Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35867925)

https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...l-inequalities

I doubt the Government has the guts to do it but it does seem to becoming unsustainable. The all the savings the government tries to make on benefits the state pension system blows it apart when you have to keep increasing it by the highest possible measurement. If inflation hits 4% the bill is going to explode further.

I think the inequality of in tripling tuition fees and scrapping housing benefits for the under 25s whilst introducing the triple-lock was one of the worst aspects of the austerity program.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35867925)

https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...l-inequalities

I doubt the Government has the guts to do it but it does seem to becoming unsustainable. The all the savings the government tries to make on benefits the state pension system blows it apart when you have to keep increasing it by the highest possible measurement. If inflation hits 4% the bill is going to explode further.

I think the inequality of in tripling tuition fees and scrapping housing benefits for the under 25s whilst introducing the triple-lock was one of the worst aspects of the austerity program.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35867927)

the pension system looks after those who have worked and contributed to our nation -the benefits system is so badly abused its a joke -if inflation hits 4% savers will be better off than borrowers for a change . i agree with you that picking on the young is wrong just as wrong as turning on the old .

Originally Posted by rhyds (Post 35867936)

The state pension system is currently set up to look after a particular group of people:

Those who vote most often...

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35867958)

If inflation shoots up, then whatever way the pension increase is decided it will go up. Inflation is the minimum measure. It is the other 2 parts that create the "unfair" increases.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35867967)

It goes up by whichever of the three is highest.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35867969)

But before the triple-lock came along, any increase was connected to inflation. If inflation goes up, the there will be little difference between now and then. It is low inflation that creates what are seen as "unfair" increases. It is the automatic nature of the triple-lock that is the problem. Having adhoc additional increases, where there is evidence of a sustained increase in the economy might be better.

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35867979)

Many Benefits frozen, some reduced, other (April) increases tied to inflation rates 6 months before (October). In reality many are getting poorer and poorer as the real cost of living of staples is much higher, especially rent, poll tax, utilities and fuel.

The triple lock increase rate seems generous, but it is actually outstripped by actual inflation and not the magical figure that appears in October.

Originally Posted by rhyds (Post 35867936)

The state pension system is currently set up to look after a particular group of people:

Those who vote most often...

Originally Posted by Julian (Post 35867985)

Maybe pensioners should be told not to vote because younger people can't be arsed to bother voting. ;)

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35867987)

maybe voting by text might encourage them that way they don't have to leave the sofa ;)

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35867989)

Nice to see your reliable daily stereotyping is alive and well.;)

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35868049)

I will also point out that this OAP has two children to STILL support even in adult life..The Bank of Mum and Dad never shuts.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35868049)

I will also point out that this OAP has two children to STILL support even in adult life..The Bank of Mum and Dad never shuts.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35867927)

the pension system looks after those who have worked and contributed to our nation -the benefits system is so badly abused its a joke -if inflation hits 4% savers will be better off than borrowers for a change assuming interest rates rise accordingly . i agree with you that picking on the young is wrong just as wrong as turning on the old .

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35868049)

I will also point out that this OAP has two children to STILL support even in adult life..The Bank of Mum and Dad never shuts.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35868210)

A post made without thought. Lost for words.

What the government is doing has little credibility, they cannot claim welfare is unaffordable when they let the biggest chunk grow unhindered to buy votes.

If we took your post as gospel we can assume every single pensioner has worked for their entire working life and every single social security claimant has never paid any taxes, which of course is complete nonsense.

---------- Post added at 08:37 ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 ----------



I understand your point but of course one has to remember that OAP's are only just part of the population and shouldnt really be given any preference, my own opinion is the pension rate should be linked to working age benefits in terms of when it grows or shrinks. There is no logical reason to do otherwise.

Of course also remember not every mum and dad acts like a ATM machine, me and my younger sister got kicked out at under 20 years old with only a few months notice, I still financially support my sister by taking out 0% credit to help her pay down debts because my mum and dad wont help at all (she cannot do herself as she trashed her credit rating), in fact my dad is constantly pestering us for money when I asked him what its for he says he is bored of his car and wants a new one, I mean he is a in a different world of struggles if thats his biggest problem, yet he doesnt realise with a fully paid mortgage his living costs are a fraction of our own.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35868210)

A post made without thought. Lost for words.

What the government is doing has little credibility, they cannot claim welfare is unaffordable when they let the biggest chunk grow unhindered to buy votes.

If we took your post as gospel we can assume every single pensioner has worked for their entire working life and every single social security claimant has never paid any taxes, which of course is complete nonsense.

---------- Post added at 08:37 ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 ----------



I understand your point but of course one has to remember that OAP's are only just part of the population and shouldnt really be given any preference, my own opinion is the pension rate should be linked to working age benefits in terms of when it grows or shrinks. There is no logical reason to do otherwise.

Of course also remember not every mum and dad acts like a ATM machine, me and my younger sister got kicked out at under 20 years old with only a few months notice, I still financially support my sister by taking out 0% credit to help her pay down debts because my mum and dad wont help at all (she cannot do herself as she trashed her credit rating), in fact my dad is constantly pestering us for money when I asked him what its for he says he is bored of his car and wants a new one, I mean he is a in a different world of struggles if thats his biggest problem, yet he doesnt realise with a fully paid mortgage his living costs are a fraction of our own.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35868270)

My parents are OAPs ;)

They think I am a cash machine :)

Quite frequently they bring up the subject about its right that OAPs should be treated better, young people should fund holidays etc. for them. I dont argue I just sit silent when they start about it. My sister was homeless for nearly 2 years and even then they were asking her for money and to be frank they are pretty comfortable, they should be happy with their situation, my sympathy may be affected by the fact they thought they stopped been parents the moment we turned 18.

