to not be surprised that 1/3 of young people are in poverty and they are the poorest people in society

[fruitloop13]

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-young-arethe-new-poor-sharp-increase-in-the-number-of-under25s-living-in-poverty-while-over65s-are-better-off-than-ever-9878722.html

Can't say I'm surprised at all. This isn't going to end well.

Just isn't right that they have the lowest income but are likely to have high outgoings.

I'd like to see a rebalance of the tax system to be much fairer (Ni), only give pensioner benefits to the poor pensioners with pension credit, change state pension age to life expectancy -5 years and stop the interference in the housing market so that it crashes to free market values. Anyone else agree?

Oh god its so depressing

I think your pension age idea is way too extreme. By the time people are 7 years before their cohort life expectancy, the majority would struggle to work. People just aren't healthy enough. Current age is too low and will need to move but jumping straight to mid-eighties would be horrible.

Completely agree with NI - there was a thread discussing that a few days ago. It's really wrong that low paid workers pay a higher marginal rate than well off pensioners.

For things like winter fuel allowance, free bus passes etc I think it should only be for the poorest people in society regardless of age. It's not right that millionaires get £300 they didn't ask for and don't need.

Housing - I think the market is fairly free but is slightly distorted due to tax treatment and some of these help to buy schemes. I'd support your idea. Ending the CGT exemption on main residences would be helpful in this regard. Then ending help to buy, right to buy (if it still exists) and any other government schemes of that sort.

Hopefully prices would drift downwards rather than plummet. This would help almost everyone.

Young people have not had a chance to climb the career ladder so IMO that's relevant to this debate

Would you not expect 16-25s to be poorer than any other age band? A high proportion will be in education, apprentiships and training of some sort or only just starting out on their careers. I earn a lot more now than I did in my teens and twenties, as did most of those who are over 65.

I hope this isn't going to turn into an age bashing thread.

Has this not always been the case?
You are at the start of your career. You haven't had the time to build up to a good wage or to accrue savings.

Hmm, it definitely feels like an age bashing thread.

Yyy exactly what the pp said

So who are the other two thirds?

I was in my nearest city yesterday and in the small area that we were walking through we saw 6 homeless people. Now there have always been homeless people, of course. But the problem is getting worse.

They weren't the stereotypical old drunks. They were young men, I would say late teens early twenties. Thry didn't appear to be on drugs. Just young men who were falling through the cracks in our crap system.

That's a more relevant point honey. The young have always been poor because they've had little chance of earning a wage to build up savings. I don't see why it should be any different now.

Gosh it is sad that you can't point out that young people are now the group most likely to be in poverty without people saying your being ageist. No wonder all the MPs are scared of the grey vote.

No this hasn't always been the case!

it makes perfect sense they are the poorest. many still in education or only starting off on their career ladders nobody starts at the top. people of pension age have had a lifetime of work joke themselves financially stable. also younger people tend to spend a lot latest fashions gadgets nights out etc. I didn't become more financially responsible till after I hit 25

Sliceofsoup yy massive increases in rough sleepers in my local area and where I work. It's really depressing and upsetting. I'd say it's been creeping up over the last couple of years.

I am surprised actually. I mean, I suppose it makes sense now I think about it but I hadn't really thought about it.

The thing is though, they've got years to get richer haven't they. We all start somewhere.

I kind of agree with you that the pension age is too low and think that rich pensioners get too much help. My grandparents (80s) are rolling in it and always have been. Yet, mention to my granddad that his fuel allowance and bus pass might not be strictly necessary and you'd get the lecture of your life!

One thing that confuses me though - if the pension age was originally set to reflect a lower life expectancy and people were only supposed to have 5-10 years of retirement then why was it set at 60 for women and 65 for men when women, on average, live longer?

Any relative definition of poverty, as opposed to absolute (ie who out of everyone has the least) has always had young people making up the most. There are so many reasons for it - delaying entering the job market for all sorts of reasons, difficulty in finding a job, finding lower skilled jobs while they train up. etc. etc. No time to build up assets to fall back on etc.

Relative poverty isn't really very interesting - absolute poverty is - relative poverty just makes for statistics which better support the political point anyone wants to make.

Of course it's concerning that under 25s have difficulty getting into work and that needs to be addressed but at that age they are still building up their income if they are working, or may still be studying.
Of course they won't be as prosperous as older people.
There are plenty of over 65s who aren't particularly well off.
While I think such things as heating allowance should be means tested, and the extension of the pension age is inevitable in view of increased life expectancy the sheer resentment of older people is quite clear in the OP.

I know lots of pensioners who are well off/comfortable, who were struggling/very poor when young.

Many pensioners will have paid off mortgages in their early to mid 50s, so had a decade of no housing costs to save before retirement. Many over 65s have no housing costs. Few under 25s have no housing costs. (and the generation retiring now/the last 10 years includes the huge shift to home ownership in the 80s, so you have less renting in old age than in previous generations, being rent/mortgage free will make you much better off.)

The employment market now is shit, graduates/school leavers now are trying to compete with people who lost their jobs with 5-10 years work experience and are prepared to take lower status jobs. This isn't an issue with the young competiting with pensioners, but competiting with 30/40-somethings.

Did anyone actually read the article or report? Its about low wages and self employment with little prospects of good jobs.

This generation won't be able to work themselves to more money and its not about savings.

How is my op sheer resentment?

The resentment is apparent at least to me even if it isn't explicitly stated.
As a childless person in my late 60s I've worked all my life. I've been hit by an expensive divorce and don't own my own property. I've paid considerable amounts of tax and NI and work full time as well as being self employed in an effort to be self sufficient for as long as possible.
I sure as hell don't expect my state pension and associated benefits to be attacked when I eventually do receive them - I intend to defer my state pension if I can in any case.

Sorry in my late 50s not 60s.

Divorce and the loss of my original career hit me financially. That's what I was trying to say.

Your soloution is based on the fact you ultimately feel the eldest in society should be the poorest.

but OP - the article does talk about the problems from the high cost of housing, but for many pensioners, this is not an issue as they have paid it off and have no housing costs. (Even if htey haven't cashed in the house price rises, being mortgage free makes a massive difference to how you can live on a low income).

The young are more likely to be single and more likely to not have DCs, so less likely to get social housing. The young are now trying to compete for work against 30-somethings who have lost jobs and are prepared to take a step down, they aren't competiting with the elderly.

Its sad that I suggest changes to the system to make it fairer and you call this resentment.

Someone with empathy looks outside their own circumstances at the bigger picture.

Your soloution is based on the fact you ultimately feel the eldest in society should be the poorest.

What a stupid and unjustified statement.