If we all in this together what cuts have oaps faced?

[3asAbird]

As my title says im struggling to see any.

Winter fuel allowance -stays universil-too expensive to means tesrt
same with free bus passes.

part of their social care is paid so they can leave wealth to their families

They excempt from bedroom subsidy so they allowed to under occupy and biggest group.

Pensions I think went up

This new married couples allowance maybe another additional benefit to them if they large proportion of this group.

Housing-they brought at right time probably paid off mortgage and have lots equity.

They moan about interest rates but they fortunate enough to be able to save.

If social-how many homeless pensioners are there? Are they always band a?

Maybe im being harsh and some pensioners have it hard.

But locally they have several holidays a year, holiday homes, brand new cars.

wondering how exactly we all in this together ad should there be mass turnouts under 60 to vote at next general election.

[MistressDeeCee]

There are too many people who spend their lives begrudging & envying others. So meanminded as to want everybody to have it hard, as if thats somehow going to improve their lot. They dont look at the rich - just those alongside them, the people who enrage them as they seem to have a little bit more. These people are probably the ones who caused us to have this ruthless coalition government in the 1st place...theyre never really against the cuts, just looking around for more people they feel should have their money plundered. & behind the scenes theyll be the ones who vote Cameron right back in again. Curtain-twitchers rule.

[sydlexic]

I am 51 and quite well off. When I was younger and had a mortgage to pay at 15% interest and paying a nanny Things were hard. The DC grew up, the mortgage got paid off, wages increase with each promotion. The DC leave home and then you have all that spare income you wanted when they were small.

[georgettemagritte]

15% interest bingo!

The data on record shows that interest rates were at 14.79 between 1 Oct 1989 and 1 Sept 1990 - less than a year. In total the interest rate was above 10% for less than four years between 1988 and 1992.

During large parts of the 80s interest rates were at historical norms around 6-8% (albeit higher than current rates; they were also higher in the 70s into the early 80s but wage inflation was high during that period so wages were often rising above interest rates and general inflation was inflating away debts so people were getting richer in real terms anyway.)

Now interest rates are at historic lows, but wage inflation is low (1% or less) and price inflation is much higher than wage inflation (at 4-5%+) so we are getting poorer.

[evilkitten]

Interest rates may have been at nearly 15%, but this isn't the whole picture. These rates were in place for a very short time - a far shorter period than the current 'economic downturn'. MIRAS was in place, so a substantial proportion of the interest was paid before tax. Borrowings were much lower compared to household incomes, so thats 15% of not much compared to ~5% of a lot today. If I find the time today, I might work out the comparative interest rate. Finally the inflation rate was higher, so the mortgage capital was reducing in real terms.

The picture is very different today. Interest is low, but the borrowings are very high. Inflation and pay increases are also low. While previous generations found their mortgages becoming more affordable over time, this isn't the case today. They remain a millstone for the full 30 years term.

I wouldn't want to be in my 20s/30s today. We complain that they're feckless etc., but the policies of recent governments have infantalised them. Given that they have had to pay for their education, buy their jobs through periods of unpaid work etc., it's no real wonder that they don't feel as though anything is owed to their parents' generation. I've no idea what they should do about it though. They may not vote, but then there is no political party courting their vote.

I'm amazed there haven't been riots. Maybe it's because that generation - far from being feckless whiners - are actually knuckling down and getting on with it.

[Beastofburden]

T be fair to sy I also had a mortgage then and I remember that although libor went down, they took their bloody time reducing the mortgage rates :(

[janey68]

This is ridiculous trying to play a tit for tat game about who had it hardest. There are so many variable to consider anyway... Yes it's true that interest rates were at double figures for just a few years which isn't long in the scheme of things- but my god, those years were damn tough when you had small children. Another thing people tend to forget is that back in those days people had to pay 100% of their childcare costs- and for a lot longer too, as maternity leave finished at 12 weeks so you'd be paying full childcare for almost 5 years til the child started school. Not so now, with tax credits, 52 weeks maternity leave and Subsidised childcare at 3 years .

