I know this will be contentious - cost of living rise

[qualitychat]

My mum is a pensioner and gets Disability Benefit and Mobility Benefit and Pension Credit. She receives almost what I get in a month. She is moaning about the Government not doing enough about the cost of gas and electricity, which I agree with. The thing is they have said that people on benefits and pension credit will be given lump sums towards their bills. I am a middle earner and so is my husband. We will likely get nothing. Do you not think it will be the ordinary working families who will be squeezed the most if something is not done?

[Zebedee55]

Goodness, some people on here sure do the Tories' job for them. Divide and conquer, and set one lot up, festering and seething about what others might be getting and whether they "deserve" it.🙄

I'm a disabled Boomer, as is DH - we both worked (before we met), from the age of 16, both paying in full rate National Insurance, and neither of us have ever claimed a means tested benefit in our lives.

Life for Boomers wasn't that easy - we had to pay for childcare (no vouchers then), free school meals were hard to get, and no top up of income handed out by government.

We both had to take medical retirement from our jobs, later in life, due to life changing disabilities.

He got his State pension at 65, mine was delayed until I was 66, because they moved the pension age.

So, yes, we both have Occupational Pensions,, both have private pensions (all paid in for), and both get a State Pension. Both of us get DLA, which was awarded after the DWP were happy with the medical evidence.

We can't help getting older, and we sure can't help our disabilities - what bit are we supposed to feel guilty about?🤔

Other than the £150 disability payment, and extra Winter Fuel Allowance, we will only get what every other household is getting. We don't qualify for the means tested "handouts".🙄

We don't live mortgage free - we live in social housing, and pay our full rent. We live in SH, because, in the 70s, it was easy to get, and nice properties were offered. Unlike now.

I do understand that life is hard for working parents - we've got 4 adult kids, all working (as are their spouses). but struggling with mortgages, cost of living etc,

So, we help them out.

Think on, next time you feel envious of older/disabled people, and what they might be getting - unlike work, disability is a 24/7 "job" - we can't just switch it off at clocking off time. And, ageing is a progressive condition.

I'd swop our disabilities (and what we get), for good health, and getting less, in a heartbeat.

What an unpleasant thread.🙁

[Whowhatwherewhenwhynow]

No I don’t think it will be the “squeezed middle” (of which I am part) that will be affected the worst. Those that will be affected the worst are those who are already managing hand to mouth. Low paid workers, single earner households that are only just managing to cover the basics.

really though the increases will have some impact on almost every except the super rich.

[Freedomfighters]

@Whowhatwherewhenwhynow

No I don’t think it will be the “squeezed middle” (of which I am part) that will be affected the worst. Those that will be affected the worst are those who are already managing hand to mouth. Low paid workers, single earner households that are only just managing to cover the basics.

really though the increases will have some impact on almost every except the super rich.

This.

[Rosscameasdoody]

@antelopevalley

Attendance allowance is for elderly people who need carers. It does not begin to cover the real cost.

Well, no actually. AA is paid with the same intention as PIP and DLA - to cover the extra cost of living with a disability - needing carers isn’t a condition of eligibility. I agree with you though - and all three disability benefits are taken into account in an assessment for local authority carers.

[Rosscameasdoody]

@Wouldloveanother

Well, yeah you can’t blame people who work really hard but are getting increasingly skint for not wanting to subsidise people who are on already fairly generous benefits, can you?

(I know they’re not all generous)

Subsidising them ? Sorry, have I missed something ? The benefits system is something everyone pays into while they can, so they have support there if and when they need it. Obviously hasn’t crossed your mind that a lot of benefit claimants have ‘worked hard’ too and have had cause to use a system which they have paid into and is for exactly that purpose. And yes, I know some people take the piss, but it really winds me up when everyone is lumped into that category by virtue of just claiming benefits. What do you suggest, we remove the whole system and just kick people out onto the streets if they fall on hard times and can’t support themselves ?

[Liebig]

@Whowhatwherewhenwhynow

No I don’t think it will be the “squeezed middle” (of which I am part) that will be affected the worst. Those that will be affected the worst are those who are already managing hand to mouth. Low paid workers, single earner households that are only just managing to cover the basics.

really though the increases will have some impact on almost every except the super rich.

