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?

There is a level of age inequality that is reflected even in the Equality legislation, and is based on the idea that the young (usually) become old, and that you are allowed to continue to own everything you have earned in your lifetime.

I would prefer to see efforts on reducing the factors which lead to inequality being reduced.

That may well still produce the basic statistic that the young have fewer assets than those who have reached the end of their working lives, but at least then there would be no-one left in an unacceptable state.

oh and Honeydragon has it, who should be the poorest group? I would say the 18-25s in a healthy economy - those who are starting out, who don't have DCs or years to save/get promotions.

If you are earning the minimum wage while you 'cut your teeth' and gain experience in your early 20s, it's hardly the end of the world if you can see the possibility of improvement and you don't have responsibilities yet. In your 50s, that's it, as good as it gets.

No, I am not at all surprised about this-I think youth unemployment and young graduate unemployment is a terrible thing and if we are not careful we are going to have a lost generation.

I don't fully understand your suggested solutions though and would like further explanation of how they would help.

I have been told that means-testing things like the pensioners winter fuel allowance would be as costly as giving it as a universal benefit.

I am aware that the outgoings of families are higher.

Is redistributing between age groups the answer? Perhaps we should be looking at the distribution of income in society where all the wealth is in the top few percent.
I am genuinely interested in an explanation of how your solutions would work.
Alo do remember that a high proportion of people now have an extended period of frailty or ill health before they die. Modern medicine keeps them going

ilovesooty

I will work and pay tax and NI all my life, but the way things are going I dont think there will even be a state pension when I reach retirement age. By then it will probably only be those who have been able to afford to pay into a private pension that will be able to retire at all.

So forgive me if I dont cry into my cornflakes about pensioners benefits being attacked. They are the only group that haven't seen cuts ffs.

That is what you proposed in your op as a soloution. The young are competing with the Middle band for jobs, your soloution is to penalise those currently at or approaching retirement.

Potentially flinging them back into the job market.

There was no need to be rude to me either, was there?

Or is that how you intend to approach people with differing outlooks to the article to your own?

I have been told that means-testing things like the pensioners winter fuel allowance would be as costly as giving it as a universal benefit.

That's a great myth. People are already means tested for the pension credit, so it would cost virtually nothing to on!y give pensioner benefits to these pensioners.

Why not means test maternity leave too, so it is based on household income?

You attacked me first hun with a stupid statement.

I don't really think its attacking pensioner benefits if all I'm suggesting is only give them to ones in need of them.

The current under 30s no matter how hard they work will never get the wealth that the current over 60s have.

Isn't the point though, that 16-25 year olds aren't at the start of their career because for many there is no prospect of a career. And that in twenty years many of them will still be on minimum wage and stilljob hopping.

The change in employment contracts and the fact that employer rights have over taken employee rights is one huge shit storm that isn't going to end well.

So your solution is to push pensioners back into poverty?

Maybe look at the tax system and those who avoid paying it. You really seem to dislike older people. I think you've posted a similar thread before, haven't you?

In that case I do tend to agree that some benefits to pensioners should be means tested-no point giving money to relatively well off people whilst babies live in cold houses.
I still hope OP comes back with more explanation though of how her solutions would help younger people in poverty.
I still have a feeling that small movements of money across age demographics isn't going to do a lot and there are much bigger issues at play.

Isn't the point though, that 16-25 year olds aren't at the start of their career because for many there is no prospect of a career. And that in twenty years many of them will still be on minimum wage and stilljob hopping.

That's exactly it, coupled with high house prices, fuel and well everything is rising in price far quicker than wages.

The drivers of youth poverty are a lack of proper jobs (zero hours etc), which is not the fault of pensioners; student loans (ditto); high housing costs (ditto).

You expect not to be well off when you are starting out. Do you not see the correlation of youth unemployment with (a) excessive immigration and (b) increasing the retirement age? Can you not get that if you force people to work into their 70s there will be even fewer jobs available for young people?

I have 4 DC in their 20s. The only one of them who has ever been out of work is also the only one to have graduated, but she chooses to take temp PT jobs, and refuses to work in service industries.

In fact where I work the 20 somethings come in and zoom up the career ladder, while those of us middle aged women get stuck in the lower grades. Certainly in our office you wouldn't recognise that there was a problem with youth poverty. My boss is 29 and on over £30k.

Instead of pitting one group against another shouldn't we be striving for all to have better conditions?

When I was 25 I earned a lot less than I do now aged 39. I hope that I am better off at 60.

I think you need to look up the word empathy again, if you're also going to call people stupid.

Also, I am not a 5th century no ad.

Yes sliceofsoup the power has certainly moved in favour of the employer-zero hour contracts etc are a disgrace. People take whatever they can get grateful to have a job.
I suspect OP that your solutions only tinker at the edges. Making moderatelt comfortable pensioners slightly worse off is not going to solve the problem of poverty for young families.

*nomad

typo-"moderately"

I think there are bigger issues at play too. Inequality of wealth and erosion of employment rights us far more concerning than the notion that pensioners are profiting at the expense of the young.

I'd like to see the building of a lot more flats, and developing the living space in cities instead of giving it all over to commerce and offices. Apparently there are enough empty floors above shops in London to solve the housing crisis for the whole of the UK. If owners could be pressurised into turning these into liveable spaces, it would force the cost of accommodation down by market forces.

Young people tend to prefer to live in cities anyway, and a profusion of cheaper dwellings could only benefit them. To my mind, this poverty is not a demographic problem, it's a problem caused by the fact that property is an investment market in the UK. We could all do with losing a lot of value on our houses (as long as we're not in negative equity) to try to turn the housing market back upside down. It makes absolutely no sense for older people to be living in a £1million house with no mortgage (simply because they bought when it was cheap and the house prices rose around them) while their 8 grandchildren are flat sharing until they're 40.

I've been having this type of conversation recently with my lovely and shrewd MIL, who is fully conscious of the fact that she has been in a golden demographic. It's not her fault, it's not anybody's fault and god knows those people and children who'd endured the war (MIL is a 1938 birthday) deserved a lot of payback, but that time will never come back. It simply can't.

As far as your proposed retirement age goes, OP, I am 46 and fully expecting that nobody of my age will be able to retire till they're at least 70. People my age were virtually the last to have full grants and zero university fees, and to be able to buy houses at relatively affordable rates in the early 90s. Once this generation of retirees has gone, I think we can expect a large scale restructuring of a lot of things. Everyone will be retiring much much later for a start.

Drugdge there isn't really a solution to the problem that will make any significant changes to the current under 30s. They will just have to get used to the fact that they will be much poorer than the generation before and will be working their whole life.

So what is your solution then OP?

And just to make things tougher, the Tories are proposing to completely remove benefits from the 18-21 age group, if they haven't found a job within 6 months. You know, all these jobs that there aren't. Never mind though, if they still want to earn their pittance after that, they can go on Workfare....further reducing the amount of available jobs .

Of course people will have to work for longer. That applies to many people a lot older than 30.

I read the article, and the reason I don't like it is because it could make exactly the same point about young people and the poverty they face without taking a pop at pensioners at the same time.

Pensioners don't need to be brought into this issue at all, it's just setting different (yet equally vulnerable) sections of society up against each other. How much pensioners get is completely irrelevant to the challenges facing young people today, and that's why the article, and this thread does just come across as pensioner bashing.