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.

Bogeyface, that is a legitimate question, but I don't see it as the only question - I don't think I am missing the point, just putting the issue in bigger terms than just carers (which is a crucial part of it)

The bigger issue is fairness. We don't have it. There is so much hate peddled against various social groups and while I do not think it is a desirable aim to be "fair" by hating everyone, I think it is worth using this affection we seem to have for old people as a sort of lever to engineer a more general affection and respect for everyone. And part of that is to highlight how badly we seem to be letting down young people, the disabled, and yes, carers, and to whose advantage all this is.

Personally I do not buy all this "there is no money" bullshit and don't have some raging desire to go round turning off all the OAP's radiators, but what about this: where is the logic in their free public transport but not young people in education? Old people do not earn, so we pay for them to use public service that working people pay for instead. Agreed. What about the young people who don't earn yet? What about families with dependent children: why can't we pay for them to heat their houses because the children in those houses don't earn yet? The adult might earn, but the adult alone would only need a one bed flat and would heat it for peanuts. All this sort of thing was implicit, once, in significant child benefit, grants for 6th formers in education, a much higher real threshold for free school meals, generally available social housing, free school bus passes, etc etc . It is all being taken away. why?

If I look at other countries, there is a different take on this split of wealth between generations.

When I was growing up, my grandmother lived with us because she was too frail to live by herself. Her house was sold so we could buy something with a bedroom for her. I can't say any of us enjoyed the experience, as she was a VERY difficult woman, and my mother has vowed never to inflict herself on me or my sister.

This is also what my US cousins did- one cousin drew an admittedly very short straw and cared for years for my Aunt. On the Aunt's death, the cousin took over her flat, with the blessing of the entire family who understood that otherwise it would have been sold to pay for care anyway.

The politicians today imply that young people between 16 and 25 ought to live with their parents and not claim benefits. No politician has suggested that the elderly ought to live with their children. Of course, in both cases, there may not be any children/parents to live with in the first place.

Multi-generational living is making a serious comeback in Greece at the moment (and probably elsewhere) as people share houses, childcare and salaries in the face of extreme hardship, especially for the younger people. In the UK the trend is towards separate homes for each family unit and for each generation. We didn't use to live like this- poor people, anyway, back in the 1940s routinely had sisters, grannies, etc living with them.

I wish that rather than stir up resentment towards the older members of our families, we could rethink our recent habit of all living in separate homes. Young people could get access to all this equity, or at least to someone trustworthy as a landlord. Older people would not have spare bedrooms, they could help with childcare and be less alone in old age.

I personally am highly antisocial and a true introvert. Even the thought of multi-generational living makes me twitch. But I have an uneasy feeling that this is where I have become most spoilt over the years, not in financial terms, but in the level of privacy I expect in my forthcoming old age. There's no doubt that if I did this, I could offer far more help to my own adult children to buy their own homes.

Perhaps we just can't afford this social structure any more?

Older people are the biggest group of carers.

I don't think Mildred there is respect and affection for older people. I think we are a very ageist society that generally doesn't care about older people. It is no coincidence that many of the worst scandals in hospitals have been in wards for the elderly.

And yes Mildred. When our current pensioners were young, many did live in the family home and take care of elderly relatives. That was fairly standard for all but the very well off. Young people are no longer willing to do this.

Thanks sabertina/little miss.

God to have balanced discussion without being accused of

hating pensions, being very mean op! Or I want them to starve, die of cold and im a product of thatcher.

A few things from this thread have become clear.

We now page 7

No one has identified any specific cuts to this age group centrally.

I have no doubts council cuts but its up to each council what they cut ours has chosen bins and street lighting as many oaps up in arms about between 12pm and 5am no lighting as if so many roam the streets at this time of night.

wfa, bus passes, tv licences all remain for all pensioners.

pensioners biggest under occupiers in social housing so they protected from the subsidy.

I looked at availaible social housing in entire city I live in

currently no houses and lots of flats and 50%of the flats were for elderly people.

Other things made clear.

Is lots of people know lots of wealthy pensioners.

But I acknowledge that there are some very poor ones.

I have no problem with supporting the elderly when they need it,

I dont really have issues with pensions even thought retirement age will be 70 for me and im sure I will be a poor pensioner as neither of us have workplace pensions in place.