The problem with that is, the middle class are where the majority of discretionary spending comes from. If millions of households reign in spending, even if they can afford the energy and food bills for now, that devastates the economy and leads to further burdens in services due to reduced tax receipts.

You can’t have a service based economy suddenly have everyone be super frugal just so they can exist. We have the equivalent of a seaside resort town for a national economy: people don’t put holidays above being able to afford food and heat and light, so they cutback.

[XingMing]

I think the squeezed middle will squeak by but my DS who is saving to kickstart freelance work experience in an expensive location is fearing the prospect of winter bills.

[ancientgran]

@HollaHolla

I’m working full time, am disabled, but not in receipt of any benefits. I work in education, so no chance of a raise. I would also like to stop this ‘hard working families’ trope. I don’t think it should only be families who get some relief. I’m a single person household, like many of my friends and colleagues, and we are all struggling.
it’s so depressing. We ALL need help - say by cutting the energy suppliers abilities to keep raising charges. Where will it end?

You are right, this pitting groups against each other is only benefitting the govt.

[Rosscameasdoody]

@ancientgran

If a pensioner becomes disabled they don't get DLA, just AA which is much lower. How is that them getting more than a fair share? Different for the OPs mother as she became disabled before retirement age so she continues with the DLA.

I agree with you and can I just add something. If the OP’s mum is still on DLA after pension age, she will be one of the people who was 65 or over in April 2013 when PIP was introduced to replace DLA for adults of working age. These people stayed on DLA after pension age but are still subject to regular checks on eligibility. If they are assessed as no longer eligible at a review check, there is no facility to make a new claim for DLA - they have to try to claim Attendance Allowance, which as you point out, is much lower because it doesn’t carry a mobility component. DLA doesn’t exist as an adult benefit any more. The only current claimants are children up to the age of 16, at which point they are assessed for PIP. DLA for adults will stop completely when all those who met the threshold for retaining DLA in 2013 have ceased claiming. And for all you people out there unhappy about disabled people getting extra support, PIP is one of the hardest benefits to claim, so you can be reassured that anyone you know who is getting it at any rate, has jumped through all the hoops and provided solid supporting medical evidence and is perfectly entitled to what they are claiming. This is an unpleasant thread.

[Rosscameasdoody]

@ancientgran

You are right, this pitting groups against each other is only benefitting the govt.

That’s why they do it. It’s called divide and rule, and the Tories are great at it - from the bottom up, we all snipe at the people who have slightly more than us instead of looking at the root of the problem at the top. Energy producers are posting record profits, CEO’s get massive bonuses, and customers get gouged. So the Tories put plans in place to help different people at different rates. Sets us all against each other and distracts us from the fact that the energy producers are, as one CEO put it ‘awash with cash’.awash with cash. Judging by this thread, we’ve fallen for it hook line and sinker.

[Rosscameasdoody]

@Liebig

The problem with that is, the middle class are where the majority of discretionary spending comes from. If millions of households reign in spending, even if they can afford the energy and food bills for now, that devastates the economy and leads to further burdens in services due to reduced tax receipts.

You can’t have a service based economy suddenly have everyone be super frugal just so they can exist. We have the equivalent of a seaside resort town for a national economy: people don’t put holidays above being able to afford food and heat and light, so they cutback.

Yep, it’s a double whammy. Watch how many businesses go under this winter.

[Rosscameasdoody]

@kateandme

If it’s about the money tot up what that poster would be getting a year! No many would be ok with that from their employment. And that’s for the very disabled. There are those who’s disability might not be so severe but will still stop the ability to thrive and have a job. But will get much less.

You’re missing the point. It’s still not ‘extra’ money because it’s gobbled up by the cost of the disability, so they are no better off.

[Rosscameasdoody]

@Rosehugger

Quite a few "workers" are on benefits as wage rises have been so pitiful for the last 15 years, the government has subsidised what employers should have been paying in the first place.

Most pensioners are on a fixed income. Those just receiving the state pension will be on 10k a year. Even in a one bed flat their energy costs will be 20% of their income come next month.

