End of Pensioner "Perks"

[reohn2]

Hondated
Thatcher bought a lot of votes with the sale of concil houses,I won't be dissuaded from that belief.

[al_yrpal]

Fact is the baby boomers (who are disproportionately represented in the Tea Shop) have had increasingly good lives - and their children or grandchildren won't. You can kick against it but it's the truth.

It is the truth, but as a pre boomer, the silent generation, we did start from a very low, poor and deprived ebb. And, I dont know anyone from my generation who doesnt appreciate the challenges that young people face. Thats why so many of us do everything we can to help youngsters, many helping their children and granchildren financially.
Whats more supporting yourself and bettering yourself isnt a crime its the way our society works and its the boomers who helped to make it happen.

Al

[pete75]

It is notable that on this thread a considerable number of people who pontificate about the lives of others on other threads see their own approaches or lifestyles as 'right' here (honourable exceptions for oldjohnw and slowster).

Fact is the baby boomers (who are disproportionately represented in the Tea Shop) have had increasingly good lives - and their children or grandchildren won't. You can kick against it but it's the truth.

I see my lifestyle as neither right nor wrong it's just how it's developed over the years. I suspect most here feel the same so I'd question your first sentence.

Will my children and their children have better or worse lives - I don't know and neither do you. Who knows how their careers will develop.

Most of the fuss/complaints appears to be about house prices. There's a simple answer. The relatively wealthy so called baby boomers buy their kids houses. That's what we're doing - they'd get the money anyway eventually so why shouldn't they have it now rather than struggle for some years and then become relatively wealthy through inheritance. Same goes for university fees - why not pay them for your kids instead of moaning about the things.
I'm what many of the oh so middle class posters on here will regard as working class scum so if I can afford it you lot certainly can. Don't be so bloody mean.

[Tangled Metal]

Wasn't another problem the way the north Sea oil revenues were used instead being put into a sovereign fund like Norway did?

Instead they were used to buy votes,along with the sale of council housing stock.

Basically a symptom of the way all governments have looked only to the short-term and their own legacy / survival at the top than national interests

Exactly,and which is what's happening with the present government,political power trumps national interest everytime,it's why the Uk sorely needs PR.

PS,we're agreeing again

Except I doubt PR will ultimately do anything about party self interest.

PS normal service has returned.

[reohn2]

Except I doubt PR will ultimately do anything about party self interest.

PS normal service has returned.

I think it would see moreand or smaller parties have a say in how the country is run instead of the way fhe electorate/country has been treated during the past 30 years.
It would also make politicians think outside their own party's interests to reach concensus.
TBH I'm sick and tried of UK politics,it's not fit for purposeand there are too many MP's using to further their own personal wealth and interests.

[rjb]

Don't complain about perks for pensioners which cost the country a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme, you will all get there eventually.
But don't fret Jeremy will be in power soon so expect basic tax rates to climb back to 1970 levels 35% followed by interest rates to 15%, and unemployment to 10% which should bring house prices back to more realistic levels. I'll get my hat.

[Lance Dopestrong]

I love the Lord's claim that "on average" pensioners are better off than those who are working.

It is true when housing costs are taken into account. A large percentage of pensioners own their house outright. Younger people don't and, as we know, the much younger can't even get get to buy a house.

What is "a large percentage", exactly? That's all very vague, sweeping, un-evidenced statement. Let's see so e hard figures, some nubers, ideally from an authoritative source. You can't conduct effective national business on the basis of heresay and sweeping, unsubstantisted statements...although the government does try

[AMMoffat]

I get fed up of this constant bashing of relatively well-off pensioners. There are a number of issues which no-one ever seems to consider or acknowledge. No-one knows the sacrifices people have made over the years so they could have a comfortable retirement and now society wants to penalise those who may have made considerable sacrifices. Yes, there were benefits in the past in terms of free university education and all the rest that are no longer available today, but many thing nowadays are far cheaper relatively than in the past - food, clothing, leisure activities, cars etc. As in the past that still does not mean that everyone can afford the basics and, as a society, that is shameful.

In any case, as with pensions, the argument is always the wrong one. Instead of penalising those who have decent pensions and savings and trying to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator how about ensuring that everyone who works has a decent occupational pension, at least a living wage that is not subsidised by the state, sort out the rental market to make it fair and more stable and affordable for those who do have to rent and introduce a more progressive and fairer tax system so these things can be afforded. Some other countries do this so much better, why can't we.

[slowster]

its the boomers who helped to make it happen.

