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

I don't have a problem with people taking out more than they put in, but those of us of working age ate working harder and longer to pay for the baby boomers lengthy retirement.

BeCool - from telegraph article here

"The biggest boost to almost anyone born before 1975 who became an owner-occupier is that housing was effectively free as capital gains on housing far outstripped the interest costs of a mortgage.

House prices have risen by 4,300pc over the past 40 years, far outstripping any other necessity."

If you're really, REALLY interested , David Willetts' The Pinch is a pretty good read...

key words being WHO became an owner-occupier
How many pensioners are owner occupiers?

My mother is a pensioner. She gets the £7714.20 per year but doesn't pay a penny out of that towards her rent or council tax so not sure where people get this idea that this amount is to cover rent too.
Her rent is covered by HB in full, as is her council tax.
She says she is better off than she has ever been but would like more.
Ime, the majority of pensioners want more money but for some odd reason won't stipulate how much more they would be happy with.

My mother would like 300 a week minimum. When I explained that she was actually already getting more than that when her rent and council tax was included, she replied that she didn't count her housing benefit or council tax benefit as income. She meant 300 pounds per week on top of the HB and council tax support.

I understand that pensioners can't predict future costs but if you asked pensioners how much more they want based on their current circumstances staying exactly the same as they are now, ime they fudge the question. How they can ever expect to get enough without saying exactly what it is they want i don't know.
Maybe no amount would ever feel like it was enough?

How many pensioners are owner occupiers?

About 3/4. Feel free to use Google to look these things up yourself by the way, they aren't exactly a secret.

How ridiculous. My mum is 67 and terrified of stopping work because she won't be able to pay the bills. Everyone can see she's too ill and frail to work but she doesn't think she can manage financially if she stops.
She's not rich either or high paid just a council house and no assets.
How about instead of a race to the bottom we save our criticism for those not paying a living wage or those using zero hours contracts. Why do people always want to tackle inequality by making everyone worse off.

so 25% of pensioners aren't owner occupiers and will be paying rent out of their £7714.2 pa - so these will likely be the "poorest pensioners" the OP is wanting to discuss.

£7714pa/£642pcm/£148pw to cover rent, food, non bus transport, gas, electricity, water, council tax (do pensioners pay that?), TV licence (up until about age 75), phone, internet access, clothing etc

It's not exactly a life of luxury and if you can't work you can't work so there is very little chance of financial improvement.

Poorest pensioners do not pay rent or cojncil tax. A younger single person on jsa however has to pay council tax.

Which pensioners are expected to cover their rent out of that? If they are, that is outrageous!!

I was going by comments in the OP and others up thread.

My 86 year old GM is a widow and on the surface of it would appear not to be particularly wealthy. She actually is doing very nicely with all the various concessions and benefits. Spends her time shuffling money from one account to another yet still begrudges putting the heating on or paying for a taxi.

Well you were wrong. That rather changes things, doesn't it? A pensioner get approximately twice as much cash as a single person on JSA (i.e. after rent). That's without taking into account all the other stuff like no bedroom tax, extra help with council tax, free bus pass, winter fuel allowance.

I don't think necessarily that pensions are massively high but if people claim their nan/mum/neighbour is barely getting by how on earth are younger people supposed to survive?

And if they're getting pension credit it's actuay quite likely they DIDN'T 'work all their lives'.

I think the problem is a lot of people get so stuck in their ways and even if they can afford something, won't pay for it, which comes across as mean and stingy but it's more about a mindset of cautiousness and being wary of breaking routine.

That's why I said earlier that people should get into retirement communities earlier, in their mid 70s or so, while they are still capable of enjoying the change and appreciating the company. They will also be able to look after each other to a certain extent.

The problem is this - there IS a conspiracy of silence. Posts like the ones from 6cats3gingerkittens, JockTamsonsBairns, unrealhousewife are so instant - like the squashing of a fly as soon as any discussion in any forum is ever initiated, whether clumsy in it's phrasing or not.
Just watch a few episodes of "Question Time" when intergenerational inequality is raised and INSTANTLY there are the baby boomers, heckling, whistling, screaming down the person who raised the question. The daily mail is literally FULL of baby boomers screaming on a daily basis about lazy entitled money wasting "young folk" who have failed to get on the housing ladder because they bought an IPad (which they need for work but lets ignore that).
Then as soon as they have beaten down those who raised the question in the first place their parting shot is always "but you young folk cannot be arsed to vote can you? so its all your own fault".

