Scrapping Age Related Benefits
Discussion
Ed. said:
Be fair, there are pros and cons for all generations.
Older generations did pay their way but perhaps they were promised more than is affordable. Current generations are paying in are probably not going to get a state pension, the ponzi scheme will collapse at some point.
DB have been phased out for DC for the same reason, paying more for less.
Remember when a family could be fed, educated and go on holiday on one salary?
When houses were affordable on the average salary, access to education for the poor was not in decline and the wealth divide was smaller?
Not to mention the increased monitoring and control we have exchanged for convenience.
There are plenty of things that have changed but it's not all good, incidentally I am too old to be a millennial.
There are many convenient myths about how good the good old days were. Older generations did pay their way but perhaps they were promised more than is affordable. Current generations are paying in are probably not going to get a state pension, the ponzi scheme will collapse at some point.
DB have been phased out for DC for the same reason, paying more for less.
Remember when a family could be fed, educated and go on holiday on one salary?
When houses were affordable on the average salary, access to education for the poor was not in decline and the wealth divide was smaller?
Not to mention the increased monitoring and control we have exchanged for convenience.
There are plenty of things that have changed but it's not all good, incidentally I am too old to be a millennial.
I'm a pensioner. I don't remember being young, with a family and able to service a mortgage, go on holiday, and feed my family on one salary. In fact, when I had two children and my wife worked part time, I had to rely on savings and food parcels from my parents to get by. I didn't have a TV or car, and central heating was fitted but only used occasionally, normally when frost was on the inside of the windows. I didn't have a phone, internet, computers (at least not until the ZX81), trainers, and so much more. Or do I mean less?
When I bought my house, I enjoyed above average wages and, despite saving for two years, and spending as little as possible - no holidays of course , I only just managed to save enough for a deposit. We had to save up a bit less than £2000 for a deposit on my first house; that covered all the fees and the rest made up 25% of the value. Whilst it sounds derisory, it was more than my take home pay for 2 years. In fact, it was more or less my wife's take home pay.
One thing we did not have was debts. Because the likes of HP were regulated, there was little chance of buying items on tick outside one's ability to pay. Interest rates were eye-watering. I still am reluctant to use my credit card, so a big benefit of my upbringing there.
However, further education up to degree level was to all intents free and the poor could receive assistance with extra costs. That this is now replaced by charges, and raised to a rate that costs 'me' more than the loan system it replaced, is something that bewilders me. I can understand why it infuriates millennials. We need to educate our children as well as, more importantly, our MPs.
One of the problems nowadays is that two incomes are seen as the norm for a family and if one is made redundant/sacked/let go then there can be difficulties.
Despite the above, I think most comparisons between different generations are disingenuous. There will be few millennials who would swop with the life-style of the baby-boomers, despite of all the perceived benefits we enjoyed for no money.
For me, the apocryphal 'poor but happy' fitted my life at the time. No holidays, no nights out that we had to pay for, and not so much no luxuries but more some essentials we had to be given. We kept a diary of expenditure and each payday we worked out if we could buy what we needed. I've no complaints; it was a time of great memories, and hopes. Three of my four kids have bought their own houses and still have disposable income, albeit the youngest doesn't go out much.
One sad aspect is that my younger daughter has left midwifery and opted for a clerical, HR post in private industry, wanting higher pay for a mortgage, shorter and more dependable hours, and a way to plan for demands.
My life has been better than that of my parents. My father told me that when he held my elder brother for the first time he promised himself that his son would never go to bed hungry, that being a persistent feature of his life. The first time he regularly had more than one cooked meal a day was when he joined the army. My kids seem to have a better lifestyle than I had. Two have bought new cars, something I've not been able to afford. They have traveled the world. They go on two or more holidays a year. They are well educated. I'm not jealous, in fact I'm over the moon about it.
I'm sure they do not long for the 'good old days' of my youth.
Derek Smith said:
There is a lot of logic to means-testing benefits. Much of it already goes on of course. If someone needs a downstairs loo or assistance to get upstairs, there is means tested funding from the local authority available. We had a blind 80+ woman living next door who needed a stairlift. The paperwork was involved and invasive.
The history of means testing shows that it can be used almost as a weapon against the poor. Read some of the histories of the inter-war period to see the ways in which many of those in authority behaved. So it needs careful monitoring.
