Winter Fuel Allowance under discussion by Martin.

hugheskevi

BlackKnightMonty said:

zagfles said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

Spending less on kids and more on pensioners doesn’t seem right to me. So maybe a bit of a rebalance is needed, harsh as it is?



https://www.if.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Government_Spending_By_Age_FINAL.pdf

Very misleading graph. Wind back a decade and it's spending on children which will show the greatest increase due to the New Labour obsession with "child poverty" targets.

Compared with other OECD countries, the UK spends less on pensioner benefits (inc state pension) than most other countries, and more on working age benefits particularly for families with children. 

I have looked into this further, you make a fair point. I still do think children have been short changed.

https://assets.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wpuploads/2018/06/Public-Spending-on-Children-in-England-CCO-JUNE-2018.pdf

The Labour administration of the late 1990s announced a target to change pensioner income from being 40% from private sources and 60% from the State to being 60% private and 40% from the State. The natural consequence of that policy, if successful, would have been to reduce pensioner spending from the State, but pensioners would not be worse off overall.

Although benefits were 44% of gross pensioner income in 2021/22, in 1997/8 it was 47% so it hasn't changed much. It was never clear exactly how the Government calculated the 60% / 40% in 1997/8, but the closest way to get to 60% income from benefits would be to exclude investment income, earnings, and other income. On that basis, in 1997/8 63% of pensioner income came from benefits, compared to 55% in 2021/22. 

BlackKnightMonty

hugheskevi said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

zagfles said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

Spending less on kids and more on pensioners doesn’t seem right to me. So maybe a bit of a rebalance is needed, harsh as it is?



https://www.if.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Government_Spending_By_Age_FINAL.pdf

Very misleading graph. Wind back a decade and it's spending on children which will show the greatest increase due to the New Labour obsession with "child poverty" targets.

Compared with other OECD countries, the UK spends less on pensioner benefits (inc state pension) than most other countries, and more on working age benefits particularly for families with children. 

I have looked into this further, you make a fair point. I still do think children have been short changed.

https://assets.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wpuploads/2018/06/Public-Spending-on-Children-in-England-CCO-JUNE-2018.pdf

The Labour administration of the late 1990s announced a target to change pensioner income from being 40% from private sources and 60% from the State to being 60% private and 40% from the State. The natural consequence of that policy, if successful, would have been to reduce pensioner spending from the State, but pensioners would not be worse off overall.

Although benefits were 44% of gross pensioner income in 2021/22, in 1997/8 it was 47% so it hasn't changed much. It was never clear exactly how the Government calculated the 60% / 40% in 1997/8, but the closest way to get to 60% income from benefits would be to exclude investment income, earnings, and other income. On that basis, in 1997/8 63% of pensioner income came from benefits, compared to 55% in 2021/22. 

I’m afraid I have no idea what you are trying to say.

hugheskevi

BlackKnightMonty said:

hugheskevi said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

zagfles said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

Spending less on kids and more on pensioners doesn’t seem right to me. So maybe a bit of a rebalance is needed, harsh as it is?



https://www.if.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Government_Spending_By_Age_FINAL.pdf

Very misleading graph. Wind back a decade and it's spending on children which will show the greatest increase due to the New Labour obsession with "child poverty" targets.

Compared with other OECD countries, the UK spends less on pensioner benefits (inc state pension) than most other countries, and more on working age benefits particularly for families with children. 

I have looked into this further, you make a fair point. I still do think children have been short changed.

https://assets.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wpuploads/2018/06/Public-Spending-on-Children-in-England-CCO-JUNE-2018.pdf

The Labour administration of the late 1990s announced a target to change pensioner income from being 40% from private sources and 60% from the State to being 60% private and 40% from the State. The natural consequence of that policy, if successful, would have been to reduce pensioner spending from the State, but pensioners would not be worse off overall.

Although benefits were 44% of gross pensioner income in 2021/22, in 1997/8 it was 47% so it hasn't changed much. It was never clear exactly how the Government calculated the 60% / 40% in 1997/8, but the closest way to get to 60% income from benefits would be to exclude investment income, earnings, and other income. On that basis, in 1997/8 63% of pensioner income came from benefits, compared to 55% in 2021/22. 

