To resent the U-turn on winter fuel allowance?

[BlueEyedStarling]

Perhaps I'm existing in a bubble, but all of the pensioners I know, are pretty well off, or comfortable, at least. I live and have older family in the South East, but my dad and his elderly partner, live in the North. Literally, all of them say they dont need the WFA, but happily accept it regardless and shouted from the rooftops when it was taken away from them. Just how long can the working age population keep paying for this increasing, triple-lock section of society who are, as a whole, the wealthiest amongst us? Personally, we fell through the gaps of being able to receive any child benefit (only just!), but have always been willing to accept that we didn't need it and therefore shouldn't have it. Is it that our middle-aged generation just dont shout as loudly about things that affect us? I do want to add that I am very aware that there are many pensioners who should be in receipt of the WFA and that the cut off was too low. Also, that our pensioners fair pretty badly in comparison to much of Europe. It seems criminal that it can't be means tested to benefit those who really do need it.

Yes, apologies. That was a reply to @Blossomtoes.

Yes it's fact that the slave debt was paid off until recently. No argument from me on that.

I think what this thread has achieved is that pensioners who were sympathetic to ending universal WFA or means testing it now feel that if younger generations are so spiteful maybe we should take what we can, no more charity donations, no more volunteering. Some of you might regret it.

It has never been fully paid off over the past 50 years (and more). There's always been debt. Presumably you mean the yearly deficit (i.e. difference between Govt income and expenses) which has been in surplus only 5 years out of the last 50!

Yes, absolutely. Funded from other debt.

In 2015, the UK government rationalised its gilt portfolio, including paying off all undated gilts, which included the remaining slavery debt.

It was a technical move to restructure the debt. Until that point the remaining slavery debt was effectively an interest-only loan

Also the total amount of undated gilts redeemed in 2015 was £218m (not just the slavery debt), so this wasn't some massive share of government debt.

I see as much spite from older people as younger ones.

There’s some confusion about war debt here. The war debt after WW2 was massive and was funded by specific war bonds with a very long term which were finally paid off in 2015 by George Osborne. These were held by individual investors and pension funds. There was also a massive loans from the US paid off in installments ending in 2006. The UK wasn’t debt free when these were paid off so you could say they were was paid off with more debt. There will always be national debt and no generation can claim to have ‘paid off’ the debt.

Having said that I do think boomers lived through some very tough times post war. If they now own their own homes and have good pensions they had a more precarious start in life than later generations.

I agree OP. But remember that some of that so called generation will tell you they have worked all their lives. They hijack the notion that they are frail and have needs, some are and do. BUT in reality many are living in houses too big for them, driving cars too powerful to handle and going on holidays so expensive that the next generations can only ever hear about. You'll see them sat in coffee shops, often with their pampered pooches by their side, looking well-dressed and spending time discussing how to spend their fat pensions. Alot are selfish with not a care about what impact their attitude has on the next generations. We, and our children, and theirs, will pay for their luxurious lifestyles and their sense of entitlement.

All the pensioners I know are poor…

It hasn’t changed my view. If WFA is restored to me - highly unlikely but nothing’s impossible - it will be donated to the foodbank once more. I don’t think the attitude we see on MN and other social media is representative of wider society.

I think most people understand that you do the best you can with the cards you’re dealt. We were brought up to work hard, pay your taxes, pay your mortgage and contribute to a pension. A huge swathe of us have done that and are now being castigated on the basis of our date of birth and the decisions of various governments throughout our lifetimes, regardless of whether we agreed with them or not.

If you look at most of the complaints about the WFA allowance though, nearly all of them are focussed on the fact that rich people get it that don't need it.

If you means test it to make sure only the needy get it, you remove most of the objections to it with a single stroke.

Recover it through tax the way child benefit is. It really is that simple.

Why would the government not do this ?

I mean we paid off the loan that was used to "compensate" the slave owners. I think that's the third time I've said it. It wasn't our debt but we paid it and didn't moan about it.

The tax we paid was used for the slave debt. Don't keep twisting in the wind.

I got £100 a year, I pay tax at 20% so I'd still be up £80.

I don't.

But you didn't "pay" it. Unless it happened in 5 of the last 50 years when we ran a surplus, it was "paid" out of borrowings, i.e. similar to robbing Peter to pay Paul. Basically reorganisation of debt, rather than actually reducing overall debt.

No, you didn't pay enough tax to actually reduce total debt. The government at the time just borrowed from source A to pay off debt owed to source B.

Threatening to withdraw from charity work over lack of fawning is pretty spiteful...

I’m not sure what you think the slave debt point adds to this debate.

Certainly each generation pays for costs incurred by previous ones, and current ones, and invests in things that will benefit future ones. That’s not a refutation of the intergenerational fairness point, it’s the premise of it. The question is about what is fair, if what a cohort costs gets too far out of line with what they contribute.

You have spent about four posts now making a point that no-one refutes and which adds not much.

The slave debt was paid off in 2015 as part of a restructuring. The debt was £15m. That’s about 0.00122% of one single year’s government spending. Prior to that, the govt had been paying 4% interest on it. That’s £600,000, or about 1.8 pence per taxpayer per year.

Nobody wants “fawning”. A respite from constant blame for economic decisions over which we had no control would be nice though.

well the plural of anecdote isnt data, so neither of our personal experiences are factual. But interesting how everyone has a different perception of a situation based on who they're surrounded by

That poster seems to want fawning...

It was only a few posts ago you were blaming voting patterns during your lifetime on your parents generation. Is it only your generation who are somehow absolved of any responsibility for anything?

As a young(er) person I would also like this. I constantly hear stories from old(er) people about how they worked hard to buy a house and didnt splurge on non essentials with no reflection on the fact that working hard has no bearing on lots of people my age's ability to buy a house due to ever increasing house prices and lack of no/low deposit mortgages!

Of course it isn’t. My post was quite specifically about the Thatcher government which wasn’t voted for by people in their 20s. My generation sadly has to take responsibility for the latest 14 year Tory shitshow that’s broken the country.

I completely sympathise. It’s tough being young now and the idiotic spouting about too many coffees and avocado on toast infuriates me.

No doubt. Spite comes from spiteful people of all ages, just as entitlement does.

I can't understand the idea that people should be viewed differently based on an artificially ring-fenced 'generation' that was initially designed as a means of marketing products to people born in different eras. Someone born in 1963 has a very different experience from someone born in 1945, and even more so if you factor in sex, class and geography. Whether a cohort of people do X Y or Z 'as a whole' is surely irrelevant? Not only that, but given the huge societal changes between 1945 and now, it would be surprising if anything else were the case. People generally behave as others around them do, and in accordance with the norms of the time, and it's foolish to blame them for doing otherwise. Generalisations would be considered extremely offensive if aimed at other groups.

Some 'boomers' are net beneficiaries of the tax system and others aren't - in exactly the same way as Millenials or GenZs. Either we have a system based on contributions or we have one based on a 'free at the point of need' model, and the latter is a lot less divisive.