My (admittedly limited) understanding is that the economic good times, such as they were, that the boomers have enjoyed, were largely down to the previous generation who had to make do without for many years during and after WW2.

I dont know anyone from my generation who doesnt appreciate the challenges that young people face. Thats why so many of us do everything we can to help youngsters, many helping their children and granchildren financially.

The problem with that is that it means those whose parents are not so well off are potentially greatly disadvantaged. With no bank of mum and dad they may not be able to afford to go to university (or be willing to take on the student loan debt when a degree is now much less of a guarantee of earning more during their working lives), and they may not be able to afford to save for a house deposit, and instead be trapped into forever renting.

The baby boomer generation that grew up and came of age in the 1960s enjoyed far higher levels of social mobility than today, precisely because they could get on and build their lives without the sort of financial support from parents that is increasingly becoming critical now to young people's life chances and opportunities. Employment was then relatively much easier to find and certainly there was no question of working for free as an intern etc. to get a foot in the door.

On a more general note, I don't disagree with reohn2's condemnation of Thatcher's exploitation of the desire of ordinary people to own their own homes by selling off council housing cheaply, but I think that was part of a bigger and somewhat more complicated picture. Prior to the Conservative governments of 1979 onwards, ordinary working people had to some extent been excluded from the opportunities open to the middle and upper classes to buy their own home. That was because in part it was quite difficult to get a mortgage: typically you had to save with a building society for some years before they would be willing to consider giving you a mortgage. As I understand it, access to credit was severely limited and controlled during those years, with the result that mortgages were effectively 'rationed'*, which had the effect of keeping house prices down. That was great if you were wealthy or were one of the lucky ones who got a mortgage. I think there was quite a lot more complexity to it than that: returns on savings during those years were poor, which was why mortgages were relatively cheap (providing you could get one). Capital and exchange controls meant that British people had no real choice about this: they could not access better rates or investments outside the UK. As I understand it the unspoken bargain with (wealthier) savers was that they would get poor interest on their savings, but that in return they could buy houses relatively cheaply.

(*University education was similarly rationed but free to those who had high enough A level grades, unless you were Princes Charles who got in to Oxbridge with very mediocre grades.)

Thatcher tore up that arrangement and made it much easier for ordinary people to get a mortgage, as well as increasing the number of homes available to buy by selling off council stock (albeit that that stock should have been replaced by using the receipts to fund new building). So Thatcher was in a sense merely responding to many people's deeply seated and understandable desire to own their own home, something which the policies of previous governments had deliberately frustrated.

Unfortunately, the large supply of council housing sold off cheaply in a very short period meant that mainly one generation, i.e. baby boomers, acquired wealth that had in reality been created (built) as a result of the efforts of previous generations to pay for that council housing stock. They then benefited again when house prices rocketed over the years because house building levels have been too low to meet demand, both because council housing was not replaced and because of planning restrictions, economic policy and large housebuilders' land bank use/manipulation.

Thatcher made some good decisions and some bad decisions, but blaming her, or even the Tories generally, in isolation would be to ignore the woeful failings of other governments and others in position of power and responsibility to act when it was apparent house prices were rising too fast and social mobility was decreasing.

I read many years ago that Anthony Crossland was concerned about the nature of the UK housing market and how money was being diverted into housing instead of invested in businesses and commerce. He apparently wanted to (re)introduce capital gains tax on house purchases, i.e. on all housing, not only second homes. If he had not died and had succeeded in his plans, I think this country would now be a very different, and probably much better place.

[al_yrpal]

Well, after that, as someone who lived tbrough those times you definately do have a limited understanding which is unfortunately fairly typical. As someone born early on in the War I can give you personal examples which fly in the face of almost every statement you have made. I came from a poor cockney family, I went to a grammar school and got a grant from the County Council to study at degree level when my employer wouldnt pay. My wifes parents used right to buy to buy their council home whilst in their 50s it wasnt just the boomers that profited from that. I bought our first house in 68 with a borrowed deposit and paid the solicitors fees off over a year. It meant a lot of hardship.

Thats just for starters... None of us chose what happened, its just that it happened...

Al

[Mick F]

......Fact is the baby boomers (who are disproportionately represented in the Tea Shop) have had increasingly good lives - and their children or grandchildren won't. You can kick against it but it's the truth.

I totally agree but you can't blame those baby boomers for looking after themselves.They aren't the problem,the problem IMO is the mismanagement of the country since 1979 which successive governments have driven taxes down and property prices up.

Spot on.

[Lance Dopestrong]

Well, after that, as someone who lived tbrough those times you definately do have a limited understanding which is unfortunately fairly typical. As someone born early on in the War I can give you personal examples which fly in the face of almost every statement you have made. I came from a poor cockney family, I went to a grammar school and got a grant from the County Council to study at degree level when my employer wouldnt pay. My wifes parents used right to buy to buy their council home whilst in their 50s it wasnt just the boomers that profited from that. I bought our first house in 68 with a borrowed deposit and paid the solicitors fees off over a year. It meant a lot of hardship.

Thats just for starters... None of us chose what happened, its just that it happened...

Al

I must agree.

I joined the Army to spite my fairly wealthy Dad. After that I did things arriss backwards and paid for myself to go through the OU for my degrees. I didn't rush it, taking 9 years to do a 5 year course, but I came out the other end with zero debt and lived a fairly regular life while I was doing it. While all that was going on I took a career break to do 6 months contracting in the States, bodyguarding and driving work. One hell of a social and family sacrifice, but 70k to buy my first house outright.

My Mum was from poorer stock, and beat it into me not to waste money on car finance loans etc, to safe heartily and shovel money into a pension. Glad I listened now, although at the time it's fair to say i wasps resentful.

3rd daughter is 22. She's just qualified as an account, and is earning less than the average wage. When she was 20 she decided she wanted to buy a house, so followed my Ma's advice, sacked off the car on PCP and bought and older runabout outright, no nights out, no mobile phone upgrade for the sake of it, no foreign hols, genreally living like a nun for 2 years £29,500 saved, and the reward is she's just bought her first house. She moaned like hell for 2 years, but she's finally there.

Things are indisputably tighter and harder for youngsters starting out today, that's a fact. Yet I've little sympathy for those that are happy to urinate their wages on the consumer high life, and then moan they can't save a deposit for a house. Sometimes you gotta choose between having your cake, and eating it. Of course, 3 or more decades ago when I was at that stage it was easier, because there were no mobile phones to pay 40 or 50 quid a month on, no PCP car finance, foreign jaunts were an occasional treat and not a twice yearly dead cert booze up with me mates, whereas these things are pretty much standard issue for many you g people in employment. Fine, spend it on sheet if you want, but don't then complain that there's nothing left to spend on something really important.

Not every is even that fortunate. The disabled, the unemployed, those in a really low or part time salary, but those categories existed in the 80's too and they weren't buying houses back then either.

[Psamathe]

The reality is that people are now living much longer in retirement, which means that many current pensioners have benefits which are far in excess of what current young workers can expect at a similar age and contributions history.

The scandal of working age benefit cuts resulting in millions of food bank visits each year whilst pensioner benefits are triple locked is a great exemplar.

This is both a wider societal issue as the poor are hit hardest by austerity *and* a generational issue.

As the 5th largest economy in the world and with politicians continually declaring how well we are doing I don't accept it has to be an either/or situation. We can afford to do pensions and provide a sensible safety net for those in need. Of course to do that some companies would need to start paying some tax, some of the mega wealthy wll have to start paying tax, etc.

Ian

[slowster]

As someone born early on in the War I can give you personal examples which fly in the face of almost every statement you have made.

- "I came from a poor cockney family, I went to a grammar school and got a grant from the County Council to study at degree level when my employer wouldnt pay." - That sounds like a very good example of the higher levels of social mobility to which I referred. You received degree level education thanks to a grant which was presumably awarded only because of your academic ability.

- "My wifes parents used right to buy to buy their council home whilst in their 50s it wasnt just the boomers that profited from that." - I said mainly one generation benefitted. Probably few retired people benefitted because they would not have been able to get a mortgage (unless they had enough savings to buy their council house outright), and the very young would not have lived long enough in their council house, assuming they could get one, to qualify for the larger discounts.

None of us chose what happened, its just that it happened...

As individuals we have little to no control over any of this, and just have to play the cards we are dealt with. Neverthless, you can still look at the bigger picture and acknowledge that there is intergenerational unfairness, even if as individuals we lack any real power to change things.

[thirdcrank]

... None of us chose what happened, its just that it happened...

I was born in 1944. Bearing in mind that the voting age used to be 21, I didn't get to vote till the 1966 general election. I think I can say that I didn't choose what happened for the first couple of decades after WWII. Indeed, most of that was my parents' generation who decided they wanted a tad more social equality. Since 1966, I've had the vote and while I had only the one vote at each election, I did contribute to the national choice; to suggest that government policy just happened is absurd. Obviously, it was influenced by events (Dear boy, as Supermac is quoted as remarking) such as the OPEC oil crisis and the discovery of North Sea oil and gas, but we all had the opportunity to help choose policy.