I’m afraid I have no idea what you are trying to say.

That comparing growth in expenditure per capita between pensioners and children doesn't have any relevance when you have wider political aspirations to change the balance of income within one of the comparators. 

If the policy to shift the balance of pensioner income to private sources had been successful it would have been expected that children would have seen a more generous amount of expenditure from the State, yet pensioners would have been no worse off.

zagfles

Grumpy_chap said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

Spending less on kids and more on pensioners doesn’t seem right to me. 

Pensioners vote.
Kids can't vote.
Kids' parents, in many cases, don't vote.  Those that do are probably pleased that there is state care provision looking after their elderly parents.

Plus we have a general societal attitude that children are the financial responsibility of their parents but pensioners are not the financial responsibility of their children. Unless that attitude changes it's obvious that state spending on pensioners will be significantly more than spending on children. 

Maybe working age adults should be obliged to support their pensioner parents financially, in the same way as they're obliged to support their children. And for those that refuse, the PSA (pensioner support agency) can chase them and make them pay 

BlackKnightMonty

zagfles said:

Grumpy_chap said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

Spending less on kids and more on pensioners doesn’t seem right to me. 

Pensioners vote.
Kids can't vote.
Kids' parents, in many cases, don't vote.  Those that do are probably pleased that there is state care provision looking after their elderly parents.

Plus we have a general societal attitude that children are the financial responsibility of their parents but pensioners are not the financial responsibility of their children. Unless that attitude changes it's obvious that state spending on pensioners will be significantly more than spending on children. 

Maybe working age adults should be obliged to support their pensioner parents financially, in the same way as they're obliged to support their children. And for those that refuse, the PSA (pensioner support agency) can chase them and make them pay 

Working age adults already financially support pensioners. It’s called the state pension.

zagfles

BlackKnightMonty said:

zagfles said:

Grumpy_chap said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

Spending less on kids and more on pensioners doesn’t seem right to me. 

Pensioners vote.
Kids can't vote.
Kids' parents, in many cases, don't vote.  Those that do are probably pleased that there is state care provision looking after their elderly parents.

Plus we have a general societal attitude that children are the financial responsibility of their parents but pensioners are not the financial responsibility of their children. Unless that attitude changes it's obvious that state spending on pensioners will be significantly more than spending on children. 

Maybe working age adults should be obliged to support their pensioner parents financially, in the same way as they're obliged to support their children. And for those that refuse, the PSA (pensioner support agency) can chase them and make them pay 

Working age adults already financially support pensioners. It’s called the state pension.

Err...exactly - through the state. Which is why state spending on pensioners is considerably higher than children. 

BlackKnightMonty

zagfles said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

zagfles said:

Grumpy_chap said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

Spending less on kids and more on pensioners doesn’t seem right to me. 

Pensioners vote.
Kids can't vote.
Kids' parents, in many cases, don't vote.  Those that do are probably pleased that there is state care provision looking after their elderly parents.

Plus we have a general societal attitude that children are the financial responsibility of their parents but pensioners are not the financial responsibility of their children. Unless that attitude changes it's obvious that state spending on pensioners will be significantly more than spending on children. 

Maybe working age adults should be obliged to support their pensioner parents financially, in the same way as they're obliged to support their children. And for those that refuse, the PSA (pensioner support agency) can chase them and make them pay 

Working age adults already financially support pensioners. It’s called the state pension.

Err...exactly - through the state. Which is why state spending on pensioners is considerably higher than children. 

It’s not about the relative amounts though. It’s the change in spending rate. As previously illustrated spend per child for the last 15 years has fallen; whereas spend per pensioner has substantially risen. The two should track one another. Not enrich one demographic to the damage of another. Remember just last week nearly 40% of kids failed GCSE maths and english…

https://www.ft.com/content/7b186efc-744d-4fae-8501-4e90c272529c

zagfles

BlackKnightMonty said:

zagfles said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

zagfles said:

Grumpy_chap said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

Spending less on kids and more on pensioners doesn’t seem right to me. 

Pensioners vote.
Kids can't vote.
Kids' parents, in many cases, don't vote.  Those that do are probably pleased that there is state care provision looking after their elderly parents.

