Ageism on Mumsnet (and in society)

[SusanandMidge]

There's a discussion going on at the moment as to whether old people should be made move out of their family homes to free them up for younger couples (which thankfully no one on that particular thread is endorsing). However it's a topic that has come up a number of times on MN with many posters bitterly begrudging the fact that old people are 'hogging' family sized homes, or that their parents' house is now worth ten times what they paid for it in 1972.

I have also seen posters complaining about elderly people using the supermarket at weekends or being in the post office at lunchtime, because they should leave these busy times to working people; questioning why their teenagers should offer seats to elderly people who travel for free; and in many ways belittling and being unpleasant about the older generation.

I know all generations get their stereotyping but some of the ageism is really unpleasant. It's a minority of posters but their begrudging, bitter and hostile attitude towards the elderly can be really depressing to read.

I'm not being sneery, and I don't think it's clever - it's just that carried to its logical conclusion this idea won't work.

Why should over-60s be singled out? 60 is not even close to retirement age. Also, why should those who can afford to pay more tax be able to stay put, close to their friends, jobs, support networks etc, and only those who can't (who are already using fewer CT services than large families) be penalised? This is classist as well as ageist.

I can see a good case for building more bungalows in convenient (to older people) locations - near transport, health centres etc and not at the top of hills - and yes, maybe reducing stamp duty on properties like that - so that there are more options for older people, but compelling those with out a lot of spare cash to move away is only going to increase loneliness and isolation for people who have done nothing but live in a house they bought at least in part to give them the security in old age that you would deny them.

I would vote for this, too.

Obviously older people (through no fault of their own) use more services than young families. Mainly health and social care related. And the cut off doesn't have to be 60. It could be 65 or 67 to match retirement age, or whatever is deemed best. And it would be fair to just single out one group, if they are the group who also can benefit from the tax savings by downsizing. One cancels out the other.
As for saying that maybe they can't live in the areas they want and only the rich would be able to avoid it, that's exactly the same as for anything else, old or young.
And older people are the only group (except children who don't have their own income) who have universal benefits of any kind. They get pensions, with a triple lock!!!, cold weather payments, free prescriptions, travel and probably other bits I've forgotten. So seeing as they are also already the richest group they're not doing badly.

Council tax services are not used more by a single old person than they are by a family, unless that single old person has an extraordinary amount of rubbish to dispose of. But that's not really the point. The price of living in a larger house is already factored into the CT banding.

It's not about living in the areas they want, is it? I mean nobody is saying that old people should all be able to retire to the Cotswolds, or to cottages with sea views. It's about being able to stay where they already live, which is different. Where they may have lived for years and have friends, be part of organisations, have jobs, whether voluntary or paid - are you really saying that they should have to pack up and leave, or pay more tax just because of their date of birth.

A full state pension is £203 a week, triple-locked or not. Not untold riches, and to get that you have to have paid 35 years worth of NI - it's not free. Cold weather payments are only for those on pension credit, who are among the poorest in society, and even then amount to £25 in a qualifying week (they are not automatic). Bus passes are great, if you live somewhere with regular buses, but many don't.

If you think that £203 a week, with an extra 25 quid if if it's freezing, and a right to a free ride on a daily bus puts someone in 'the richest group', you really have no clue. And if you think that the single pensioner on £203 a week (if they have paid in for 35 years) should pay more council tax or lose their own house, that they have paid for themselves, simply because they have lived a bit longer than is convenient, you are beyond clueless.

The first thing social services do when an elderly person needs care is to assess the value of their home and income. If you are a single person you can be forced to sell your home to fund your care. The care home gets your pension and any other allowances you are entitled to. You are allowed about £10 per week to spend on personal items.
If you are self funding you pay more than twice the amount the local authority pays to fund a non self funding person.
The council can put a charge on your property to recoup fees after your death.
Care homes are not particularly nice places to be. Especially not at a cost of £1000 per week.
I would much rather have let my parents stay in their home and got together with family to find a live in carer to do the bulk of the care. Because they downsized (and there was no money left over after all the fees and moving expenses) the property was too small to allow a live in carer. We looked after them for as long as possible but they ended up in the same care home at an eye watering cost for not very good care.
It isn't as simple as just forcing elderly people to move out.
We need more social housing, but nobody wants to pay for it via taxation.
Money laundering, foreign investment leaving properties empty, second homes and holiday lets need to be tackled first.