What my argument is and what the government say is we have limited money would rather see the money go to those who need it not to fund jags and holidays.

After all its them who demonsiing unemployed, and now under 25s and deciding whos the deserving poor-really hate that word.

Dont see why cant have proper debate about whats affordable and whats not.

Child benefit -we were told we had to share the pain.
Most people took it on the chin.

I did school run in rain today , buses are extorionate here so rare treat but often see peope struggling with little kids whilst the bus is full of pensionsers going on day trips. Also the cost for people get to work know people who walk miles to work .

Roud here people struggle to aford the £60 to send kids to senior school on bus. surly transport to school should be worthy cause of contribution.

Also how it works is people must think their passes mean payment each time. Its more a lump sum paid to bus companies not baed on actual usage so if only 50%opas use the bus then the bus company do well out of that and money is wasted just in case the pensioners want to take the bus instead of their cars.

Depends on definition of carer, live-in etc? From what I've read, it's middle-aged women who form the biggest proportion of carers - of the disabled, ageing parents and of course often children still too.

Ending additional benefits to rich pensioners would be fine. Some certainly don't need it.

In terms of bedroom tax, I am against the policy, but yes it would be fair to apply it to younger pensioners. Nobody is going to apply it to very elderly pensioners, because often when very elderly people move, they die very soon afterwards.

If children are included, yes it is middle aged women. If disabled and elderly, it is pensioners.

The social care for elderly and disabled people has been slashed. Where I live there used to be day centres. home helps and carers to visit the home. Now very few people get access to these, and carers go in for a tiny amount of time to do the absolute basics.

A friend looks after her elderly mother who has carers in. When she is away, friends help out. Because otherwise she would be fed, but not much else.

And the charge for home helps and carers is now extortionate. My friends elderly mother used to go to subsidised activities for the elderly with a bus pick up. She can't get public transport without a lot of help. Those activities no longer exist, and she can't afford to take taxis and hire a carer to visit ordinary clubs.

So basically unless her daughter takes her out, she is in the house 24/7. Without her, nobody would take her out and she would be very isolated and lonely.

Blimey, who'd have thunk it, we live in a world where some people are better off than others. I know, let's redistribute all the wealth so we all have the same, then we'll all be happy. Wonder why no-one thought to try that before?

On point multi generational living.

when i was young dads uncle lived with us.

When parents split we moved in with my nan for a while.

both my nans, aunts reguarly babysat-I dont remember childcare ever being an issue.

My aunt looked after great aunt when she was very elderly as she had no husband or children.

fast foward to now.

my mums remarried 2nd husband just brought her dream home.
her husbands on 14k a year but he had equity.
they holiday least twice a year.
They not even retirement age
she doesnt want either of us me or my sister back home.
she rarly babsyits we 50miles apart and says i brought up my kids dont want to bring up yours.

I dont have great relationship as find her very selfish and couldent wait to move out 19 never moved back.
Im sure if we lived round corner she be equally useless.

On other side of family are in in inlaws

5years ago fil became very ill, he lost aleg and mil refused to have him back home. Said at time to hubby no way we putting your dad in a home we would move and look after him. sadly he died in hospital random heart attack.

He left everything to his wife not sure he had a will.

Mil since has gone bit crazy.
she rarly leaves house.

hubby does her shoping for her, any odd jobs , his brother does slightly less.

Any appointment dental, opticains we take her to.
we invite her round to ours she refuses, same with sports day, nativity,she wouldent even attends the kids chrstenings.

Over the years her healths not been best nothing major but she refuses to see a gp whenever we try push her to get help she threatens to cut hubby out of her will. last year she said she was leaving money to samartitans as they there for her and we not!
I told him tell her we dont want her money.

Recently she said she had some kind of virus and holed up in her bed for entire month.

Hubby rings her twice a day at set times or she goes mad.
Cant go round unannounced.
she will only see 1child at a time.

she refused to answer phone so hubby travels 6miles daily check if shes ok, she kept refusing gp, nurse and ended up in hospita.

Most of her probems are mental she has some sort ocd, gets nasty when challeneged, self diagnoses illnesses, mild arthititas she refused treatment for its been very hard and worry about how she will get in future but shes family and we make sure shes well looked after.