Plus we have a general societal attitude that children are the financial responsibility of their parents but pensioners are not the financial responsibility of their children. Unless that attitude changes it's obvious that state spending on pensioners will be significantly more than spending on children. 

Maybe working age adults should be obliged to support their pensioner parents financially, in the same way as they're obliged to support their children. And for those that refuse, the PSA (pensioner support agency) can chase them and make them pay 

Working age adults already financially support pensioners. It’s called the state pension.

Err...exactly - through the state. Which is why state spending on pensioners is considerably higher than children. 

It’s not about the relative amounts though. It’s the change in spending rate. As previously illustrated spend per child for the last 15 years has fallen; whereas spend per pensioner has substantially risen. The two should track one another. Not enrich one demographic to the damage of another. Remember just last week nearly 40% of kids failed GCSE maths and english…

https://www.ft.com/content/7b186efc-744d-4fae-8501-4e90c272529c

Your previous post illustrated why!! The previous 10 years spending on children increased massively! Over the last 25 years spending on children increased by more than pensioners!

BlackKnightMonty

zagfles said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

zagfles said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

zagfles said:

Grumpy_chap said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

Spending less on kids and more on pensioners doesn’t seem right to me. 

Pensioners vote.
Kids can't vote.
Kids' parents, in many cases, don't vote.  Those that do are probably pleased that there is state care provision looking after their elderly parents.

Plus we have a general societal attitude that children are the financial responsibility of their parents but pensioners are not the financial responsibility of their children. Unless that attitude changes it's obvious that state spending on pensioners will be significantly more than spending on children. 

Maybe working age adults should be obliged to support their pensioner parents financially, in the same way as they're obliged to support their children. And for those that refuse, the PSA (pensioner support agency) can chase them and make them pay 

Working age adults already financially support pensioners. It’s called the state pension.

Err...exactly - through the state. Which is why state spending on pensioners is considerably higher than children. 

It’s not about the relative amounts though. It’s the change in spending rate. As previously illustrated spend per child for the last 15 years has fallen; whereas spend per pensioner has substantially risen. The two should track one another. Not enrich one demographic to the damage of another. Remember just last week nearly 40% of kids failed GCSE maths and english…

https://www.ft.com/content/7b186efc-744d-4fae-8501-4e90c272529c

Your previous post illustrated why!! The previous 10 years spending on children increased massively! Over the last 25 years spending on children increased by more than pensioners!

The last 15 years of falling investment in children has washed out a whole generation.

40% gcse fail at maths & english
https://www.ft.com/content/7b186efc-744d-4fae-8501-4e90c272529c

Disgraceful!

zagfles

BlackKnightMonty said:

zagfles said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

zagfles said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

zagfles said:

Grumpy_chap said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

Spending less on kids and more on pensioners doesn’t seem right to me. 

Pensioners vote.
Kids can't vote.
Kids' parents, in many cases, don't vote.  Those that do are probably pleased that there is state care provision looking after their elderly parents.

Plus we have a general societal attitude that children are the financial responsibility of their parents but pensioners are not the financial responsibility of their children. Unless that attitude changes it's obvious that state spending on pensioners will be significantly more than spending on children. 

Maybe working age adults should be obliged to support their pensioner parents financially, in the same way as they're obliged to support their children. And for those that refuse, the PSA (pensioner support agency) can chase them and make them pay 

Working age adults already financially support pensioners. It’s called the state pension.

Err...exactly - through the state. Which is why state spending on pensioners is considerably higher than children. 

It’s not about the relative amounts though. It’s the change in spending rate. As previously illustrated spend per child for the last 15 years has fallen; whereas spend per pensioner has substantially risen. The two should track one another. Not enrich one demographic to the damage of another. Remember just last week nearly 40% of kids failed GCSE maths and english…

https://www.ft.com/content/7b186efc-744d-4fae-8501-4e90c272529c

Your previous post illustrated why!! The previous 10 years spending on children increased massively! Over the last 25 years spending on children increased by more than pensioners!

The last 15 years of falling investment in children has washed out a whole generation.

40% gcse fail at maths & english
https://www.ft.com/content/7b186efc-744d-4fae-8501-4e90c272529c

Disgraceful!

Yeah right UK GCSE pass rate 2024 | Statista

Bye