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.

And, I am also in the (unbelievably) fortunate position to have only had to pay around £1,000 per year tuition fees. The poor kids who entered university this year, unless they have stonkingly wealthy parents, are going to graduate with tens of thousands worth of debt. It will be decades before they can afford to buy houses etc.

Absy, DS1 is 18 and just about to take his A levels. He has 10 GCSEs at A and A* and just got 3As in his January modules. Despite having 5 University offers, he is almost certain he isn't going because he wants to be an Army Officer. if he goes in as a Private he can transfer later on, if he goes to Uni then can't get in as an Officer he would still want to join the Army as a normal soldier but would be saddled with a massive amount of debt he would never clear!.

I feel so sorry for the young people being faced with these decisions.

What do you mean, wordfactory, when you say most pensioners won't have paid their dues? Do you mean taxes or what? Yet another generaliser who also says we oldies don't realise how hard it is for the young.

Most people will not pay more into the pot through taxes than they will cost the country.

To be a net contributor you have to be quite a high earner indeed. Most current pensioners will not have been a net contributor. And the longer they live, the less likely they will have contributed sufficent funds to make them a net contributor.

Which is fine.

But to them go on about how they've paid for their perks is just plain wrong.

isn't the main problem that actuaries underestimated the rise in life expectancy resulting in unsustainable pension obligations.

so baby boomers thought they were paying in the 'right amount' but the sums were wrong leaving later generations to pick up the tab.

at the same time the later generations are subject to global economic competition previous generations did not face.

People of all ages tend to justify their good fortune as a result o hard work. I'm sure DC & NC etc worked very hard while they were at Eton.

The babyboomers had their share of that. Their parents benefited greatly from the high interest rates of the time. They did nothing special to get that but their children were the ones paying. Lots of well off pensioners disappeared off to Spain for the winter (claimed WFA) and when their DC moaned how they were struggling. The response was tighten your belts we worked hard...we won the war we deserve it.

Not sure Nick Clegg went to Eton! But I'm sure he didn't go local comp.

Westminster.

nagy
Nick Clegg went to Westminster, so definitely not the local comp.

This is a difficult area but I do remember being quite surprised to see a company director I knew using his freedom pass (over 60's free travel in London) on the tube. He quite literally lived in a mansion in the Cotswolds.

I don't see how it can be solved.

Means testing would inevitably hurt those on modest incomes. There would come a point when the income of those in receipt of benefits and those having them taken away would collide, or even cross. This is done in Italy and now the worst off people are those with small pensions - they have to pay for prescriptions and even doctors appointments whilst those with nothing continue to get everything free or subsidised.

I do think that all pensioners should have to pay for care. 100%. All those arguing against it are just concerned about their inheritances. If you want to take in your mum/dad/granny and change their nappies - fine - you keep your inheritance. If you want someone else to do it then - unfortunately - you cough up. Furthermore, I think there should be dormitory-style clean and safe care homes for everyone but, if you have large assets, then you can pay for somewhere more fancy. Then that stops the anomaly of someone in the next bed getting the same care free when you are paying from your savings.

So what do you want us pensioners to do? I don't own my own home - could never afford to buy as a single parent with one modest salary. I pay full rent and council tax and the only benefits I get are my pension, the WFA and free prescriptions. I can't remember the last time I saw my GP so I don't think I'm costing the country much for those. I pay my own dentist and optician bills, and pay income tax on my modest occupational pension.

We are not all uncaring freeloaders. When I was young my cohort was called "the back end of the bulge" - that is the last year of the post-war increase(1947) in the birth rate. Successive governments have known for 60 years that there would be an increase in the numbers of people reaching pension age now, and apparently have done little or nothing to plan for it.

Don't tar us all with the same brush, please.

Yes the pension time bomb was talked about for years. Governments of both colours stuck their heads in the sand because doing anything to sort it out sooner was a vote loser.

They couldn't even link an increase in births = more school places in 4/5 years time.

Missrenata, urm, were are not!
Read the thread, it is wrt wealthy pensioners who can afford to live without those benefits.
I'm not a cold hearted bitch, my nan is 67, she is very dear to me, she has downsized over the last 20yrs has a modest pension and savings.
She has less than 10K a yr income but still gives her WFA to charity, not that she should as she is far from wealthy.