No, I don't envy the younger people of today- I think there are many obstacles facing them which those of us in our 40s didn't face, but equally there are many things we faced which they won't have to. Parental rights are far better and have a direct knock on to making childcare more affordable, and there is help for those on Lower incomes.

I also disagree with the OP in that the majority of OAPs are not wealthy, many are struggling To get by and don't have a great quality of life

[Beastofburden]

Do georgette and evil have any data that shows us the overall picture for OAPs? The data we saw from the earlier poster was interesting.

Obviously very rich people shouldn't get universal benefits. The question is, how typical are these very annoying rich pensioners? You know what they say, the plural of anecdote isn't data. We saw some data earlier that said 60% of OAPs are living in poverty. Does that make it a reasonable thing to target benefits at them? How many younger people are in the same boat? Is poverty more or less common in OAPS and the young?

[Badvoc]

This govt is targeting the poorest and most vulnerable in society...as they always do.
They are trying to make the rest of us feel superior to those less fortunate or who need help in look after themselves or their family....divide and conquer.
I truly believe that this govt will sound the death knell for free state education and NHS care free at point of access.
It's all going to go.
So enjoy it whilst you can.

[Badvoc]

I also think the govt made a grave mistake keeping interest rates so low.
Trouble is a massive % of mortagages are IO ATM so unless they want to trigger a huge housing market fall they have no choice.
I think IO mortgages should be banned.
My sis has an IO mortgage. She is now in negative equity and can't move.
How many people with IO mortgages have a repayment vehicle in place? Ime very very few.

[Salbertina]

But Janey, relatively speaking such childcare support etc is peanuts when houses are so unaffordable!

Also i do think it should be discussed and reviewed - how else is gov to set policy?? Unfortunately all govs take the short-term view of pleasing the most influential voters (ie those most prone to turn up in vast numbers to vote) who are of course OAPS! As a result, they have a vastly disproportionate advantage when it comes to policy-making.

Am absolutely with Mini and other posters, the older generation benefited so much from the welfare state - free higher education, extensive welfare, good pensions, affordable housing. Yes am

Am also staggered that 20-somethings aren't are there rioting about this but they're too bloody passive probably too busy working two jobs to pay the bills.

[Thymeout]

Free higher education for how many? I think I saw a figure of 6% in the 50's/60's. The overwhelming majority left school at 15. Even at the direct grant school I attended, many went on to non-degree level f.ed - not universities.

Extensive welfare? You're joking. Far fewer benefits.

Good pensions - which took a fair chunk out of our salaries, particularly in the public sector. And the only reason the public sector still have pensions is the unions. There's a lesson there.

[MadeOfStarDust]

My mum is a pensioner - she is typical of those around her....

she lives in a council house - there was never this "You must buy" thing around..... no "nest egg" to fall back on
she had 4 kids and was abandoned by a feckless husband.... there was no CSA.... there were no "child tax credits"... she worked 2 jobs ( one during the school day, one after we were in bed and the neighbour listened through the wall.... ) to make ends meet
she lives "up north" way up north , her pension covers her outgoings in the warmer weeks...

All these benefits she supposedly had..... extensive welfare - errrmmm no - she worked, no CSA, no CTC , free higher education - ermmm yep - for the top 20% of the academic types - none of this 60%+ go to uni lark - you left school and got off your butt and worked... "welfare" was for the poor unfortunate souls who could not work... it was a time of "shame" where it was seen as shameful to take something from the state, and people did it for as short a time as possible..

(Oh and when Bank of England rates were 14.something, I was paying 75% of my wages on my mortgage! House prices were low - but so were wages! - every generation has had their hard times..)

[Salbertina]

That was not this for this generation of OAPs though!
By 1980s. 20-25% were going to uni and yes, it was much much easier than now to sign on, get housing benefit even free dental care back then. Along with far greater job security, much more affordable housing etc etc,

[Salbertina]

I agree about higher ed (tho its a separate issue), far too many are going now and getting themselves into unnecessary debt for little return.

[Bowlersarm]

Salbertini - people who went to university in the 1980's aren't the pensioners of today!

[Salbertina]

Am fully aware of that! The parents of those going then are now and are therefore the beneficiaries of not paying fees, rent etc for their kids.

