can't provide for. There are plenty of people in my own family that didn't have heating when they were younger.

If anyone has a right to feel entitled to help from the government for things like heating, it is pensioners. Not people who create children while they are already having to claim benefit of some kind.

OTTMumma So what about all of the people in my generation who work just as hard as you did but will come away with nothing you have ended up with?

what generation are you?

Tanith is of course spot on. I well remember the drip feeding of stories in the Mail et al about the scourge of single mothers popping out kids in return for luxury accommodation and a host of benefits. Over a couple of years public attitudes towards those in need from one of compassion to vilification. The same drip feeding via the same outlets (and the BBC's saints and scroungers) has done the same thing.

When will we get the 1% who own 46% of the world's assets on Jeremy Kyle defending their wealth, or the Daily Mail pointing out that over a lifetime the middle-class are the greatest beneficiaries of the welfare state?

At the moment the climate of envy is leading to a scramble to the bottom - public sector working conditions look too good so rather than raise standards in the private sector we'll happily watch them dismantled.

I wouldn't worry too much about the poor or the old, government policy is working well towards reducing the life expectancy of both. news.liv.ac.uk/2012/12/05/life-expectancy-gap-between-rich-and-poor-set-to-increase-over-next-ten-years/

Even by MN fruitloop standards this thread is off the scale.

People who 'voted' for the Falklands War (don't remember that vote) are responsible for increased price rises and 'pulled a ladder up'? Er, how did that work? Was there another vote called something like 'Let's deliberately make our own children and grandchildrens' lives harder?' Gosh, yes, let's all vote for that because we hate our own children, don't we?

Those of you lamenting the fact your parents or in-laws have big houses better hope you are good and anonymous on this thread. Or they may not leave them to you . I bet you won't be complaining when Daddy leaves you his house in Barnes, will you? Hypocrisy, much?

There is a difference between SAHMs funded by their husbands and deliberately single mothers funded by the state, ie women who let themselves 'fall' pregnant even though there is no man in their life and no job to support themselves.

And finally, pensioners are taxed, you know!

Good i bet all the lefties didnt know what to do last night

They always insist these people who are getting welafre unjustly dont exsit

And there they were saying if you take away our welafre which we can afgord to do with out we wont vote whilest drinking a class of very nice vino and having a round of golf

Hahahaha
Thats were 13 years pf socialism has got us people with imcomes i could not imagain emassing welfare payemnts some could only dream of getting paid at work o

RUBBISH! that report is talking about smaller increases in life expectancy, not shortening life:

?Our study indicates that slower economic growth is likely to result in smaller increases in life expectancy over the next decade"

Well here I go - I'm 64 next month. I started work at 16, went back to higher education when my first child was 6, and worked with children and families for 33 years. I was divorced when my oldest was 7, it was tough as I'm sure you can imagine. I was 50p a week off getting a rates (as it was then) rebate and was on a very very tight budget. There was no child benefit for first children. I re-married and we had two children when I was in my mid 30's. The experience of divorce and all that went with it made me sure I wanted a level of financial independence, including a decent pension, as I'd been left broke and with no pension previously. I'm still married, and we are happy thankfully. I had to retire due to significant health problems when I was 62. As we'd been financially supporting our two children through uni, and our oldest who was on her own with 2 small children, savings weren't possible. My husband was made redundant as part of the government cuts, at the same time as I had to retire. We have saved in pension pots, and managed to pay off our mortgage. We give our winter fuel allowance to charity. I find the vitriol towards older people as daft as the vitriol from some miserable old folks against young people. Divide and rule or what! My generation has worked hard and everyone I know feels fortunate to be old enough to retire before we die. My grandparents worked in mills/down the pit and popped their clogs within a very short time of retirement. The way things are going, we'll be back to that before too long, with people working themselves into the ground before they retire. I still work a bit, I do voluntary stuff, and I love having a bit of time, for the first time in my life, to relax, enjoy my dogs/hens/walking/garden etc. I have various health problems so want to enjoy what time I have here. I think it'd be really mean spirited to resent that. Cheer up folks, life is hard for everyone - I share the resentment at folks like Peter Stringfellow, but he is such a burk, why waste energy fretting about him, he certainly won't change. Rant over, off for a lovely walk in the sun. Oh, and what savings we had have gone to the kids to help with deposits so they can somehow manage to buy somewhere to live. All our friends have done exactly the same as us - trying to help our kids out, as our parents didn't have any money to help us and we know how tough it is starting out.

Faster - Try and read it properly, that study was when average household income was increasing, not in the current climate of year on year decreases in the relative wealth of households. The main point being the gap in life expectancy between rich and poor was a result of policy, the fact it had increased generally being down to income.

lucky - can you quote the part which backs you your assertion government policy is working well towards reducing the life expectancy of both.

the part I quoted contradicts what you have said.

I did not see this years program but did see previous.
State pensions are the return on state insurance system surely that is a right not a benefit. It is only the few well off younger healthy pensioners (who surely pay tax on their wealth including their pensions) that do not need their pension, and many of these will be giving it back in other ways. Most pensioners are not well off, and need the winter payment, NHS services and free prescriptions. If the benefits outside basic state pensions could be linked to tax payments and it not cost masses to administer then I see a way to exclude the very well off from extra uneeded payments. There are ways to opt out of benefits - some formal (like the way people whose partner might earn over the £40,000 limit can opt out of child benefit) some informal - paying privately for healthcare and prescriptions.

The golf club brigade were odious and the Tories are betting on that target group coming out in force for them at the election.