A fair few of today's problems are directly as a result of the protection given to OAPs, housing, council tax relief funding, working age benefits. All affected by the preferential treatment of pensioners.

We effectively do have a battle of the generations. If you think about house prices, a fair few of the baby boomer generation have invested in property and its in their interests for rents and house prices to go up. However young people struggle with rising rents and struggle to get on the housing ladder due to the cost of buying a home.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35868210)

A post made without thought. Lost for words.

What the government is doing has little credibility, they cannot claim welfare is unaffordable when they let the biggest chunk grow unhindered to buy votes.

If we took your post as gospel we can assume every single pensioner has worked for their entire working life and every single social security claimant has never paid any taxes, which of course is complete nonsense.[COLOR="Silver"]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35868270)

My parents are OAPs ;)

They think I am a cash machine :)

Quite frequently they bring up the subject about its right that OAPs should be treated better, young people should fund holidays etc. for them. I dont argue I just sit silent when they start about it. My sister was homeless for nearly 2 years and even then they were asking her for money and to be frank they are pretty comfortable, they should be happy with their situation, my sympathy may be affected by the fact they thought they stopped been parents the moment we turned 18.

A fair few of today's problems are directly as a result of the protection given to OAPs, housing, council tax relief funding, working age benefits. All affected by the preferential treatment of pensioners.

We effectively do have a battle of the generations. If you think about house prices, a fair few of the baby boomer generation have invested in property and its in their interests for rents and house prices to go up. However young people struggle with rising rents and struggle to get on the housing ladder due to the cost of buying a home.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35868210)

A post made without thought. Lost for words.

What the government is doing has little credibility, they cannot claim welfare is unaffordable when they let the biggest chunk grow unhindered to buy votes.
.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35868349)

I have an issue with the state pension being called a benefit ,fair enough it comes from the benefits budget but that doesn't mean it is a benefit imo .I'm sure most people on state pension would object to being classed as a benefit claimant after they have worked all their lives avoided claiming benefits and paid into the pension .

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35868349)

I have an issue with the state pension being called a benefit ,fair enough it comes from the benefits budget but that doesn't mean it is a benefit imo .I'm sure most people on state pension would object to being classed as a benefit claimant after they have worked all their lives avoided claiming benefits and paid into the pension .

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35868345)

So you're unhappy with your OAP parents and assume all OAPs to be cut from the same cloth? Not all pensioners are 'comfortable' and viewing this as a generational struggle is just succumbing to press rhetoric.

I can understand how your circumstances colour your judgement but pensioners are a soft target and, btw, you won't have your mum and dad forever. Better to be hounding big business to pay its fair share of tax than to make the lives of old people miserable by denying them a few bob.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35868335)

well at least we know what work is .:eeek:

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35868411)

I too have issues with that termination, perhaps those that think it is just that should have a read of this.

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN....pdf?dtrk=true

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35868514)

No but I look at the DWP budget and see the vast majority of it is on pensions, and that big chunk is been treated specially, that is clearly wrong.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35868514)

It is a benefit pip.

Like working age benefits e.g. there is contribution based factors e.g. contribution based JSA and contribution based ESA are both classed as benefits, yet they can only be claimed by someone who has paid enough national insurance.

I think the only reason you two have an issue with it been called a benefit is because its for a different set of people "pensioners".

Either pensions are a benefit, or JSA and ESA are also not benefits. You cannot have it both ways.

Incidentally contribution based working age benefits are actually cash flow positive so are viable, pensions however are not and require subsidy from working age budgets hence the squeeze been put on them.
.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35868549)

Your view is entrenched in your personal circumstances.

I am more altruistic and I'm quite happy for them to receive a payment that allows them to eat and keep warm. The vast majority will, as Maggie says, be supporting younger people in one way or another. It's just unfortunate for you that your OAP parents expect handouts from you; I suppose if they were to get less from the state, they'd want even more from you. Catch 22.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35868514)

No but I look at the DWP budget and see the vast majority of it is on pensions, and that big chunk is been treated specially, that is clearly wrong.

By the way, whats your opinion on papa smurf's stereotyping?

---------- Post added at 12:38 ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 ----------



I dont know if you are just really misguided or trolling. Shocking state of affairs if many people agree with you.

---------- Post added at 12:42 ---------- Previous post was at 12:38 ----------



It is a benefit pip.

Like working age benefits e.g. there is contribution based factors e.g. contribution based JSA and contribution based ESA are both classed as benefits, yet they can only be claimed by someone who has paid enough national insurance.

I think the only reason you two have an issue with it been called a benefit is because its for a different set of people "pensioners".

Either pensions are a benefit, or JSA and ESA are also not benefits. You cannot have it both ways.

Incidentally contribution based working age benefits are actually cash flow positive so are viable, pensions however are not and require subsidy from working age budgets hence the squeeze been put on them.

Do I need to make a list of how hard things are getting for the younger generations.

University fees
Housing costs relative to income levels
Zero hour contracts
Social housing
Retirement age
PIP replacing DLA (mysteriously tho pensioners are exempt from this change and DLA can still be claimed by them in PIP areas).

A pensioner claiming DLA, does DLA magically stop becoming a benefit also?

This is a big part of the problem, people seemingly have no issue with the way young people are been treated but as soon as someone mentions that pensions maybe should be treated "equally" not "worse" then its suddenly unacceptable.

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35868761)

Doesn't DLA change to Attendance Allowance after state retirement age?