[Grennie]

:) I went to university in the 1980's. I don't expect to retire for at least another 20 years.

[toomanycourgettes]

I wonder how many on this thread will still be on Mumsnet when they are pensioners and complaining about the youth of the day.......... My M&D both left school at 14 - absolutely no thought of Higher Ed. They moved into a rented ROOM when they got married , not a house, not a flat, but a ROOM. NO HB, no WTC. They lived in rented accommodation until they were in their mid forties and finally managed to buy a tiny 3 bed semi.

My mum suffered bullying and harrassment at work, but there was nowhere to go to complain.

they never had a new car, never ate out, in fact rarely went anywhere that would cost money, rarely bought 'stuff'.

They are comfortable in retirement, and you know what, I'm really happy about that. their health is failing, and I'm glad they don't have to worry about heating and food bills.

I look at my life and if it's OK, I'm happy. I don't need to be on a level with the jones' to validate who I am, and I don't look at possessions and wealth as an indicator of success.

This thread is quite nasty. Envy is a nasty emotion.

[Salbertina]

I think it's a cheap shot to say "attacking the elderly is low"- they're not a privileged group. They are ONE of several more vulnerable groups in society- the young, the sick, the disabled need equal support. And the latter tend to be much lower in the pecking order.

[VoiceofRaisin]

georgette I think I am a tiny bit in love with you. It's great to see someone knowledgeable posting.

Posters who say that the older generation never had "benefits" are not well informed. CB was MUCH higher relatively speaking, personal tax allowances were much higher (so they didn't need TCs as they weren't paying tax in the first place), fuel was cheap (as the younger generation is having to pick up the true external cost of environmental degradation), land was cheap, their pension schemes were rashly over generous (final salary schemes were the norm and are basically unheard of for the current young and are now being paid for by the young), jobs were plentiful, they retire young (the next generation won't).

I can't remember the statistics but baby bookers will on average expect to be net takers from the govt over their lifetimes but the younger generation is expected to be net contributors (to pay for them).

OP YANBU Although some pensioners are poor, there are a lot who are very wealthy and are completely sheltered from "being in it together". The only real hit they have taken is falling interest and annuity rates - affecting those most who are currently retiring and have a lump sum to invest. But that doesn't affect those on final salary schemes or public sector pensions.

[Pagwatch]

Good grief. My dad was still working when he died at 73.
He ever had a day out of work and when he died I had to reassure him that we would help my mum out by getting new fangled things like central heating put it.

This is exactly what the DM and the Torys you claim to hate want op.

Rats in a cage.

[MadeOfStarDust]

Pensioners who are CURRENTLY on final salary public sector pensions are there because they made the choice...

the choice of lower salary and a "nice" retirement OR better salary and self funded retirement...

The public/private sector salaries were NOT on a level par then.....

Fuel may have been cheap - but most people did not even have ONE car - people lived near parents, near work, walked a lot - so much less of the environment was being damaged in the first place...... (my neighbours - 2 adults, 2 late teens - 4 cars! growing up - we got a car when I was 14)

[chrome100]

I am a single adult with no children. I have to say I have not noticed any cuts because I never got anything in the first place - no benefits, no extra money, no tax credits etc. I house share with three other people, despite being in my 30's, because it's the only way I can afford to live. I don't moan, that's life, and I think it's correct for me not to get handouts. I don't think that anyone should receive any money from the government unless they (genuinely) cannot feed/house themselves and it's good that cuts have been made to what were, in fact, very generous benefits.

[nokidshere]

How immature and naïve is the statement "we are all in it together"?

Of course we aren't. That will never change. In any country, in any society there will always be those who have and those who haven't. There will always be some who benefit from the government decisions of the time, and there will always be some who will suffer.

There are always people who don't want to work and want everything on a plate. There will always be those who take advantage of every opportunity that they can find.

However much we deny it, the majority of people look at the economic situation from the point at which we are personally at in our lives. And every one of us would take full advantage of what was available to us at the time (and would be lying if we said we wouldn't).

We need to stop focussing on what happened then and sort out whats happening now. The economy 30/40/50 years ago might be responsible for the way the economy is now but we cant change what it was or blame the people of those generations for taking full advantage of it.