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?

Exactly WooWoo
Setting different sections of society up to resent each other takes away the focus from wider social injustice and inequality.

Sorry, cross posted.

I agree with both woowooowl and ilovesooty.

Your conclusion that there isn't a solution is depressing OP. Over generations people have fought for social justice.
After the industrial revolution people lived in appalling conditions but through the unions, politics etc they established rights to a better life.
Its starting to get eroded now.

I agree that as a baby boomer I have been part of a fortunate generation but I am only very moderately comfortable if you look at the whole range.

I am saddened about what is happening to some young people (not all by the way-the inequality is extreme).
Look wider OP-just reducing the income of ordinary pensioners isn't a solution at all.

Well a big problem is that you have a whole generation that are taking out more than they paid in.

My solutions in the op would help not to fuel house prices and take away benefits from wealthy pensioners that don't need them. Its not going to change things overnigh but this problem has been building up for decades so it will probably take decades to resolve it.

Oh talullah, stop it. Common sense has no place in one of these 'debates'.

I said a similar thing on the MI thread. People needx to stop reading meeja hype that focusses on pensioners and the benefits they receive. Anyone who read such pieces and believes them is being deliberately deceived, and have been for a number of years.

Dissent has always been used as a distraction technique - anyone remember the political horror that was the Falklands War? Wholly manufactured by both governments as a mass distraction. Stupid, stupid stupid.

Well hating baby boomers/pensioners is another such distraction. Why? Well, they have no control over what they receive. Consecutive governments have made self serving decisions not to tackle a problem that was known about decades ago. An aging population is not a new concept and politickos have made decisions based on what they fear... to the detriment of us all.

And again, no I am not a boomer trying to defend my cushy retirement, my parents are, and they are not wealthy as they are working class boomers, and so did not reap the rewards that the meeja stereotype insists is reality.

Stop winging about boomers, pensioners etc. Start voting, get politically active and make some real changes. Stop looking for a bogey man to blame... change the political climate. If universal credit is what you think will iron out inequities, then vote for it!

But stop vilifying one section of society. You are being hoodwinked...

"taking out more than they paid in" do you have figures-I recall paying a hell of a lot in!

Um. Some pensioners have done nothing to save for their old age and many of them are the ones on the benefits OP says should be means tested.

So that would encourage the next generation down to spend all their money before they retire so they qualify.

Doesn't seem fair to punish the prudent and reward the feckless.

Well Duchesse do you want to force aging empty nesters to downsize or don't you?

So long as DW and I or the survivor when one of us is dead want to live in the modest two-bedder we bought and paid for - and can cope - why shouldn't we?

If you want us to downsize here is a suggestion. A downsizing bond into which we could put some or all of our capital gain, to be cashed only after we are dead, and then not with interest but indexed to house prices. Taxable under IHT but not CGT and not available to pay nursing home fees if we end up there - that being the incentive.

Thanks Preciousbane
Going down the "taking out more than they paid in" route is dangerous. Imagine the outcry if I said I should get more because I've never claimed child benefit or gone on maternity leave.
This is all about social injustice and the fact that the gap between the haves and have not of all ages is widening while employment rights are being eroded. It's not, and shouldn't be about encouraging resentment between different generations.

well said ilovesooty

Sunna that sort of thinking has cropped up here recently. A woman selling her house, giving her kids money, downsizing and expecting to reap all the benefits going as she will have no assets.

I nearly cried, screamed, slapped with a wet kipper...

This is most definitely the sign of the absolute decline of any real 'society'. What was set up to support the needy is now expected, covetted as a right and is now replacing any need to be self reliant, independent.

I don't think I can actually express what I mean without sound wholly PollyAnna about it, but the gist would be, I grew up piss poor and was encouraged to work, DH has a very strong Protestant work ethic (too strong, to the detriment of his health). Both of us have worked since we were 16/17 and have never claimed any benefits. We are proud of our achievements and, whilst not baby boomers, are fully expecting similar fear and loathing to be aimed at us as we slide into retirement, claim our state pension and augment it it with our savings.

Savings we have because we have not ever needed all the stuff The Joneses have, foreign holidays every year, electronic gizmoes, new phones, iPads and other accoutrements that seem to maketh the wo/man. Sadly we are savers and they are not in fashion at the moment. No one will care that we started saving as kids, green shield stamps, post office savings book etc - all cost pennies, we saved pennies.... it started a habit.

All through my teens I saved pennies, into my 20s, when I worked behind a bar and he was a brickie, we saved pennies, slowly the pennies became pounds and the pounds accumulated. I did warn this would sound very PollyAnna, didn't I? We have never done as the ILs have done - lived every day as though it was a gift, that is why it is called The Present (I still hope they are song lyrics, SIL seemed to love those words, she certainly lived by them for years). We saved our socks off, avoided debt as much as possible and did without as and when.

Sorry, I digress. I think I mean that the current young generation is not unique, financially I would assume they are back were my great grandparents were, with all the social and financial inequities, but they are less able to cope with the demands of the days they live in as they have heightened expectations.