Sincerely I don't think there is any incentive on young folk to vote and these type of daily "interactions" between the generations will ultimately result in one thing and one thing alone:

A large percentage of the older co horts will be increasingly resented and lumped together. Yes there will be exceptions for those who privately are supporting the younger generations behind closed doors, but for all those who shout down any sensible discussion about intergenerational fairness, I cannot see how there will not be long term implications for that generation as a whole. Yes they are undoubtedly extremely powerful at the moment due to their financial wealth, but if younger people increasingly resent them as a co hort, is it not just going to manifest itself in negative ways at the years go by? - for example the bright, wealthy and enterprising youth investing in extremely expensive "new age" old age pensioners homes whereby they leverage the wealth out of the very wealthy baby boomers, the sons and daughters of others who increasingly reject the old "duty to visit the parents" and leave their aging parents alone and lonely in their final days etc. It is a bit short sighted of baby boomers to think "I have money, that will cushion me". Health is your wealth at the end of the day, not necessarily £££££

Well done bubbles, that is the best post by far I've ever read on the subject.

I'm still waiting to hear the details of all these poor pensioners that can exist on 8k a year tax free, rent paid / owned outright, council tax payed, 300-400 a year to cover fuel and free unlimited public transport.

How about instead of a race to the bottom we save our criticism for those not paying a living wage or those using zero hours contracts. Why do people always want to tackle inequality by making everyone worse off.

What a stupid overused POV, its not a race to the bottom its about not screwing over the young to win old votes.

This isn't my explanation but it has stuck in my mind:

The voting public will always support money for pensioners - because everyone sees themselves as a pensioner one day.

Whereas people find it more difficult to envisage they could eg, have an accident/illness and be unable to work (I have seen MN threads where the most determined benefits bashers are adamant this could never happen to them, because they have 'insurance' )

So if you ask, 'would you rather put money into pensions or ESA?', you're really asking, 'would you rather give money to yourself, or to other people?'. With predictable results.

The basic State Pension is about £113 a week. If you have an occupational pension that is what you get. Most people paid NI and tax during their working life. Those who don't have an occupational pension can apply for other benefits to top it up.
Those of us with occupational pensions pay tax at tbe same rate as everyone else, so our bus passes, winter fuel allowances (haven't had that yet because last year I was too young) and tv licence for the over 80s are not freebies, we paid all our working lives and are still paying now.

The thing is most people know of a wealthy pensioner sitting in a mansion getting a free TV licence and home help from the council. They also see the old boys in the supermarket scraping their pennies together to buy a pint of milk.

I think it's simplistic to assume that if you say 'we're going to increase pensions' people vote one way or the other. People are more complex than that. Matters like elderly on fuel prepayment meters, care homes, healthcare all factor in greatly.

We need a holistic approach that doesn't mean people lose out. Taxes need to be collected from offshore businesses, employment needs to be more secure. When the basics are right there is more in the pot with fewer people fighting over it.

If JSA's not enough, fight to increase it - don't attack pensioners!

Bubbles. Well blow you. I am still paying income tax, council tax and vat,(can't avoid that one). So I am still paying for the support of the lazy fuckers in my street. some of whom have not worked for 30 years to my knowledge. All of them have more goodies than most of my working friends. They all have more children, One woman freely admits she had her 5 horrors so she didn't have to go to work.
People who have retired don't instantly become evil grasping wee smelling bastards any more than folk in their 30s and 40s suddenlychange into shag happy ( never mind the consequences) slappers. Or though if the cap fits you should have worn it.

My mother was slightly better off as a pensioner than when she was working in her minimum wage job. As a private tenant, she had no security of tenure and when she died she was living in a miniscule flat (all she could afford), her life's possessions stored in various relations' attics as she had no room at all.

She worked all her life, raising me as a single parent with fuck all support.

Feel free to begrudge her the free bus travel and prescriptions that boosted her income to such heady heights

Has anyone mentioned that free bus passes are only useful to people who live any where near a bus route ? The only buses we ever see in our village are the ones laid on to take the kids to secondary school.

My grandmothers income is more than ours. She gets pension, pension credit, attendance allowance. She gets free rent as she is over 80, free tv licence as she is over 75, free council tax, free bus pass, free prescriptions, eye tests, dentists. She also gets an irish pension as my grandfather worked there for a while. She struggles to spend any. She has to pay telephone, electric, water. She has her hair done twice a week and has a small amount of shopping. She gets nearly £1600 a month.