UK failing it's young as gulf grows between generations

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Talk about being led by the snout.

Who we talking about here? Only it appears you didn't read even the first paragraph of the article.

If you had, instead of relying on your own snout, you'd have known you can't link to the report as it's not out in it's entirity yet.

And anyway, the Beeb are reporting it on the news.

chucknorris

stator wrote: »

Does that mean you agree with abolishing all age related benefits?
Most people over 70 seem to be "over reliant on the state".
Time to scrap the Winter Fuel Payment, Cold Weather Payment, Free Bus Passes, Free TV Licence, Free Prescriptions, Free Eye Tests, Pensioner Bonds and Pension Credit. Also time to scrap the exemption they have from the cuts to Housing Benefit, Bedroom Tax and Council Tax Benefit.
Give them the gift of independence from the state!

I certainly do (but poor pensioners should be able to continue to receive them), my wife was telling me that in under 3 years, I will be able to start getting some of these benefits, that is just ridiculous! Benefits should be for those that need them.

Sapphire

stator wrote: »

Does that mean you agree with abolishing all age related benefits?
Most people over 70 seem to be "over reliant on the state".

The difference between them and the 'deserving poor' youth is that they have paid taxes and national insurance for 40–50 years (and still do pay tax). After a lifetime of hard work and generally a youth lived without the benefits received by the 'deserving youth' of today, they now do 'merit' a comfortable old age. There are numerous pensioners who really are very poor (I know of many), unlike the 'deserving poor' youth. Unlike the latter category, these often frail people cannot hope to earn more money to get themselves out of their predicament.

The selfishness and lack of feeling for others of some in our society is shameful.

Note: I do agree that very wealthy pensioners (ex-bankers, MPs and other public servants on high pensions) could forfeit the things you suggest.

Graham_Devon

Sapphire wrote: »

The difference between them and the 'deserving poor' youth is that they have paid taxes and national insurance for 40–50 years (and still do pay tax). After a lifetime of hard work and generally a youth lived without the benefits received by the 'deserving youth' of today, they now do 'merit' a comfortable old age. There are numerous pensioners who really are very poor (I know of many), unlike the 'deserving poor' youth. Unlike the latter category, these often frail people cannot hope to earn more money to get themselves out of their predicament.

This really is a truly bizzare argument that literally does it's best to justify the current arrangement.

You appear to think that people receiving welfare today don't work - or won't work their entire working lives.

The vast majority do and will.

No one has ever suggested that pensioners who have a low income should not receive help. What most are suggesting is anyone with a low income should receive help.

As chucknorris says, he doesn't need a £250 winter fuel payment. Someone aged 40 due to their circumstances may well benefit immensly from that £250 though. So why not simply direct the money at those who need it, regardless of how old they are.

But that's not happening and this budget has only compounded the situation. Many thousand who genuinely need the money are having it taken off them, while the retired, regardless of wealth keep everything and get a rise in terms of percentage over and above that of anyone else in the public sector (bar MPs & councillors, obviously).

This argument that people aged over 65 have "paid in all their lives" is just an awful argument. Firstly, so will many people. Secondly, many of those you talk about HAVEN'T paid in all their lives as many will have spent years at home bringing up their children.

Many of these (mainly women) have a massive injection into their NI contributions handed to them by the state not all that long ago to bring them in line with someone who had paid in all their lives.

As a whole, teh reality is, that over 65's have paid in just a fraction of the amount they receive from the system. That's not just heresay, it's real figures. I have no qualms with this, other than when someone splurts out what you have.

I really cannot get my head around this argument of "I've paid in, so I'll take everything I can possibly take out of the system and screw the rest of you".

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This really is a truly bizzare argument that literally does it's best to justify the current arrangement.

You appear to think that people receiving welfare today don't work - or won't work their entire working lives.

The vast majority do and will.

No one has ever suggested that pensioners who have a low income should not receive help. What most are suggesting is anyone with a low income should receive help.

As chucknorris says, he doesn't need a £250 winter fuel payment. Someone aged 40 due to their circumstances may well benefit immensly from that £250 though. So why not simply direct the money at those who need it, regardless of how old they are.

But that's not happening and this budget has only compounded the situation. Many thousand who genuinely need the money are having it taken off them, while the retired, regardless of wealth keep everything and get a rise in terms of percentage over and above that of anyone else in the public sector (bar MPs & councillors, obviously).

This argument that people aged over 65 have "paid in all their lives" is just an awful argument. Firstly, so will many people. Secondly, many of those you talk about HAVEN'T paid in all their lives as many will have spent years at home bringing up their children.

Many of these (mainly women) have a massive injection into their NI contributions handed to them by the state not all that long ago to bring them in line with someone who had paid in all their lives.

As a whole, teh reality is, that over 65's have paid in just a fraction of the amount they receive from the system. That's not just heresay, it's real figures. I have no qualms with this, other than when someone splurts out what you have.

I really cannot get my head around this argument of "I've paid in, so I'll take everything I can possibly take out of the system and screw the rest of you".

But older generations did not get the in work benefits with the exception of child benefit. Although I understand the reason for the introduction of WTC but it does seem to have backfired I will add I don't think the way the Tories are going about unwinding it is right.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

But older generations did not get the in work benefits with the exception of child benefit. Although I understand the reason for the introduction of WTC but it does seem to have backfired I will add I don't think the way the Tories are going about unwinding it is right.

Right.... so you feel they should now get everything thrown at them regardless of their financial standing because they missed out on tax credits?

By that theory, everyone with kids should get tax credits right, regardless of their earnings?

Should the young get "compensation" and money thrown at them for missing out on marriage allowances, MIRAS, the Family Income Supplement, free uni education?

Should we get compensation for the pensions we missed out on? Should we get compensated and the pension age reduced back to 65 for males and 62 for females?

This would all be absurd, right? So howcome you feel the over 65's are somehow "owed" for missing out on tax credits?

ruggedtoast

Sapphire wrote: »

The difference between them and the 'deserving poor' youth is that they have paid taxes and national insurance for 40–50 years (and still do pay tax). After a lifetime of hard work and generally a youth lived without the benefits received by the 'deserving youth' of today, they now do 'merit' a comfortable old age. There are numerous pensioners who really are very poor (I know of many), unlike the 'deserving poor' youth. Unlike the latter category, these often frail people cannot hope to earn more money to get themselves out of their predicament.

The selfishness and lack of feeling for others of some in our society is shameful.

Note: I do agree that very wealthy pensioners (ex-bankers, MPs and other public servants on high pensions) could forfeit the things you suggest.

Not you obviously. Benefit cuts are fine for other people though. People you don't know and can't empathise with.

Like young people who have had no start in life and are often chucked out of Education having spent years bouncing in and out of care . Who will now be lucky to get a room in a shared house with zero support services so that Doreen doesn't have to cut back on her bingo nights.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Right.... so you feel they should now get everything thrown at them regardless of their financial standing because they missed out on tax credits?

By that theory, everyone with kids should get tax credits right, regardless of their earnings?

Should the young get "compensation" and money thrown at them for missing out on marriage allowances, MIRAS, the Family Income Supplement, free uni education?

Should we get compensation for the pensions we missed out on? Should we get compensated and the pension age reduced back to 65 for males and 62 for females?

This would all be absurd, right? So howcome you feel the over 65's are somehow "owed" for missing out on tax credits?

Did I say that I'd be quite happy for the additional benefits to be stopped for better off pensioners. How many pensioners benefited from MIRAS, free university education and family uncome support.

Sapphire

ukcarper wrote: »

But older generations did not get the in work benefits with the exception of child benefit. Although I understand the reason for the introduction of WTC but it does seem to have backfired I will add I don't think the way the Tories are going about unwinding it is right.

They also got child benefit for up to only two children. Additionally, only a fraction had the opportunity to be educated to university level, and many did not inherit anything from their parents, who were even poorer than they were (i.e. really poor, to a level not seen today in this country). I'd say the living conditions of those existing in the Fifties, Sixties and Seventies were extremely poor for numerous people – you only need to look at photographs of industrial areas, of which there were a large number, to see this. The level of poverty people who existed in the decades after the war was deep. People were also satisfied with much less than they are now. Just read some social history to check this – plenty has been written about it…:cool:

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why not indeed. Give it a try - good luck

http://www.if.org.uk/archives/6909/2015-intergenerational-fairness-index

HTH

This annual report reveals a 10% deterioration in the prospects of younger generations relative to older generations between 2010 and 2015 with a one point decline year on year between 2014 and 2015.


The spike in the Index during the last government is attributed mostly to rising levels of government debt, the cost of the State Pension and unfunded public sector pensions, together with a continuing decline in the affordability of housing for the under-30s when comparing house prices to average incomes.

Lots of cherry-picking of data I notice:

According to the Office of National Statistics, retirees have seen their incomes increase by 5.1% between 2007/08 and 2011/12, while working households saw typical incomes fall by 6.4%. The Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) echoed the upward trend in pensioner incomes versus younger generations, reporting that the incomes of people in their 20s fell by 12% between 2007/8 and 2011/12 while incomes of those in their 60s and 70s have continued to rise since the recession.

Why not use the most up-to-date figures? Ah yes, because real wages have started to rise so it doesn't support their story.

Let's see how they do with unemployment figures:

Unemployment among the under-25s has been falling, though the number of young people out of work has still not dropped back to early 2000 levels and in 2013 remained almost three times higher than in Germans.

Strange. Why not use the most recent youth unemployment figures? Well they don't support the idea that things are getting worse for the young as youth unemployment has been falling rather quickly since its peak in.....2012-13

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05871

The unemployment rate for people aged 18-24 was 14.3% in February to April 2015, down 2.0% points from the year before. 585,000 18-24 year olds are unemployed, while 1.69 million are economically inactive (not in work and not looking or available for work).

So frank and honest report or twisting the numbers to suit a political point...? YOU Decide.