It isn’t a new thing. When national assistance topped up low wages as well as paying benefits. Then was replaced by supplementary benefit, income support and now UC. Tory governments have mainly introduced the significant changes to income support benefits. Why should their mates in big business pay decent wages when the tax payer can do it for them ?

[Rosscameasdoody]

@gyurghle

Even worse, why should they pay tax so someone can inherit a property when they won’t themselves?

good point, there will be more inequality, as so much will depend on if & when you inherit.

When most people will have to sell their homes for elderly care in later life, there won’t be many people inheriting property anyway. Unless they’re rich. And that’s the point isn’t it ? The rich have accountants to set up trust funds so property can’t be touched for care fees. The average Joe can’t, so loses his home and can’t leave anything to his kids. Can I just clarify - I was the original poster advocating for a dedicated care tax. I wasn’t suggesting that a home that can no longer be lived in shouldn’t be used to pay for care. What I’m saying is that at the moment there is no compulsion for people to make provision for later life care. So in practical terms if they can’t or won’t, they end up relying on the Local Authority to provide it. And the Local Authority in turn raid the funding sources of people who have the means to pay, to contribute to those who don’t. To the tune of £12000 a year in most cases - £1000 a month. A dedicated care tax would mean everyone would have to contribute at a rate they can afford. Everyone pays, regardless of whether they will ever need care or not, including those who have property to sell to pay for it. The fund is then used for people who eventually need care, but have no property or income to cover the fees. In practice, the Local Authority would probably still have to support them but the top up will come from the care fund provided by the tax, instead of from someone else’s funding source.

[worriedatthistime]

Many of us cannot get a second job as our main job does not allow it

[worriedatthistime]

This is a typical pensioners bash thread
Pensioners have worked and paid their taxes
Those who own their own homes bought and paid for them , they weren't gifted to them
Many many pensioners help out their children/ grandchildren
Many many pensioners struggle and are on basic pension or pension credit
Stop bashing pensioners and concentrate on getting the giverment to understand this fuel crisis pretty much everyone needs help

[worriedatthistime]

Also as other posters have said some on benefits / dla do seem to do better than others it makes no sense

[worriedatthistime]

@Horcruxe working people cannot always do that at all
Its not so easy to just get another job , if you have experience in one field you can't just pop over the a better paid job in something you know nothing about
You can't increase hours if you need childcare , work hours are set, your job doesn't allow you to have a 2nd job , retraining / education costs money
Its not as simple as that
Plus surely if you have 2 adults working full time as we do , i think I should really be able to stick my heating on a couple hrs a day without thinking . Its not like i am wanting several foreign holidays just some basic standards in living

[MsPincher]

@Rosscameasdoody

When most people will have to sell their homes for elderly care in later life, there won’t be many people inheriting property anyway. Unless they’re rich. And that’s the point isn’t it ? The rich have accountants to set up trust funds so property can’t be touched for care fees. The average Joe can’t, so loses his home and can’t leave anything to his kids. Can I just clarify - I was the original poster advocating for a dedicated care tax. I wasn’t suggesting that a home that can no longer be lived in shouldn’t be used to pay for care. What I’m saying is that at the moment there is no compulsion for people to make provision for later life care. So in practical terms if they can’t or won’t, they end up relying on the Local Authority to provide it. And the Local Authority in turn raid the funding sources of people who have the means to pay, to contribute to those who don’t. To the tune of £12000 a year in most cases - £1000 a month. A dedicated care tax would mean everyone would have to contribute at a rate they can afford. Everyone pays, regardless of whether they will ever need care or not, including those who have property to sell to pay for it. The fund is then used for people who eventually need care, but have no property or income to cover the fees. In practice, the Local Authority would probably still have to support them but the top up will come from the care fund provided by the tax, instead of from someone else’s funding source.

It’s very rare that people put properties in trust to avoid iht as trusts have their own tax issues. Also if you live in it it would be unlikely to work to avoid care fees anyway.

I am a former tax advisor and am afraid your idea of people avoiding care fees with creative accountants is just fiction.

as i explained already a care tax would be the young paying for the elderly care. Why should they pay so you can inherit more? It’s not the case that an elderly person in private care is necessarily subsiding public residents anyway - many are in all private homes.

