to think the poorest pensioners in the UK aren't actually that poor

[twistedsista]

The minimum amount a pensioner will get at the moment if they have made no provisions is 7714.2 pa tax free + free bus / train (depending on areas) + winter fuel allowances + warm home discount + free perscriptins + consesionry prices for many things etc and most bought homes when they were reasonable so they have minimal housing costs.

Compare this to a single person on nmw who could be paying 25 a week on bus travel, 130 a week on rent with no hope of buying. they have to pay tax and if they are under 45 they will never get the benefits that they are paying for pensionrs to have at the moment.

I'm not being ageist, just looking at the sums

lulu they won't get it.if a sinle earner in household earns 60k you effectively lose it. My dh earns that and we are 188pm down. Thats fine. We can live without it even in expensive south east.

oxford Sorry, I wasn't very clear. Yes, I know that. I was trying to just illustrate the point that it should not be universal. Am 12 weeks preganancy. We won't get it and don't need it and that is very reasonable I think.

Interestingly I heard that "pensioner hatred" is growing in Italy, where there is dreadful unemployment among young people.

In Italy public sector workers can retire on a full pension after a laughably short working life. They may have changed things now, but it was not uncommon to find "pensioners" in their 40s. There also used to be rent control in Italy which meant that many people were sitting pretty in lovely apartments but paying ludicrously low (utilities inclusive) rents that had been set perhaps in the 1950s. Along with the low birth rate, the taxpayer is now being crippled with the burden of supporting a top-heavy aged society.

Lulu I take it the school you work in doesn't set any homework that involves using a PC .

Im also assuming that the bullying policy is more than adequate too. Because I can certainly remember the poorer kids being very badly bullied when I was at school and that was back in the 80s. With all the pressures to have what the latest celeb has due to the culture now I should imagine that its now even worse.

So instead of just concentrating on the perceived "freebies" how about teaching a class on how society has changed. You could work the celebrity culture into it and how that has changed expectations. It could be part of a sociology module.
If it really bothers you then that is the place to begin change. Of course any homework wont involve needing to use a PC!!!!

If you need to get hold of a parent in a hurry due to an ill child or another emergency and you only had a landline number for them would you then be saying "why on earth haven't they got a mobile in this day and age"

I don't know if this info has already been given - but probably useful to know.
At the moment-

"You need 30 qualifying years of National Insurance contributions or credits to get the full basic State Pension. This means for 30 years at least 1 of the following applied to you:

you were working and paid National Insurance
you were getting National Insurance Credits, eg for unemployment, sickness or as a parent or carer
you were paying voluntary National Insurance contributions

If you have fewer than 30 years, your basic State Pension will be less than £113.10 per week but you might be able to top up by paying voluntary National Insurance contributions."

Great idea Darkesteyes about finding a way to teach about money and fairness in schools, perhapsor draw 3 things you can buy for £100, or obvious maths lessons, or Geography, income, housing and fuel costs around the world, or history, how much grandparents earned and how we earn now...

Those on a basic pension who rent will get housing benefit so the rental contributions argument can be disregarded unless they are paying bedroom tax or similar on a larger than needed property.

If you have worked abroad or come to work here from another country and have not paid NI for the full 30 years you will get a vastly reduced pension.

The expectation of having mobiles, Sky and internet have added a lot to the modern household bill, for us that's about £1000 a year. Car payments probably add about £3000 plus.

YY unreal and it is expected. Employers expect you to have a mobile and PC as well as schools.

My niece applied for a job at WH Smith and it was online application only.

People on a lower income cant seem to win They just get gaslighted to fuck!

I'm not being difficult but you can do online applications in libraries and job centres.

Our school has computers available before school lunchtime and after school- loads of children choose to come to homework club to do homework.

Expensive mobile phones are not a necessity- mine was £10 at Tesco and is PAYG. Alright, it doesn't do anything fancy but it does texts and emails which is all I need.

I see children who each have an expensive mobile as do their parents and they live on benefits. I just can't see how if they need to go to food banks- which many do- they can afford 3 and 4 monthly mobile phone contracts, a new car and sky sports.

I am just saying what I see.

And there are other families on low incomes where both parents work and they don't have the money for those things. The state should not be funding people to be able to live more easily on benefits than in work and it still is.

Anybody on a low income with children receives benefits.

Receiving benefits is not the opposite of working.

Lulu libraries are closing down due to cutbacks.
And ive never known anyone be able to do an online application in a Job Centre?!

And if parents think a lot of teachers think like this I cant see them garnering much support for the upcoming strike.

And you haven't said anything about the prevention of bullying policy.

What about the children who cant attend homework club and HAVE to do their homework on a home PC due to caring responsibilities. They do exist you know.

And another thing.... the whole point of school uniform was so that everyone is treated equally regardless of income and that there would be no divide and rule.

Yep Works really well doesn't it!

You are completely missing my point. Whether that is my fault for not making it clear or a defensiveness on the behalf s some, I don't know.

I understand how benefits work.

My point is that the system should not make financially better not to work than to work. I see families daily where parents work (and will be entitled to some benefits) but are in low paid jobs, and they have less income than other families who exist entirely on benefits- as described above.

I am not saying all people who claim benefits are like that but amongst some there is a culture that the state should keep them. Last week, I had a mother who comes from a whole family who have never worked, tell me she wanted to take her son out of school for two weeks to go to Florida with her boyfriend- who has also never worked. They are covered in gold jewellery, drive a big 4 wheel drive and live on the local council estate rent free- she proudly told me benefits make it pointless for her to work.

I had another,single, mother who works as a cleaner in the school morning and evening and in the local Aldi in between, come to see me because her daughter is being very difficult at home because she can't afford the £80.00 cost for her a ticket for a boyband that all her friends are going to.The daughter was really upset and said they are poor and the mum said 'well yes we are' . She said her jobs put her just above the limit where she gets much help and she would be better off if she stopped one of the jobs but she does not want to be reliant on more benefits.

It just does not make sense to me . I see it all the time. My point being the system seems to work against people like the mum who works so hard in low paid jobs.

Lulu this attitude from a teacher disgusts me But it doesn't surprise me.

When I started high school in 1984 (yes NINETEEN EIGHTY FOUR) my mum bought me the full school uniform.
But she didn't realise I also needed a PE uniform and at 11 years old neither did I.
Every PE lesson my teacher kept on and ON at me to get the correct uniform. But I didn't want to bother my mum with it She says my dad kept her short of money. So I left it and took the shit for it the PE teachers doled out to me every lesson. NOT ONCE did one of them try to speak to me on my own about why I didn't have the correct uniform. Just moaned constantly to me about it in front of the other kids.

You do NOT know what is going on in peoples homes from seeing a few possessions.

And I was an overweight kid and was constantly bullied in PE by some of the other kids IN FRONT of these same teachers. They did NOTHING about it though. Priorities eh?

Lulu I sincerely hope you are in the minority because I would hate to think that little has changed in THIRTY YEARS!

Who are these people who tell others their whole working history Ive never met one

OK. I give in. It seems that after all these years of teaching and being Head of Pastoral Care, getting to know families well and building really positive relationships with them, I have no idea what I am talking about.

Can't be bothered to argue about it. My view is at least informed and balanced-as I have said, I am not saying this applies to all people on benefits but it does to some.

I will go and talk to DH instead - he's watching football.

But it isn't informed and balanced. My dad drove a Mercedes in the 80s. My PE teachers probably thought...blimey he drives a Merc and Dark hasn't got the correct PE kit.

Lulu the final paragraph of yr post at 9.42 isn't treating people individually. You've lumped them all together like one big mass.