Well a big problem is that you have a whole generation that are taking out more than they paid in.

So who is that then? The 18 year olds who are out of work? The pensioners? The 40 somethings who got grants for uni and are now getting child benefit?

'the golden years' 'taking out more than they've put in' they are all just sound-bites.

The so-called 'golden years' ignores the 20%+ inflation rates, the massive interest on mortgages, the recessions in the mid 70's the early 80s, the early 90s, the 124% increase in unemployment. Or the fact that there was no such things as tax-credits for child care. Dh was unemployed for 2 years after graduating (completely unemployed, not even a sniff of a bar job). I paid for my own education while working. When I stopped work to have dc the interest rate on our mortgage was crippling and we had to sell and live with family. Chose not to have more children because I had to go back to work so we could afford to live.

Meanwhile, my neighbour's husband worked until he was 82 because his company pension scheme had collapsed and his wife was not entitled to a pension.

I get that it is tough for young people, I understand that it is difficult to predict with any certainty how they will improve their lot, but vilifying another group in the population is not going to change that. Get active, get involved in politics, help those who are in the most challenging situations, work to get children out of poverty, tax big corporations, tax very wealthy individuals. But don't simply point the finger at someone else.

You are silly.
I am nearly 50, yes i have assets and good income, BUT i live within my means, i have worked hard and worked my way up. When i was younger i obviously earnt less than those who were older and had been in job market longer.
Why do you begrudge me having things i have worked hard for

It's those heightened expectations again... for example:

When I left home I lived in a bedsit... do they still exist?

I ask as most 20 somethings say they wouldn't move out of home unless they can afford something equivalent. Which almost beggars belief, but they are sincere. They won't move out until they can afford the living standard of a mature couple, 2 salaries, time served....

I really don't think that means testing maternity leave is comparable with any of this is it?

Women have to take at least 2 weeks leave by law, and often will need more than 2 weeks to recover after giving birth.

I suppose that law could be changed relatively easily but in practice women will need at least a few days.

If you means test maternity leave then you are reverting to a time when women (if they earn over a certain income) must leave their jobs to have a child, because they are going to need at least a little leave in order to give birth and recover.

You would also adversely affect BF rates but I suppose that is taken into account in the plan somewhere.

I'm not sure generally that forcing women who have reached a certain level of success out of their jobs when they need to give birth is going to be positive for the economy either? Plus of course once they have lost their job they won't be earning any more so will no longer be in the tranche of earnings that got them out of being allowed leave in the first place IYSWIM.

There is a physical reason that women have some time off work when they have a child. I don't see how it's comparable to means testing for winter fuel allowance or the other items on the thread at all.

I suppose people don't have to have children will be the answer to that.

But then you are creating a position where there is a massive disincentive for women to succeed at work. Or I guess women will be offered to voluntarily take pay cuts in their roles if they are thinking about starting a family. That would work but would it be legal? As it'd be done to get around the "no leave" rules.

It just all feels like maybe this plan needs a little more thought.

I suppose if there's an appetite for this type of change it would go through.

You'd need to get around European rules as well.

Also on the female baby boomers, remember they were a generation who didn't get maternity leave, you worked until the day you went into labour then were back at work by 6 weeks or resigned. My MIL having DH in 76 was told all woman had to resign at 6 months and found it shocking I was planning to work until 36 weeks (She asked if it was allowed)

The 'taken out more than they paid in' arguement falls down when you realise the bulk of the population will take out more than they pay in themselves. Our whole benefit/health/education services work on business taxes, and a small minority who pay in (vastly) more than they take out. (often forgotten with the 'banker bashing' threads, if they go, we will all have to pay a lot more tax to make up the short fall).

85 people own as much as half the world, apparently:
www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/01/23/the-85-richest-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-3-5-billion-poorest/

But hey never mind that, let's have a pop at pensioners.

Nomama bedsits still exist.

Most young people would love to live alone but have to share a house with strangers as they can't afford their own place. Even bedsits are out of the price range of many.

I rented a bedsit in a non-particularly nice area of a not particularly nice town (not London) that cost £735 per month. It was the cheapest property within walking distance of the office. It would take up more than 75% of a NMW job to pay that.

Do you think they would want to see maternity leave removed for women who were earning over a certain wage Mary? The new regime would be harsher than described in your post as all leave would go, so not even the 6 weeks that was available in the ?70s or 80s (not sure of my history there sorry).

I see this as a really retrograde step and I can't see it in the same light as means testing other benefits really.

I suppose if in doubt roll things back for women is a tried and tested method in times of hardship, and even in this economic crisis many studies have shown that women have been disproportionately affected.

Many small businesses would be delighted I guess?

You can never estimate what you may have to take out anyway. Job loss, I'll health etc can strike at any stage in your life.
However one choice we don't have once we're born is growing older.

Although no small businesses wouldn't be helped as it'd only be the higher earners. Interesting to know where the threshold would be set.

It's an interesting proposal but I really dont' like it.