To say the £35k winter fuel threshold is way too high!

[chocolateismyweakness4]

The threshold needed to be raised, but £35k?! I wish I earned that and I have a mortgage and commuting costs. It also doesn’t take into account savings (so they could have millions in the bank) or household income.

We all know it’s a bribe, but they still won’t get pensioners to vote for them.

Well unless there is a VONC in his leadership, Starmer is going nowhere. The last thing we want is endless leadership contests as per the last 14 years.

So sad to see so many women being so nasty about 'boomers'.
At 70, and widowed, I live on my pension (which I worked for) and a portion of my late husband's private pension (which he worked for). I have no mortgage, granted, but I still have to pay insurance, upkeep, heating etc. and feed myself, so I am hardly rolling in money! I also do a lot of childcare, so am still making a contribution to society.
Stop making us scapegoats for all the problems today!

Odd. I had no idea what the mothers of children who weren’t my close friends did with their day. How do you know so much detail?
Were any of your teachers women? I bet they were. And I bet more than one was also a mother. My mother was a teacher in the late 60s and I was one from the late 80s, as a mother from 1996. Most of the women I worked with were mothers. I know many of my teachers in the 60s and 70s were too.
Even by the late 60s, a fair number of women worked because they wanted some financial independence or valued their own career. There was a lot of feminist consciousness raising in the 60s…

Edit: I’ve just noticed you seem to have managed to blame the CoL on women having jobs, so I don’t think you are really arguing in good faith here.

Grudging money to older people isn’t a healthy attitude. Prioritising the well-being of our long standing citizens is the hallmark of a well balanced and caring society. The UK is in a mental health crisis and removing help for the elderly adds to the sense of our nation as one of poverty and callousness.

His chancellor going because she’s doing a bad job won’t strengthen his position. He backed those policies and chose her initially.

A VONC in his leadership is vanishingly unlikely.

So you’re saying the £35k cut off is too low and everyone should have it? Or are you suggesting politicians should only consider things which are advantageous to their party?

I suspect even Starmer knows it weakens his and Labour’s position hence keeping her for this long, despite poor policy.

Know this how? The ‘boomers’ are called this because they are a big generation. As pointed out, they are getting older. When they are gone, or mostly gone, the balance between workers and pensioners will be restored. There’s no reason pensions (which aren’t actually generous when compared with European countries for eg) will disappear. I guess they might if people keep going round saying they will and being resigned to it - it gives politicians the idea you don’t mind. Agitate to keep the current arrangements. Of course that means accepting current pensioners get them, which many don’t seem to want…

Starmer is the first lord of the treasury. He knows full well that his reputation is tied to Reeves'.
It would be very convenient for Starmer if Reeves takes the blame don't you think? Even though none of her decisions have been implemented without Starmer's approval.

I remember one of my aunts who would now be 118 (!) predicting that soon there wouldn’t be any more pensions in the 1960s. Turns out her crystal ball was malfunctioning.

Can we stop comparing child benefit with WFA please? They're not the same. Child benefit isn't meant for the claimant but THE CHILD of that claimant.

This is absolutely not the direction demographics are going in. Have you not seen the birth rate? The shift of the population so we have more and more retirement age adults and fewer and fewer working age ones is set to continue and worsen. The only realistic solution is immigration, but that's as unpopular with voters as reducing pensioner benefits is...

I did hesitate over saying the balance would be restored. It may not go back to where it was, but the baby boom generation being pensioners is a distorting factor. The birth rates between older and younger generations get closer together after that.
What about the rest of the post though?

I agree. I started work in at the start of the 1980s and even then, most of the women in our workplace returned to work after having children, that's right through the ranks from the typing pool up to the qualified accountants. Even in the 80s, it was rare for young mothers to give up work and not return after maternity leave. Yes, a lot came back part time, but most did come back!

My own mother, a teacher, went back to work in the early 70s after having my brother and I. She worked part time in schools during the day around school hours and then worked at the local college teaching evening classes a couple of nights per week too!

I just don't recognise this "not going back to work after children" in the last few decades. I think it was more prevalent in the 50s and 60s to be honest as the men returning home from war needed the jobs so women took a back seat career-wise!

Immigration is just a temporary sticking plaster as the younger working immigrants get old too, so you need even more immigrants to pay for and care for the older generations of immigrants, on top of those born here. It's all one giant ponzi scheme that WILL end in tears!

You sound exactly like my aunt in 1965!

My first child was born in '78 and I gave up work until my second one went to junior school - 1988. Most of the mothers in his class were SAHM and we socialised at playgroups and toddler sessions in church halls. Property was cheap so one salary covered everything (3-bed semi in Enfield £11,000) but by the late 80s I think most of us were back at work.

I am a nasty disgusting selfish greedy entitled boomer and I like all my female friends worked throughout our pregnancies and if we were fortunate enough to get maternity leave we went back to work. In those days you had to work full time for the same employer for at least two years to be able to keep your job. I lost mine because I was a few weeks under. Then like the greedy cow I am, I went out and got another job when my little one was around two as my husband had pissed off and paid no money. I worked because I had to and I worked to set an example to my child. I then worked until I retired as did all my female friends. with and without kids There was no child care (and yes I think that the cost of it these days is very high) unless you made your own arrangements with a childminder (who were not checked or regulated, anyone could set up as one!). It was tough then and it is tough now but for different reasons.

All the rest of the post seemed to be predicated on that first, wrong bit - that once the boomers all die, we'll go back to a demographic where workers comfortably outnumber pensioners and so it is much easier for the working generation to pay for the retired one. This isn't what statisticians are predicting, by a long way.

Well if any thread proves society is broken this is the one.
The elderly are all a drain on society after a lifetime of indulgence.
Everyone has it so much harder than any other generation.
No one should have more than anyone else.
A horrible lack of compassion, understanding or vision beyond they’re own little world

Well that’s counter intuitive, but I accept it’s correct.
There are a lot of 16-65s there - and a chunk of the over 65s will be in work too, of course.
Still - if you all go round saying ‘oh I won’t have a state pension so I’ll make other arrangements’ then some government will take you up on it. Fight. As the generation which gained the pension fought.

The answer is cut benefits for working age people who think they camt manage to work.or think they can only work a few hours a week.

That’s very reductionist.

I like to believe I am a compassionate person, and I think this winter fuel payment should definitely go to the right people I.e. pensioners who truly need it, may live alone, may have health conditions, can’t work, disabled etc etc.

What I don’t feel is fair or just is that this tax payer money is being awarded to people already in privileged circumstances, that’s not fair. It needs proper means-testing.

I feel especially angry on behalf of those on minimum wage, single parents, those raising families and middle earners already squeezed. Again, this is also compassionate as it’s eliciting a sense of injustice on behalf of other members of society in need.

The thing is it's all very well saying to "fight" but really that's just taking money from the you get generation all over again isn't it? And looking at the demographic predictions they're already looking to be even more screwed than those of us working right now. Rich retirees need to be taxed more, not given more for free. And then that needs to continue down the line.
I'm actually more scared for my kids and theirs (if they have any when they grow up) than i.am for my own retirement