@Wahwahwahwahwah

Can I point out that I am past my 60th birthday and am still doing the school run. Still working full time. Still paying a mortgage. Still running parkrun. Still travelling with my job. Still paying school fees.

We need space. We had the local youth swim team for breakfast this morning. Ds's friends often stay for half terms. I have siblings, nephews and nieces stopping off in transit to Heathrow and back, most months.

My closest friend is older than me and has a ds is in year 12.

You seem to have the oddest ideas about 60yos. 😀

Yes, we want to progress. We want each generation to have a better standard of living than the last. But a new build, new car and holiday abroad? Those things are not essentials. Progress is about the basics in life, surely? Better education, good support for people with disabilities, less people damaged for life by accidents and illness because of advances in healthcare, being able to afford a varied and nutrient-rich diet….No one owes you a new build and a new car. If you can’t afford any suitable property when working full time then that is a problem. That doesn’t mean a three bed new build. Needing a reliable vehicle to get to work is very different to expecting to drive a brand new Range Rover through suburban areas as a matter of course. Being able to afford a holiday, time off, a few days out when working full time is very dofferent to two weeks all inclusive in the sun every year.

and if you think it’s normal in our country right now to have a brand new car, a 3 bed new build and 2 weeks in Marbella, you’ve very clearly led a privileged life.

This the crux of the matter in our society as it stands, the expectation of bigger and better but absolutely zero ability to wait and work towards it. The posts I’ve seen on here this year claiming even if people did give up their morning Starbucks, they would only save £1k a year and that wouldn’t get them a deposit for a property. The same people who seem to think that everyone who owns a home over 50 did sod all to get where they are today.

@MintJulia then maybe 60 isn't the right age to make the cut off then. Fair enough. How about 70? But to suggest that hosting the swim team for breakfast or your niece and nephew en route to Heathrow is a need equivalent to having a bedroom to sleep in is a bit poor taste.

Thank fuck most of you anti old people on here are going to get old yourselves one day.
I hope the younger generation as well as your dc give you a hard time. Pestering for their inheritance before you're dead and moaning that you are in the wayby being alive.

@Baconisdelicious seriously? Are any PP suggesting that everyone should have a brand new range rover a 3 bed new build and 2 weeks AI in Marbella?
I have none of those things, my car is a 12 year old Nissan, my house is a 2 bed for 2 adults and 2 kids but yes we do have a holiday abroad most years. I am early 40s and I want younger people to be able to have similar. I think that's reasonable. Don't you?
And @ShyMaryEllen no, £203 a week doesn't make someone rich. But most pensioners have a lot more than that. Statistically the baby boomer generation are the richest generation that has ever lived. You can argue that not every single one of them is. I'd agree. But as a group they are.

But to suggest that hosting the swim team for breakfast or your niece and nephew en route to Heathrow is a need equivalent to having a bedroom to sleep in is a bit poor taste

but this is lifestyle, isn’t it? Family life, having fun, having friends round, entertaining….all the things younger people want to do in these bigger houses. So it’s poor taste to want a half decent lifestyle over 50? It’s not poor taste to have the over 50s give up the lives they have built to satisfy the wants of 30-somethings, then?

I don't think wanting wealth to be spread across the generations rather than most of it being held by one group is the same as being anti- old people. I do think some people on here are very much anti-kids though.

Unlikely as most of us have stated we have kids !

seriously? Are any PP suggesting that everyone should have a brand new range rover a 3 bed new build and 2 weeks AI in Marbella?

post I quoted states I do think peoples expectations and entitlement is higher these days - yes I do agree that it is way hard to get on the property ladder etc - but it's also expected now - it wasn't when I was little. Hardship is not being unable to afford a new car, nice two week holiday in the sun, or a 3 bed new build - it's just not fun to not have those things

now there are a lot of double negatives there so I think possibly I have misunderstood?

My father in law has an ex council house, he doesn't live in it and wanted to live in a care home. Has capacity so a house sitting lying empty. He has savings well over the threshold and can afford his care, hes the most unluckiest man, while he pays for full care, the person next to him doesn't even pay half that. All the while a house is sitting empty, we can't give up our house and move in because once funds have depleted from his account they'll force his house to be sold and batter in to strip him of every penny he has left. So don't worry about the elderly being ripped off you'll all get your ex council houses back that you desperately want.

Sorry @Zippeedidodah but I don't really understand your argument. Do you think it's unfair that he should have to sell his home to pay for care? If so, how else do you think it should be funded once he has no cash savings left? It's not like he's planning on moving back is it? So what's the problem?

Also would it not make more sense to sell the house before it becomes a forced sale? Then you / he could take your time and potentially get a better price?

But the only reason those aged 55 to 65 as a whole hold lots of wealth ( on average) is that they have saved into their pensions?

The older age groups have less wealth as they start to use their pensions to fund themselves

Unless you think everyone should have a universal income paid for out of working people taxes and no one should ever save for themselves ?

I mean if all those people with pension wealth didn't have it and the state had to fund them fully and provide homes for them well we would be up the creek

And @ShyMaryEllenno, £203 a week doesn't make someone rich. But most pensioners have a lot more than that. Statistically the baby boomer generationarethe richest generation that has ever lived. You can argue that not every single one of them is. I'd agree. But as a group they are.

If pensioners have more than the full SP (and a lot don't even have that) it's because they have paid into work pensions - much as most younger people are doing, so that they won't be totally skint in later life. Are you suggesting that they should have done that? Yes, some of those pensions may have been a better deal than the ones today's young people will get, but many won't be, and a lot of older people don't have pensions at all, as they couldn't afford to pay in. Those who did took a risk - not all pensions are generous final salary ones - people lost a lot in (say) the Equitable Life collapse and so on. It is often forgotten that whereas those who went to university before 1998 got it free, most people didn't go at all, and many have worked for decades in low-paid jobs which didn't offer workplace pensions. And anyway, it's not a race to the bottom.

I'm not at all saying that there shouldn't be more done for younger people - there should. But lumping together everyone over 60, as though they have all had the same life chances and luck (or even as though they all voted for Tories and Brexit) is as bad as assuming that all young people are snowflakes who drink coffee from Starbucks, eat avocados and never bother to vote (or whatever). It is far better to look for ways to improve things for everyone than it is to look for ways of making anyone above the breadline suffer just because of their birthdate.

And as was said upthread - beware of going down the road of allowing the State to insist on things like where we can live, as it's the thin end of a very dodgy wedge.

He has savings well over the threshold and can afford his care, hes the most unluckiest man,

You define unlucky as being financially secure enough to not have to rely on the state safety net?

By that measure I'm extremely unlucky. I'm a higher rate taxpayer and I don't get ANY benefits. So unlucky.

"I mean if all those people with pension wealth didn't have it and the state had to fund them fully and provide homes for them well we would be up the creek"

Those people paid tax, NI and pension contributions, CT on their homes according to the local authority banding, they fund their own care and pay for the care of other people who can't pay. When their savings run out, their other assets are sold and given to the local authority to continue to pay for care for the individual and a second, non paying person in the same care home. The hatred aimed at elderly people is unsettling. There are far worse people in society than old people.

I think that might be because lots of us mid 30s are quite aqarewe might not even have pension age in reasonable time in UK. Just roll into coffin, don't forget to clock out at work.
Misguided though, it's not their fault really

The reason older people have the most wealth is NOT just because they have saved into their (more generous than current) pensions. It's because of the enormous house price growth they have enjoyed. They did not earn that wealth. They were just lucky enough to have been born at the correct time.
And the PP who suggested her FIL is unlucky because he may eventually be forced to sell his home (that he isn't living in) to pay for his care home fees. I've genuinely just realised that the reason they think this is unfair is presumably because they want to inherit that house themselves and have the tax payer fund FIL's care. Which is typical of the take take take attitude I've read a lot of on here.

And the PP who suggested her FIL is unlucky because he may eventually be forced to sell his home (that he isn't living in) to pay for his care home fees. I've genuinely just realised that the reason they think this is unfair is presumably because they want to inherit that house themselves and have the tax payer fund FIL's care. Which is typical of the take take take attitude I've read a lot of on here.
And that is not likely to be coming from older posters. It is the children of so-called 'Boomers' who inherit large sums, much larger if they live in the SE. House price inflation is not remotely the same across the UK. As well as being classist and ageist, you are displaying a very London-centric mindset.

This is slightly off-topic but if you're "young" and living in a small home and then kids come along, presumably you make some attempt (if you can) to move into a home that better suits your needs. And you fund that yourselves?
Why does the same not apply to the elderly (and I count myself as approaching that age-group)? If your current home does not meet your needs, then sell it and pay for something that does, e.g. a care home/sheltered housing. I don't follow the "forced to sell their house for care-home fees" logic. Why shouldn't we? What else is it going to be used for?
Oh yes, inheritance for the next generation down.