At last, the baby boomers will share the pain

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

If David Cameron has any regrets about economic policy in the past couple of years it may be a nagging suspicion that he and his Chancellor, George Osborne, have been too kind to pensioners. The austerity programme that has been the coalition Government’s hallmark since it came to office has been more even-handed in dishing out the pain than it gets credit for. It is not the rich who have got off lightly because in total they are paying a lot more in tax than they were a few years ago in spite of perceptions to the contrary. Rather the Government has been softest on those at or close to retirement.
Cynics would say that there are good reasons for it. This is the time when the last of the post-war baby boomers turn 65, and that means there are more retired people — with votes — than ever before. Add in the fact that people are now living significantly longer and the effect is even more marked. Note, too, that their power at the ballot box is greater than their increase in numbers: history shows that the elderly are far more likely than the young to turn out on polling day.
Nevertheless, there was widespread surprise when Cameron and Osborne went out of their way before and after the election to preserve pensioner benefits that could easily have been slashed or means tested. The £200 winter fuel allowance on its own takes nearly £1 billion. The free television licences for over-75s cost several hundred million. Likewise, free bus passes. And don’t even ask how much free prescriptions cost.
The billions saved by cutting or means testing any or all of these pensioner perks might well have removed the need to raise university tuition fees, so you can see why young people might think they are getting a rough deal. Add in the fact that those currently retiring are seen as the lucky generation with income from final-salary pension schemes the likes of which their children will never see as they groan under the burden of student debt, a mortgage famine and a de facto pay freeze and one begins to see a pattern. The mood is shifting in political circles, though none will say so overtly. There might just be votes in a bit of financial granny bashing.
In yesterday’s Budget we saw the first signs of what may be a trend when the Chancellor announced the end of the age allowance — the arrangement under which over-65s get a larger slice of tax-free income than does the population at large. He has not abolished it — so no pensioner will pay more tax — but he has frozen it so the advantage will get whittled away as the personal allowance enjoyed by everyone heads up towards £10,000. On average, it will leave pensioners £80 a year worse off than they would otherwise be.
But the bigger point is political. For the first time anyone can remember a Chancellor has made Budget changes that disadvantage pensioners. That is crossing a line. And having done it once, it suggests that next time he needs a few billion extra, the more affluent pensioners could prove a tempting target.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/london/families-hit-by-collapse-in-house-chains-after-stamp-duty-increase-7581743.html

ruggedtoast

The boomers have plunged their arms into the honey jar and gorged on the sweet sweet goodness of final salary pensions, house price inflation, and generous un-rationed healthcare.

Now they are too fat to get out of Rabbit's hole.

This will do them good to share some of the pain for once. Not that they are actually losing anything as far as I can see.

Generali

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/london/families-hit-by-collapse-in-house-chains-after-stamp-duty-increase-7581743.html

But the bigger point is political. For the first time anyone can remember a Chancellor has made Budget changes that disadvantage pensioners. [STRIKE]That is crossing a line. And having done it once, it suggests that next time he needs a few billion extra, the more affluent pensioners could prove a tempting target.[/STRIKE] Apart from people that can remember the Thatcher government cutting the link between state pensions and wage growth and Labour (despite their promises) not restoring that.

It's not reasonable for people to get a break just because they're old IMHO.

Generali

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The boomers have plunged their arms into the honey jar and gorged on the sweet sweet goodness of final salary pensions, house price inflation, and generous un-rationed healthcare.

Now they are too fat to get out of Rabbit's hole.

This will do them good to share some of the pain for once. Not that they are actually losing anything as far as I can see.

Great analogy!!!

StevieJ

I can't believe you are quoting an article with sob stories about £2 million+ house brigade

BTW the financial editor of that rag should get his facts straight, how else could we take his opinions seriously
Wrong

This is the time when the last of the post-war baby boomers turn 65, and that means there are more retired people — with votes

Oh and BTW after the drubbing he has had in the general press I don't think Ossie will be returning to the pensioner well anythine soon.

StevieJ

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The boomers have plunged their arms into the honey jar and gorged on the sweet sweet goodness of final salary pensions, house price inflation, and generous un-rationed healthcare.

Now they are too fat to get out of Rabbit's hole.

This will do them good to share some of the pain for once. Not that they are actually losing anything as far as I can see.

Perhaps you could have a chat with Dev about the meaning of nominal and real

kabayiri

It's highly likely that the government will come looking for additional funds in the future.

So who do you try and extract it from ?

The mobile rich? That's a tough cookie.

The low earners? Not much meat there.

Middle classes? Been there/done that/how much more can you squeeze them?

Pensioners - particularly wealthy ones? Kerching.

Will we see the state pension means tested at some point? The great pensions apartheid is looming on the horizon.

CLAPTON

baby boomers are generally considered to be people born between 1945 and 1965

so the oldest baby boomers are 67 and the youngest 47

I believe many of these people aren't pensioners

mystic_trev

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The boomers have plunged their arms into the honey jar and gorged on the sweet sweet goodness of final salary pensions, house price inflation, and generous un-rationed healthcare.

Now they are too fat to get out of Rabbit's hole.

This will do them good to share some of the pain for once. Not that they are actually losing anything as far as I can see.

I'm a boomer and I totally agree. I'm just amazed that our Generation can be so selfish? We've had all the good times and can't see why it should stop. It's about time we started giving something back, instead of wanting to keep taking out. Let's face it, apart from lower savings rates, what contribution have we made to help get out of this downturn?

StevieJ

Quite strange how some categorise a whole generation covering all income levels as one homogeneous group. I can only guess that they are the spawn of fairly well off parents

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

Quite strange how some categorise a whole generation covering all income levels as one homogeneous group. I can only guess that they are the spawn of fairly well off parents

Why is it strange?

It happens to everyone. Just start a post stating "young priced out of home ownership" and your "strange" categorisation will be rife.