Many of the current allowances have a form of means-testing. Most of those who are entitled to allowances do not claim them. There are 'advisers' who will walk claimants through the processes, some of which seem designed to thwart the less than totally committed.
The simple method is to tax allowances. Some are not counted as income but many are so, in a very real way they are means tested.
The logic of means-testing needs to be tempered with good sense.
Whilst I don't use public transport except in extremis, I think the free bus passes are a brilliant idea. It is, in reality, a subsidy for the bus service, but round my way it seems to get the very old out and about. It's an encouragement to a healthy lifestyle.
On the other hand- if you are a disabled child (>18 yrs) you can have your parents/carers home rebuilt (usually with no cap on it) irrespective of your parents income/saving/equity. kid in a wheelchair- parents are minted, you'll be eligible. The history of means testing shows that it can be used almost as a weapon against the poor. Read some of the histories of the inter-war period to see the ways in which many of those in authority behaved. So it needs careful monitoring.
Many of the current allowances have a form of means-testing. Most of those who are entitled to allowances do not claim them. There are 'advisers' who will walk claimants through the processes, some of which seem designed to thwart the less than totally committed.
The simple method is to tax allowances. Some are not counted as income but many are so, in a very real way they are means tested.
The logic of means-testing needs to be tempered with good sense.
Whilst I don't use public transport except in extremis, I think the free bus passes are a brilliant idea. It is, in reality, a subsidy for the bus service, but round my way it seems to get the very old out and about. It's an encouragement to a healthy lifestyle.
DIY SOS pee's me off endlessly with their tales of woe of children......... yes they'll do a grander job than the council will through grant, but trust me, the free govt money was always there to provide a ramp/extension/wet room for that child.
bit more complex of course for adults. And in fairness, for me as long as the disabled person gets what they need, I don't care if its the telly or the council that do it. I make this point just to explain what's out there for youngsters.
anyway I'd ban all cash benefits and hand out food tokens/clothing tokens/power tokens.. That might encourage the great unwashed to bother looking for a job, when they can sod off to spain off the back of tax credits.
Jinx said:
Wingo said:
Old duffers in the HOL that are comfortably off wanting to show they are down with the kids and do bit of youngster virtue signalling should be ignored IMHO.
Means test these age related benefits, higher rate tax payer and you don't get them, simple joined up govt, something we don't do well if at all.
Or do all the oldies have such good "tax efficient" schemes in place so that no state pensionable age person pays higher rate income tax?
As usual its the one size fits all approach that is wrong, at both ends of the age range, that means those that really need the help will lose out to stop "helping" those that don't need help.
Wingo.
Means testing costs a fortune. Frequently cheaper to just blanket benefit (think winter fuel allowance) . Means test these age related benefits, higher rate tax payer and you don't get them, simple joined up govt, something we don't do well if at all.
Or do all the oldies have such good "tax efficient" schemes in place so that no state pensionable age person pays higher rate income tax?
As usual its the one size fits all approach that is wrong, at both ends of the age range, that means those that really need the help will lose out to stop "helping" those that don't need help.
Wingo.
I offered up a simple no cost or low cost "means test" that could be employed.
Too pie in the sky to expect joined up government and government agencies and departments to share info?
Wingo.
A lot of the current crop of oldies lost parents and siblings in the war, maybe fought in the war, endured rationing until 1950's, did National Service in Korea even.
They worked hard in factories (remember those) for 40 odd years making stuff with little or no 'elf n safety.
Cost of Crossrail £15 Bn at current estimates
Cost of HS2 £56 Bn at current estimates
Cost of foreign aid £15 Bn and rising
As for the cost of the HoL - 33 inactive Peers somehow cost us almost half a million and each of the 800 Peers can claim £300 per day for turning up.
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-an...
The country can well afford a few freebies for the old folks.
They worked hard in factories (remember those) for 40 odd years making stuff with little or no 'elf n safety.
Cost of Crossrail £15 Bn at current estimates
Cost of HS2 £56 Bn at current estimates
Cost of foreign aid £15 Bn and rising
As for the cost of the HoL - 33 inactive Peers somehow cost us almost half a million and each of the 800 Peers can claim £300 per day for turning up.
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-an...