[MsPincher]

Also @Rosscameasdoody if people have assets to pay for their care they will be taken. It’s only if people have no assets that the state pays.

[antelopevalley]

Most people do not go into care homes, most people receive any care through carers visiting at home or care from relatives - usually partners.
And many who go into care homes do not live long.
So only a small number of people see all assets swallowed by care home fees do. Those that do are usually people with dementia. People with advanced dementia need 24 hour care and are often physically healthy, so can live a relatively long time.

[PaddingtonBearStareAgain]

@Heronimo

Yanbu. Those on benefits will get too much help. Those working full time in middle income jobs are screwed.

What extra help do you think the disabled are getting for the extra equipment that needs electricity and keeps them alive. They don't have a choice to just not use it.

The answer is nothing.

[PaddingtonBearStareAgain]

@qualitychat

I will be fine, I can pay my bills, I just won't go on holiday or buy luxuries, which will have a knock on effect to the economy and I won't be the only one.

How many of those with disabilities on PIP or DLA ever go on holiday?

Try finding truly accessible accommodation. Or have you ever tried getting on a train, or aeroplane? No thought not.

Easy to bash others though.

[MsPincher]

@Discovereads

I guess it depends on your demographic and what financial literacy your parents taught you. As I can say with surety that no one I know from my parents generation (boomers) had any workplace pension their entire working lives. As I said too, the messaging in the 1980s was that if you had a workplace or private pension, you were encouraged to opt out of SERPS (the state pension). That was the expectation I started work under- that you don’t need both one or the other will do and I’m in the over 40 but under 65 bracket. So 35 years ago it was very much a case of you don’t need a private/workplace pension to fund your retirement so long as you have NI towards a full state pension. The baby boomers were by the 1980s in their mid-30s to mid-40s. Not to mention of those who were married women most were told pre-1977 to pay a reduced rate and claim state pension off their husbands records..and most baby boomer women were having their children in the 1970s. So the whole first half of their careers plus their time out for child rearing they were definitely not expected to even have the full state pension via their own working history and certainly not to have a private or workplace pension on top.

In addition, while awareness grew in the 1990s that people should not just rely on a state pension, but also opt into a workplace pension over half of Britons had no workplace pension available to them and many of those that did there were no employer contributions. Yes not all workplace pensions were raided and disappeared due to lack of regulation, but even those that were not raided did not really increase much in value. There were repeated crashes starting with the .com bubble in 2001, then a crash in 2004, the big crash in 2008 which devastated even those pension accounts that survived. So even if in the 1990s boomers did get access to workplace pension, and paid attention to the changed advice they were already mid 40s to mid 50s by then. How much can you realistically save when you only have 15-20yrs work life left assuming you stay in good health (and by this age disability/chronic health condition rates hover around 40% of the age group). These are the reasons why the average pension pot for pensioners is only £66k not due to lack of planning as you imply.

So it’s not really a matter of “should have prepared better” for many over 40/65s today it’s the fact that the messaging wasn’t there, the opportunities weren’t there, the regulation of private pensions wasn’t there, the employer contributions did not exist, and by the time they did for only HALF of Britons, the boomers were already over half way to pensioner age.

What nonsense. You cannot be in your 40s and claim that pensions are a new thing. Offering employees at least a stakeholder pension has been compulsory for over 20 years. I’m in my 40s - My parents taught me nothing of pensions and I chose not to contribute when I was younger. Old age seemed long away and pensions were boring. But it was available to me and it was my choice.

And messaging absolutely was there - I remember many government adverts on tv in newspapers etc over the years promoting pensions certainly over 20 years ago.

at some point you need to take responsibility for your own choices.

as for not knowing anyone from the boomer generation who ever had a workplace pension - they certainly had them available to them for the most part and much better schemes than are available now. Actually one of my (boomer) parents decided not to join a public sector scheme. It would have been absolutely lucrative given the contributions. She made a choice not to join though - she did know of its existence and was asked if she wanted to join. It was her choice and she can’t blame anyone else for it.

[antelopevalley]

@MsPincher Not true. Employers did not have to make contributions to pensions until recently. I got my first employer's contribution I think about five years ago.