to be annoyed that so many on mn seem to begrudge pensioners?

[Slartybartfast]

for mainly being too rich
so many of you seem to think that those who have retired at 65 and are likely enough to have a good pension have somehow cheated

the majority of pro brexit Tories are 60 plus

The majority of pro brexit Tories are English!

You may as well go on a ‘let’s blame the English for the pensions situation’ now!

Geez

I wasn't rude, it was a genuine question because the way you answered suggested perhaps not. There are turns of phrase I don't understand and I have had to ask someone to explain to me/Google.

I didn't forget the lib dem coalition because that was still a Tory controlled govt (very much so).

Yes you would have experienced certain Thatcherite policies in a ltd way growing up, it's not the same as the relentless experience it was for adults at that time.

"I don't think the history of how we got here...helps either."

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Of course it matters.

"We have the fullest employment in a very very very long time" no we don't, basically only those in active receipt of jsa are counted as unemployed.

So NOT included :

Anyone on other working age benefits - even if with support they could work.

Anyone not claiming as they're supported by someone else therefore not eligible/don't wish to claim jsa (sahm who are not sahm out of choice, with partners on higher wage, adult children living at home who's parents are supporting who've chosen not to claim)

Most under 19's

Those recently returned to the uk not yet eligible. (Lot of military wives in this one - it's murder getting help as a military family)

Those on income support - that includes lone parents with DC under 5

Those on sanction when the figures are collated (there are key periods when the number of sanctions tend to increase. Some think this may be one reason).

That's people that are completely unemployed yet aren't counted in the stats. There's also the underemployed, people who want to work full-time but there's not enough full-time jobs out there so people end up stuck on zero hours contracts, temp contracts, minimal hours part time jobs...

£60k houses are only cheap if you move to that area, with a profession. When you look at the outcomes for people who have always lived there, that £60k is often just as out of reach as a £500k house to someone who was born in London.

jon my friend is early 40's, and your childhood would be luxury by comparison. As to the adult experiences, I'm 30's and they remind me quite a lot of my life when dd was a baby/ toddler. Lots of days of me eating misshapen pots or 10p noodles and going weeks without anything nutritional, playing camp in mummy's bed cos the boiler is broke on the numerous occasions I couldn't afford the gas, using kitchen roll as sanpro if I was a few days earlier than my budget could manage. The only credit I ever had was a loan when my ancient car needed repairs, and no car meant no work, and no route out of poverty. The old car I bought with money I earned working when still at school. And still drive now. (Except now old beat up 4x4s are viewed as a status symbol).

And I still count my blessings that I experienced it from 2004, even now it would be a lot harder to be in that same position, let alone get out of it.

jon my friend is early 40's, and your childhood would be luxury by comparison.

Yes exactly. My DP who's only just 40 has a similar story and it's far woorse to be living like that with all the technical advances. But retirement in early 50s is laughably unrealistic.

It is a bit hard to generalise over Brexit. I am in London and voted Remain. My parents were they still alive would have been remainers. You can break it down to educational level - higher the level more likely remain too not just by age. Anyway it's done now - the vote has been cast. We are stuck with it.

Okay I accept looking back can sometimes help so we avoid mistakes of the past etc. but the inter-generational fighting just sets us against each other and I think the country would do better if we all realised most of us are all on the same side.

I agree the £50k house my mother's mother rented in the NE is out of reach to some although if you have two people on the minimum wage even working full time and putting off babies for 10 years as my parents did (although they were not minimum wage but they did wait 10 years to have children to be able to afford it plus afford a house in the NE by the way) could probably do it. In our bit of London we also get a lot of people who commute back and forth eg renting a room in the week for work in London in all kinds of jobs and then back to the family at the weekends - not ideal but is possible. My great grandfather did the same for long periods in the 1800s too - travelling salesman of drapery etc. Bit of a nasty life moving around I think whilst your family are elsewhere (or for some ideal if they want a lot of adultery or a second hidden family)

But retirement in early 50s is laughably unrealistic.

Very few of that generation did. Most worked to retirement age.

I've worked in aged care previously and saw countless asset-rich, cash-poor pensioners. People sitting on multi-million dollar properties, or owning several investment properties, but having virtually no incoming cash flow.

Many of them did not see the problem with their situation: depending on the state for their living costs, but sitting on properties which they could easily downsize from. My sympathy (or empathy) quickly shrivelled up.

Of course, I have come across equal numbers of pensioners who are genuinely in need, but these are the people who need to be protected. You should not be entitled to a pension simply because you successfully got to 65 (67 now, where I live). That benefit should be reserved for those who cannot make the compromises that others can.

The rest of us are expected to live within our means, to minimise our outgoings, to buy property in cheaper places and commute etc. and that standard ought to be applied to pensioners too. It needs to be means and asset tested.

Super we could abolish state pension but it woudl need to be over time as people were told if they paid their 12% national insurance contribution for 40 years (a massive chunk of your wages) in return you would get a pension at 60, 65, 67 etc.... Many went back to work when they had small babies to protect their pension in those days when you had to (now you can take 10 years out at home and that counts towards the now 35 years of NI you need to get your roughly £150 a week state pension at age 67 or 65).

Abolition of the state pension would be very hard to do all at once and without uproar. It also would penalise workers and savers.

We could move our welfare state to being a safety netg for the very few with much lower tax and NI contributinos i and most people not getting much out except the very destitute or we coudl move it to a system with much higher contributions, virtually free childcare, large state pensions and sickness pay for those who have paid a lot in as they have in some of the rest of the EU.

We have the worst of all worlds at present.

I would start by abolishing the stamp duty for any home under £2m. It would help free up buyers to purchase these larger homes. OAPs would also be able to more easily downsize. I would charge VAT of foreigners buying homes in the UK.

I would then open up planning laws to build some homes for all and convert large homes into multi family homes.

Good point on stamp duty and VAT. I am not sure on planning. There are a lot of sites but it is finding enough people who can afford the £400k local new starter flat prices which seems to be the issue around here. London Underground even has loads of sites for sale for housing. Lots of property companies have landbanks too. It is just they cannot find enough people able and willing to buy at the right price.

I have a total of 70 land sites that could easily be developed but planning laws don't allow it. I don't want to be a HA because of the admin involved. They have some rules which are insane. One is that the local primary school is too small. It's small because they only use half of it as there aren't enough young people. Buying family homes would enable young people to move into the area and they would hire the additional teachers to open up the classrooms.

Oh and possibly prices need to come down. I saw this as someone with skin in the game. The asset prices are a bubble.

it does vary around the country. Here in outer London there is no shortage of sights with planning consent. London Underground have loads up for sale at present including over our local station.

I certainly would support changing the law so that all of us had a right to buy unused Government land that is sitting empty and unused on brownfields sites for housing. I have a friend who bought the local tiny cottage hospital (not in London) and with a builder friend used the site for 4 houses

superbeagle

It’s too simplistic to divide people into the worthy poor and unworthy rich.

Of course there are people who will always need community support because they cannot support themselves. However ~ there are many shades between extremes and a story behind every circumstance.

Some people get to pension age poor because they have squandered everything they had when they were young. They adopted the ‘spend, spend, spend’ attitude throughout the time they were earning. No thought for their financial security in retirement.

Some people have assets because they have been frugal and saved.

You can see young people following the same pattern now. I’ve worked with people with the same incomes living entirely different lifestyles. There are those that have the flash harry wedding, dazzling engagement rings and the latest in everything in their houses and on their backs. Loads of nights out and holidays. They also have loans out on everything.
The others seems to do things more modestly, gets nothing they can’t afford and take holidays at home - because they are saving up for a house deposit.

When they retire ~ it’s galling to think the one who spent it all will get the pension support while the saver will get penalised.

If that was to happen there will be a spending spree like no other and no incentive to save and take responsibility for yourself.

If I was in charge of the housing issue I’d try to engineer a massive shift away from low standard private renting. Because right now it’s just a constant drain of public money to private landlords.

I’d licence all landlords - if you want to rent out a house you’d have to go through a simple process of registration. Rental properties would need to meet basic standards. If they didn’t your licence would be remove. And criminal penalties for repeat offenders or landlords with properties dangerous to life.

I’d end right to buy immediately

I’d start a massive program of social house building. European style flats - low rise, high quality, each one with an oversight and management structure like they have in most European countries. Central gardens and facilities. Spacious flats you can raise a family in. Minimal green belt impact wherever possible. You can put so many more flats on per unit squared and still have Those flats spacious and set in gardens.

I’d bring back Parker Morris standards

I’d look at some form of land tax to start to gradually reduce banked land.

And al the rents from those houses go back into the public purse

Then I’d start on tax credits. No company should be paying its workers a wage so low the government needs to top it up. Pay a bloody living wage.

Imagine if you could cut tax credits and say halve the HB bill to private landlords. That’s a massive swathe of cash right there. Plough it all back in to quality social housing. Repeat.

Superbeagle, your way would be a massive disincentive to saving. People would just spend all their money as there'd be no point in sorting yourself out a comfortable old age.

beagles way is how it works for every other group, why not pensioners?

Mail stereotypes aside, working age people don't generally opt for unemployment because there's £70 a week anyway, they want the better quality of life. And they aren't going to opt for the lower state pension if there's a way to have a higher income.

Realistically in 20/30/40 years we aren't all going to get £155 + inflation for decades of retirement, it's going to be significantly lower. The working generation have far more reason to get private pensions than the previous generations.

Generally the reason why we aren't is because of wages not rising with inflation, housing costs rising far beyond inflation, job security and pension schemes not being as generous as they were and so on. And like every generation workers pay for the retirement of those that go before them, but that retirement has become longer and more expensive than the system was designed for.

It isn't because we aren't trying hard enough or spending it all on nights out. And tbh I imagine even those that do spend in that way, are either like the now retired wasters who did the same in their time. Or they know that no matter what, they'll never get a decent retirement because the opportunities for people in their situation don't exist anymore.

Yes and it used to be awful too. My grandfather saw such terrible times in the 30s that he encouraged my father to put every spare penny into pensions (although my father died 2 years after retirement and had worked full time to 77 and used all his life savings to fund old age care at home - he died at home (in the NE) so he was a bit old to be a boomer but it just shows people do differ as do different parts of the country) and things to up and down.

Another issue is the percentage you get for annuities never mind how the state has changed pensions law means private pensions are nothing like the good deal they used to be and particularly for those who are losing a lot of the tax relief they used to get on contributing to them.

(I meant sites not sights above....)

The reason why not is because pensioners have a contract with successive governments, entered in my case 47 years ago. The contact is that I paid my NI contributions for 40+ years and at the end of it I get a pension. Are you seriously suggesting that at the end of a working life during which I claimed not a penny in benefits I should just say "OK, fine government, you can stop paying me my pension and I'll just write all that money off". Are you really saying that? Would you?

However in law it is not a contract so they could do that.
Also the rules change all the time. When I started work female state pensoni age wsa 60. Now mine will be 67. national insurance rates change all the time. The rules change eg whether staying at home for children counts for NI (it does now for 10 years but did not always), whether women can use their husband's stamp for a reduce pension etc etc. Chopped and changed all the time.

However I agree it is very unlikely any Government would think it politically sensible to abolish state pension even though some of us wll be nearly dead by the time we reach the much later state retirement ages.

Retirement here is social security. It's not properly funded but there is a link between earnings and payout.

I'm also astounded that palliative care isn't government funded. I though councils were funding this.

There is inter generational unfairness and the younger generations are suffering it. I feel lucky that while I don't have the structural benefits of baby boomers I am not struggling with housing and uni costs of current younger generations. The only reason that pensioners have a range of un means tested benefits is that they always vote and we live in a democracy. My MIL works, has a good pension, the banked value of a London home, regularly cruises etc. my BIL lives in a rented studio flat, has a long commute and struggles to juggle finances on a income that isn't rising. It makes no sense for his taxes to cover MIL's heating payments. Last time she got a batch she was on a months cruise!

desperately
Sounds like you MIL is getting what she is entitled to after a lifetime of tax paying get and financial contributions to a pension scheme. She has also benefitted from buying a London property years ago. Good for her. She hasn’t deprived anybody of anything. She will still be paying tax on her pension. She may also have to give up her house to pay for her care bill, should she need looking after.

There are people who are receiving pensions having never worked or paid into the system at all.

As Blue says above ~ she paid in and is taking what she paid for over a lifetime of employment.

The retiring pensioners are not to blame for the perceived ills of the younger generation. Look at government policies and priorities.

I saw one poster saying they wanted to move to a coastal town that didn't have too many old people and I thought that was really off.

Haven't noticed anything else.

I like my MIL and don't blame her for being given money she doesn't need by the government but it isn't a sensible or fair use of the money. I think the inter generational unfairness will end up damaging both poor pensioners and younger people.