The country can well afford a few freebies for the old folks.
55palfers said:
A lot of the current crop of oldies lost parents and siblings in the war, maybe fought in the war, endured rationing until 1950's, did National Service in Korea even.
National service finished in 1963, and was for men only. You'd be about 75 by now.That's not representative of the baby boomers that are expecting a silver plated retirement as they approach their early 60s. They didn't see any of that hardship.
Rivenink said:
State Pensions account for a very sizeable portion of UK expenditure; £96.7 billion last year - roughly twice that spent on Defence.
Nearly 13 million people are eligible for the state pension, and due to population demographics, this number is only going to rise in the years to come.
Of all social security benefits, 55% are paid to the elderly.
This isn't including the free TV license.
On top of all that, elderly people are also the biggest burden on the NHS, for obvious reasons on how age impacts ones health.
Elderly people must be looked after, but it must not come at the expense of educating children, defending the nation, and investing in the future. The balance needs adjusting.
ideally there wouldn't need to be any adjusting. we would ,and should, do both. novel idea,i know.Nearly 13 million people are eligible for the state pension, and due to population demographics, this number is only going to rise in the years to come.
Of all social security benefits, 55% are paid to the elderly.
This isn't including the free TV license.
On top of all that, elderly people are also the biggest burden on the NHS, for obvious reasons on how age impacts ones health.
Elderly people must be looked after, but it must not come at the expense of educating children, defending the nation, and investing in the future. The balance needs adjusting.
Edited by wc98 on Thursday 25th April 17:00
55palfers said:
A lot of the current crop of oldies lost parents and siblings in the war, maybe fought in the war, endured rationing until 1950's, did National Service in Korea even.
They worked hard in factories (remember those) for 40 odd years making stuff with little or no 'elf n safety.
And voted in governments. who promised them things they knew they could not deliver. At least the current bunch of useless wasters are trying to make some changes.They worked hard in factories (remember those) for 40 odd years making stuff with little or no 'elf n safety.
55palfers said:
A lot of the current crop of oldies lost parents and siblings in the war, maybe fought in the war, endured rationing until 1950's, did National Service in Korea even.
They worked hard in factories (remember those) for 40 odd years making stuff with little or no 'elf n safety.
And voted in governments. who promised them things they knew they could not deliver. At least the current bunch of useless wasters are trying to make some changes.They worked hard in factories (remember those) for 40 odd years making stuff with little or no 'elf n safety.
hotchy said:
You work all your life, we now retire at an age were basically done in and lucky to survive much longer. Give them everything to enjoy the last few years.
I think you have your epochs mixed up.The gap between retirement age and life expectancy is now bigger than ever.
What you describe was closer to the position when the state pension was first established.
Derek Smith said:
There are many convenient myths about how good the good old days were.
I'm a pensioner. I don't remember being young, with a family and able to service a mortgage, go on holiday, and feed my family on one salary. In fact, when I had two children and my wife worked part time, I had to rely on savings and food parcels from my parents to get by. I didn't have a TV or car, and central heating was fitted but only used occasionally, normally when frost was on the inside of the windows. I didn't have a phone, internet, computers (at least not until the ZX81), trainers, and so much more. Or do I mean less?
When I bought my house, I enjoyed above average wages and, despite saving for two years, and spending as little as possible - no holidays of course , I only just managed to save enough for a deposit. We had to save up a bit less than £2000 for a deposit on my first house; that covered all the fees and the rest made up 25% of the value. Whilst it sounds derisory, it was more than my take home pay for 2 years. In fact, it was more or less my wife's take home pay.
One thing we did not have was debts. Because the likes of HP were regulated, there was little chance of buying items on tick outside one's ability to pay. Interest rates were eye-watering. I still am reluctant to use my credit card, so a big benefit of my upbringing there.
However, further education up to degree level was to all intents free and the poor could receive assistance with extra costs. That this is now replaced by charges, and raised to a rate that costs 'me' more than the loan system it replaced, is something that bewilders me. I can understand why it infuriates millennials. We need to educate our children as well as, more importantly, our MPs.
One of the problems nowadays is that two incomes are seen as the norm for a family and if one is made redundant/sacked/let go then there can be difficulties.