I begrudge and find it frankly disgusting that pensioners who have more than

Than plenty are still able to claim free bus passes, free prescriptions and WFA whilst young families and the disabled are squeezed into shoddy inappropriate housing some with gas meters so they end up paying more for utilities as well and charged over the odds for the simple privilege off having a roof over their heads.

People banging on about means testing isn't worth it because of cost, well same goes for universal credit, the system is costing more than it will save, but no no, that's ok to take money from people who ACTUALLY NEED IT, because well they are just scroungers who haven't worked as hard as those wealthy baby boomers.

Eliza 600 i have found the post i mentioned upthread. You said the same thing on another thread last month ....how much harder it was in the 70s and my DH who is the same generation as you disagreed with you.
Here is the post from that thread.

DarkesteyesSun 03-Feb-13 00:43:41

Eliza ive just asked my almost 63 yr old DH (hes a baby boomer too but without the baby boomer attitude)
He says it was better in the 70s that is now and that it was easier then because he was doing 3 12 hr days so that was 36 hrs in 3 days and then the other 2 days they used a generator which was shared between 3 small factories (note the lack of "im alright jack" here.) this was shared between 360 employees between the three sites. Food and drink was laid on for the employees FREE. In the circumstances ive described here from DH he says it was easier then BECAUSE THERE WAS WORK and you could finish in one factory one day and start in another the next day even with this 3 day week.
While this was all going on they were given fuel ration cards but you only had to mention where you worked to the garage and they guaranteed you would have the fuel.
All these companies ive mentioned were looking out for each other. DH says it was easier back then that it is now. (fuel ration cards they were given didnt even have to be used. Can you imagine that kind of selflessness happening now? Ha. Not by some of the attitudes ive seen on here!
Within this ten mile radius there were 7 contract firms which did the work for the bigger companies.
Now they would be fighting each other for contracts but back then they simply helped each other out with steel,materials etc which never got delivered because of the shortage of fuel.
Eliza DH has just said it was a completely different world back then so it cant be compared.
And they got paid OVERTIME RATE even on the 3 day week.

Abra1dTue 19-Mar-13 08:26:04

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.

MYSOGYNY ALERT MYSOGYNY ALERT.

Haha!!
So women that get pregnant without being married are feckless are they?
You are aware that if you have children whilst married and scone a sham, upon divorce you become a Duh, duh, duh,,,,,, single mother who will end up entitled to benefits and you won't be paid alimony or whatever any more in the uk.

You know that right???

OTT my last post wasnt my view it was a copy and paste to show some of the sexism and mysogyny on this thread.

I don't give a toss, either, what the past was like. It's gone now. I just think that everyone should share in the cuts. If they must apply to children, and they do via DLA cuts (DLA is not means tested it is a benefit administered to even disabled children to cover the extra cost that goes with their disability), then those over 60 should have their share, too.

what Expat said. We should all be in it together and that includes wealthy pensioners. they are no more or less deserving than disabled children and disabled under 65's who are taking the brunt of the cuts.

infamouspoo Surely wealthy pensioners are less deserving than disabled children and disabled under 65s. Well, they are IMO.

But they are certainly more deserving than those who choose to live on benefits.

Of whom hint are being dealt with.

There are a huuuuuuge long list of cuts that affect us all and it's time wealthy pensioners lost benefits they don't need and which could save cuts elsewhere.

Why exactly should they be exempt and hardworking families face continuously being penalised?Wealthy pensioners only have to think of themselves,hard working families have children to support.

'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?'

what i say on this thread will come as no surprise to my parents - we discuss politics often. personally i doubt they'll be much left for me and even then i hope it wont be till i'm in my 50's, so i really wont be waiting round! I would prefer a fairer society where i can make my own way, without harming the next generations chances to do the same.

But, even if what you said were correct i don't see how it is hypocrisy to accept your inheritence, once taxed etc, but still not think someone wealthy should get benefits when others are suffering.

Love the SCAMERON name. we should stick to calling him that