In contrast over sumer went back home to aunts she invited out late aunts best freind round shes in her 80,s lives alone and still walks everywhere she has no family yet she never moans she just gets on wth it contract with moaning mil who whinges all time its really hard.

Im not agist I must have freindly face as lost oaps talk to me some are lovley , others tell me how to parents.Lost do volunteer work.

Theres such an extreme livings standards in the elderly group.

If you had a old peoples mumsnet I often wonder how they discuss current policies if they support all the cuts think young are lucky and workshy? discrimination works both ways seen it in action.

There are lots of very difficult people in the world and some of them are older. Don't disagree with that.

OTOH I know a retired couple who are lovely, nice little terraced house, nothing spectacular. They have one adult son living with them- and they and he see this as a big failure somehow. Both generations are ashamed of it and talk in terms of boomerang kids and how soon can he make his own life etc. There doesnt seem to be an accepted social model in which they could say, DSx is going to live with us forever, we are sharing this house and he will take it over when we are gone. But actually it is a very rational and positive way to solve some of this- not least as reducing the demand for ever more homes will help to contain house prices.

Grandparents are a major source of childcare for many families, especially poor families. My parents aren't in great health, but they help out my BIL whenever he needs childcare - he lives close to them. He does bugger all for them. When I go and visit, I am the one doing the odd jobs they can't manage.

Many elderly people I know would love to live with family, rather than live alone. Loneliness is common amongst elderly people. But this rarely happens nowdays.

I think people are generally more selfish than they used to be. So while younger people are often happy to have childcare from grandparents; they will rarely live with grandparents and look after them when they can no longer manage.

beast - I suspect that is because they think he should be married, maybe with kids.

Balanced discussion, my arse. Mean-spirited and blinkered, more like.

The thread is full of people who are envious at their well off parents.

My mums just selfish full stop but dont dwell on it dad rarly sees us but hes happy.

His siblings do lion share of care for my nan since grandad dies last year but they live nearer.

Mil said she would never want to live with us.

pre kids we let hubby,s homeless mate live with us for 6months after bad breakup.

My cousin could do with place to stay but our house just not big enough older houses least had 2 reception room as nan and her sister had best front rooms, normal front rooms, pantry as big as our bedrooms.

We told to move where theres work so many families now scattered as no jobs in town where grew up, housing costs high so its oap town mostly wealthy oaps.

I also think people have mixed memories and think that people have it easier these days forgetting what stuff they did have.

Seems odd our financial fate depends on what decade we were born.

I worry about my kids and glad they not school leavers any time soon.

my neighbours in her 80s and looks after her young grandkids and always thinks shes amazing for her age but her family are quite close knit and round there all the time.We also swop veg, I pick fruit for her as shes nice person.

The one next door to her is wealthy , moans a lot , even says she thinks we mad for renting shes ocmplete snob and her family rarly visit her. She doesnt really talk to be she loves husband and he often does random jobs for her if she asks despite her being constantly rude to me and the kids shes got worse over the years.

The thread is full of people who are envious at their well off parents

Those born in the 40s and 50s (today's retireds) hit a one time jackpot, and tend to ignore/forget that those paying their pensions and healthcare costs today will never get that sort of benefit themselves when old.

And those people now being heavily taxed to pay for others' benefits are simultaneously watching their own kids having to pay a small fortune for education and may never afford their own house.

It's just not a sustainable position, the only reason it hasn't collapsed yet is the proportion of old people who vote is so huge.

Janey - Nearly two thirds of pensioners are in poverty or on the border of it. You are talking about well off pensioners. Those who had money to buy houses when they were cheap, those who had money to buy shares and have decent pensions. That is not even the majority of pensioners.

With pensions, legally if someone has a pension plan they have paid into, the company has to pay out. A company about 10 years ago? tried to change the pension payouts. They were taken to court and lost.

So if someone has paid into a great pension plan - whether private or public sector - then yes they may have a decent pension. Yes because of rising life expectancy, pensions for young people will be more.

And you don't want to pay old people's healthcare costs!!

Your parents are obviously well off. You will inherit their wealth. People like me from poor families will simply be helping out our elderly parents as they get older.

Nothing to do with being envious. Just pointing out the economic facts: which are that we are about to have a huge demographic bulge of pensioners, mostly baby boomers, who are expecting to receive entitlements to pensions, healthcare and social care for 30 years or more which are (a). in excess of the tax and NI they have paid in and (b). which there are not going to be enough working-age people to afford. What are we as a society meant to do? To cling on to sentimental notions of the wartime generation when the reality is that there will be lot of boomer pensioners who are asset-rich who are taking up amounts of public money that can't be afforded? (not talking about the current 80+ age group here but those who are currently 55-70-ish, who will have been in work for 40-45 years but expect that to pay for another 30-35 years of retirement? And many of whom may no have worked at all but lived in one-salary families).

There simply will not be enough young people working to even pay the pensions bill, never mind all the additional health and social care burdens.

The system only works when younger generations' standard of living and share of wealth rises compared to previous generations - because they can then afford to pay for the generations above them. This kind of hairsplitting about poor pensioners deserving their benefits is a sideshow to the fact that if younger generations are not getting better off than their parents, there simply won't be enough money to pay for their parents' entitlements.

The current generation of politicians are killing the geese that lay the golden eggs - the young and productive. Take the latest announcement about removing benefits from those under 25. Or the trebling of tuition fees. Chaining young people into long term poverty and debt slavery will only mean that in 15 years' time there will be no one to pay for it all. Today's 20-year-olds are the doctors, nurses, care home workers, social workers etc of 2030. When someone who is 65 today is hoovering up winter fuel allowance when they don't need it, in 2030 that will be the same person who may need a great deal of very expensive medical and social care from today's young people and their taxes. A young person who is already weighed down by huge housing, childcare, student loan payments?

What is the solution? To allow more and more public money, proportionately, to go to the over-60s until there is complete social breakdown?

If you are under retirement age, your retirement age has already been extended. 55 year olds are not close to retirement. They will get the state pension at age 66. And like most of us, that will probably be increased for them.

Many 65 year olds do need winter fuel allowance.

Families have always been a relatively poor demographic. Read back to Dickens time and it was the same. Because you have the cost of caring for dependants who are not bringing in a wage.

The solution is an increasing pension age, which is already being put into practice.

I have worked all my life, and I know I will probably die before reaching pension age because of a disability. I will probably live till 60 though and wish I could have a younger retirement age so that I got to enjoy some retirement.

But I also didn't have to go out to work full time at 15 years of age like my dad. I had an extended childhood in comparison to him.

Grennie - your claim that two thirds of pensioners are in poverty has no factual basis - even the left-leaning Joseph Rowntree Foundation only claims 16%.

Look at the ONS Social Trends report. The over-65 group is the demographic that holds the most wealth. On its own, this shows only that there's some very wealthy pensioners. However, the report also states that pensioners are the least likely group to be in poverty.

This doesn't mean that there are no pensioners in poverty, but it does suggest that if the vast majority of our social welfare and health budget are directed to those least likely to need it, then perhaps the priorities might be a bit skewed.

What is the solution? To allow more and more public money, proportionately, to go to the over-60s until there is complete social breakdown?

Right now, that's where the votes are, so that's what is happening.

For hundreds of years parents strove to give their children a better life than they had.

My parents put me through private school : I cannot afford that for my children.
I left university debt free : my children will leave with tens of thousands of pounds of debt
I bought my first house at 22 for 3 times my salary without parental help : my children will never be able to do that
When I was at school the state pension was supposed to be enough to live on, but defined benefit private pensions for all were the next level up : I did not get a DB pension, my children will probably not get a pension at all.
When I was a kid there was free dental care: Now there isn't.

Our parents generation have failed to make things better for us and are setting us up to fail our children.
THat is a great shame.

"The harsh reality of low income in later life

1 in 6 pensioners (1.8 million or 16% of pensioners in the UK) live in poverty, defined as 60% of median income after housing costs
Pensioners are also the biggest group of people on the brink of poverty with 1.2 million on the edge
Low income in retirement is often linked to earlier low pay, or time out of employment - for example, due to caring responsibilities, disability or unemployment
Women, those age 80 to 84, single people living alone, private tenants, and Pakistani and Bangladeshi people are at greater risk of pensioner poverty
The numbers of people living on low income fell between 1997/98 and 2004/5; since then there has been little improvement."

www.ageuk.org.uk/money-matters/income-and-tax/living-on-a-low-income-in-later-life/

So overall nearly two thirds of pensioners are in poverty or on the brink of it.