Despite the above, I think most comparisons between different generations are disingenuous. There will be few millennials who would swop with the life-style of the baby-boomers, despite of all the perceived benefits we enjoyed for no money.
For me, the apocryphal 'poor but happy' fitted my life at the time. No holidays, no nights out that we had to pay for, and not so much no luxuries but more some essentials we had to be given. We kept a diary of expenditure and each payday we worked out if we could buy what we needed. I've no complaints; it was a time of great memories, and hopes. Three of my four kids have bought their own houses and still have disposable income, albeit the youngest doesn't go out much.
One sad aspect is that my younger daughter has left midwifery and opted for a clerical, HR post in private industry, wanting higher pay for a mortgage, shorter and more dependable hours, and a way to plan for demands.
My life has been better than that of my parents. My father told me that when he held my elder brother for the first time he promised himself that his son would never go to bed hungry, that being a persistent feature of his life. The first time he regularly had more than one cooked meal a day was when he joined the army. My kids seem to have a better lifestyle than I had. Two have bought new cars, something I've not been able to afford. They have traveled the world. They go on two or more holidays a year. They are well educated. I'm not jealous, in fact I'm over the moon about it.
I'm sure they do not long for the 'good old days' of my youth.
All very true. But you tell the youth of today..........I'm a pensioner. I don't remember being young, with a family and able to service a mortgage, go on holiday, and feed my family on one salary. In fact, when I had two children and my wife worked part time, I had to rely on savings and food parcels from my parents to get by. I didn't have a TV or car, and central heating was fitted but only used occasionally, normally when frost was on the inside of the windows. I didn't have a phone, internet, computers (at least not until the ZX81), trainers, and so much more. Or do I mean less?
When I bought my house, I enjoyed above average wages and, despite saving for two years, and spending as little as possible - no holidays of course , I only just managed to save enough for a deposit. We had to save up a bit less than £2000 for a deposit on my first house; that covered all the fees and the rest made up 25% of the value. Whilst it sounds derisory, it was more than my take home pay for 2 years. In fact, it was more or less my wife's take home pay.
One thing we did not have was debts. Because the likes of HP were regulated, there was little chance of buying items on tick outside one's ability to pay. Interest rates were eye-watering. I still am reluctant to use my credit card, so a big benefit of my upbringing there.
However, further education up to degree level was to all intents free and the poor could receive assistance with extra costs. That this is now replaced by charges, and raised to a rate that costs 'me' more than the loan system it replaced, is something that bewilders me. I can understand why it infuriates millennials. We need to educate our children as well as, more importantly, our MPs.
One of the problems nowadays is that two incomes are seen as the norm for a family and if one is made redundant/sacked/let go then there can be difficulties.
Despite the above, I think most comparisons between different generations are disingenuous. There will be few millennials who would swop with the life-style of the baby-boomers, despite of all the perceived benefits we enjoyed for no money.
For me, the apocryphal 'poor but happy' fitted my life at the time. No holidays, no nights out that we had to pay for, and not so much no luxuries but more some essentials we had to be given. We kept a diary of expenditure and each payday we worked out if we could buy what we needed. I've no complaints; it was a time of great memories, and hopes. Three of my four kids have bought their own houses and still have disposable income, albeit the youngest doesn't go out much.
One sad aspect is that my younger daughter has left midwifery and opted for a clerical, HR post in private industry, wanting higher pay for a mortgage, shorter and more dependable hours, and a way to plan for demands.
My life has been better than that of my parents. My father told me that when he held my elder brother for the first time he promised himself that his son would never go to bed hungry, that being a persistent feature of his life. The first time he regularly had more than one cooked meal a day was when he joined the army. My kids seem to have a better lifestyle than I had. Two have bought new cars, something I've not been able to afford. They have traveled the world. They go on two or more holidays a year. They are well educated. I'm not jealous, in fact I'm over the moon about it.
I'm sure they do not long for the 'good old days' of my youth.
wc98 said:
ideally there wouldn't need to be any adjusting. we would ,and should, do both. novel idea,i know.
Ideally. Edited by wc98 on Thursday 25th April 17:00
But then ideally the millennial wouldn't have been left working to pay off the massive debt incurred bailing out the banks. Or ideally being able to afford a home that doesn't demand they take on debt many multiples of their yearly incomes. Or ideally wouldn't have to deal with the next decades of the current Brexit chaos.
It's OK,your average millennial will get the same deal after years of hard work and be able to retire on the state pension at 65. No wait, I mean 67. Maybe even 70, the lucky buggers.
Derek Smith said:
When I bought my house, I enjoyed above average wages and, despite saving for two years, and spending as little as possible - no holidays of course , I only just managed to save enough for a deposit. We had to save up a bit less than £2000 for a deposit on my first house; that covered all the fees and the rest made up 25% of the value. Whilst it sounds derisory, it was more than my take home pay for 2 years. In fact, it was more or less my wife's take home pay.
And you would have made an absolute fortune off the back of a house bought then, retired on what would be a superb pension compared to what I'm going to see in my 30's now, and at a far earlier age. All with all that house equity to play with too. Algarve said:
Derek Smith said:
When I bought my house, I enjoyed above average wages and, despite saving for two years, and spending as little as possible - no holidays of course , I only just managed to save enough for a deposit. We had to save up a bit less than £2000 for a deposit on my first house; that covered all the fees and the rest made up 25% of the value. Whilst it sounds derisory, it was more than my take home pay for 2 years. In fact, it was more or less my wife's take home pay.
And you would have made an absolute fortune off the back of a house bought then, retired on what would be a superb pension compared to what I'm going to see in my 30's now, and at a far earlier age. All with all that house equity to play with too. It is only those that were able and willing to climb the property ladder that have significant spare equity in their property.
A retirement bungalow will often cost more than an equivalent house in any particular area.
Nickgnome said:
That is true for some but most will not have seen sufficient value growth to fund retirement and still have somewhere to live.
It is only those that were able and willing to climb the property ladder that have significant spare equity in their property.
A retirement bungalow will often cost more than an equivalent house in any particular area.
That's true, but with mortgages increasingly in the 30-35 year scale, and people waiting until their 30s and later to buy, how many will actually be able to release the equity fully on their home?It is only those that were able and willing to climb the property ladder that have significant spare equity in their property.
A retirement bungalow will often cost more than an equivalent house in any particular area.
How long was your mortgage in the bad old days? 20 years? 15?
Derek Smith said:
There are many convenient myths about how good the good old days were.
I'm a pensioner. I don't remember being young, with a family and able to service a mortgage, go on holiday, and feed my family on one salary. In fact, when I had two children and my wife worked part time, I had to rely on savings and food parcels from my parents to get by. I didn't have a TV or car, and central heating was fitted but only used occasionally, normally when frost was on the inside of the windows. I didn't have a phone, internet, computers (at least not until the ZX81), trainers, and so much more. Or do I mean less?
When I bought my house, I enjoyed above average wages and, despite saving for two years, and spending as little as possible - no holidays of course , I only just managed to save enough for a deposit. We had to save up a bit less than £2000 for a deposit on my first house; that covered all the fees and the rest made up 25% of the value. Whilst it sounds derisory, it was more than my take home pay for 2 years. In fact, it was more or less my wife's take home pay.
Are you saying £2000 was more than your take home pay for 2yrs? What year was this?I'm a pensioner. I don't remember being young, with a family and able to service a mortgage, go on holiday, and feed my family on one salary. In fact, when I had two children and my wife worked part time, I had to rely on savings and food parcels from my parents to get by. I didn't have a TV or car, and central heating was fitted but only used occasionally, normally when frost was on the inside of the windows. I didn't have a phone, internet, computers (at least not until the ZX81), trainers, and so much more. Or do I mean less?
When I bought my house, I enjoyed above average wages and, despite saving for two years, and spending as little as possible - no holidays of course , I only just managed to save enough for a deposit. We had to save up a bit less than £2000 for a deposit on my first house; that covered all the fees and the rest made up 25% of the value. Whilst it sounds derisory, it was more than my take home pay for 2 years. In fact, it was more or less my wife's take home pay.
I'm not retired and not even thinking about it. We did sell my car - a Ford Capri
I'd bought new - to go towards the deposit on our first house but otherwise don't recall any hardship. My wife packed up work when the kids came along and we had a couple of years of UK holidays when they were small but soon resumed foreign trips. In the mid-80's I got a job with a company car but I always changed my wife's car for a new one every few years.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff