We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Winter Fuel Allowance under discussion by Martin.
Comments
-
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.BlackKnightMonty said:
I have looked into this further, you make a fair point. I still do think children have been short changed.zagfles said:
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.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
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.
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 2021/22.0 -
I’m afraid I have no idea what you are trying to say.hugheskevi said:
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.BlackKnightMonty said:
I have looked into this further, you make a fair point. I still do think children have been short changed.zagfles said:
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.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
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.
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 2021/22.0 -
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.BlackKnightMonty said:
I’m afraid I have no idea what you are trying to say.hugheskevi said:
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.BlackKnightMonty said:
I have looked into this further, you make a fair point. I still do think children have been short changed.zagfles said:
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.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
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.
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.
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.1 -
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.Grumpy_chap said:
Pensioners vote.BlackKnightMonty said:Spending less on kids and more on pensioners doesn’t seem right to me.
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.
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
1 -
Working age adults already financially support pensioners. It’s called the state pension.zagfles said:
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.Grumpy_chap said:
Pensioners vote.BlackKnightMonty said:Spending less on kids and more on pensioners doesn’t seem right to me.
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.
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 pay0 -
Err...exactly - through the state. Which is why state spending on pensioners is considerably higher than children.BlackKnightMonty said:
Working age adults already financially support pensioners. It’s called the state pension.zagfles said:
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.Grumpy_chap said:
Pensioners vote.BlackKnightMonty said:Spending less on kids and more on pensioners doesn’t seem right to me.
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.
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 pay1 -
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…zagfles said:
Err...exactly - through the state. Which is why state spending on pensioners is considerably higher than children.BlackKnightMonty said:
Working age adults already financially support pensioners. It’s called the state pension.zagfles said:
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.Grumpy_chap said:
Pensioners vote.BlackKnightMonty said:Spending less on kids and more on pensioners doesn’t seem right to me.
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.
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
https://www.ft.com/content/7b186efc-744d-4fae-8501-4e90c272529c
0 -
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 said:
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…zagfles said:
Err...exactly - through the state. Which is why state spending on pensioners is considerably higher than children.BlackKnightMonty said:
Working age adults already financially support pensioners. It’s called the state pension.zagfles said:
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.Grumpy_chap said:
Pensioners vote.BlackKnightMonty said:Spending less on kids and more on pensioners doesn’t seem right to me.
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.
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
https://www.ft.com/content/7b186efc-744d-4fae-8501-4e90c272529c1 -
The last 15 years of falling investment in children has washed out a whole generation.zagfles said:
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 said:
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…zagfles said:
Err...exactly - through the state. Which is why state spending on pensioners is considerably higher than children.BlackKnightMonty said:
Working age adults already financially support pensioners. It’s called the state pension.zagfles said:
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.Grumpy_chap said:
Pensioners vote.BlackKnightMonty said:Spending less on kids and more on pensioners doesn’t seem right to me.
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.
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
https://www.ft.com/content/7b186efc-744d-4fae-8501-4e90c272529c
40% gcse fail at maths & english
https://www.ft.com/content/7b186efc-744d-4fae-8501-4e90c272529cDisgraceful!0 -
Yeah right UK GCSE pass rate 2024 | StatistaBlackKnightMonty said:
The last 15 years of falling investment in children has washed out a whole generation.zagfles said:
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 said:
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…zagfles said:
Err...exactly - through the state. Which is why state spending on pensioners is considerably higher than children.BlackKnightMonty said:
Working age adults already financially support pensioners. It’s called the state pension.zagfles said:
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.Grumpy_chap said:
Pensioners vote.BlackKnightMonty said:Spending less on kids and more on pensioners doesn’t seem right to me.
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.
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
https://www.ft.com/content/7b186efc-744d-4fae-8501-4e90c272529c
40% gcse fail at maths & english
https://www.ft.com/content/7b186efc-744d-4fae-8501-4e90c272529cDisgraceful!
Bye
1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards