Enough already - the old have caught up

[Tim Lund]

Reading about how our MP's fellow MP partner, introduced free TV licences for the over-75s, I found myself thinking more generally about such policies.

In any decent society, it is natural to respect the elderly. But it is also natural that on average those of working age should have higher incomes, because they should be saving for their own retirements, as well as bearing the cost of raising the next generation. So it is quite extraordinary that, according to a recent report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies,

The incomes of older individuals have caught up with those of the rest of the population in recent years, while living standards have fallen the most for young adults. After adjusting for group-specific inflation, median income among those aged 60 and over is projected to be 1.8% higher in 2014–15 than in 2007–08, compared with a 2.5% fall for those aged 31–59 and a 7.6% fall for those aged 22–30.

To point this out is not demonising pensioners, and yet objections to these sorts of policy are often described as such. Other examples which immediately spring to mind are:

• Winter fuel allowance
• David Cameron's triple lock guuarantee on pensions
• George Osborne's recently introduced Pensioner bonds

There are many more such policies, but it isn't necessary to list them all - just cut to the bottom line as reported by the IFS to see their combined net effect.

We are clearly in an unsustainable situation, and yet no political party feels able to say so. Here for example is Ed Miliband, talking the talk about the problems young people face, but when if comes to the crunch, letting himself to be led by David Cameron.

[JimJeroo]

It would be political suicide to 'attack' the pensioners, particularly for the Tories (much in the same way that 'attacking' the 'free at the point of access policy of the NHS' is for any party).

However, the reality as you have clearly shown, Tim, is that there is a top heavy demographic of older people who are living longer, own property or properties, have a decent disposable income or protected pensionable income and are also afforded 'benefits' such as the winter fuel allowance, free bus passes etc. Should these be means tested? Social care is means tested which may provide a basis for this process (although as a social worker I'm not sure how fair this system is).

The difficulty is that we have not prepared adequately for this sizeable elderly population and their complex health and social care needs (heavens knows why as surely someone in government and policy should have seen this coming?!). Consequently there is a significant proportion of elderly people who do not receive the help they need in their old age and are not treated with the dignity, care and respect they deserve.

[stuart]

The incomes of older individuals have caught up with those of the rest of the population in recent years, while living standards have fallen the most for young adults. After adjusting for group-specific inflation, median income among those aged 60 and over is projected to be 1.8% higher in 2014–15 than in 2007–08, compared with a 2.5% fall for those aged 31–59 and a 7.6% fall for those aged 22–30.

Tim, you or they are confusing the old and the retired receiving benefits. Not quite the same thing.

Only women were 'state retired' at 60 in 2007/08. Now the figure is zero. The retirement age (to which a number of other benefits are tied) is rising rapidly. I would hazard (but have no figures) that the number of female retired on benefits may therefore be reducing and that the projected rise in income may be partially accounted for because they are earning/paying taxes/not receiving benefits. A triple whammy for this group. Men will follow the same course in a couple of years time.

You may say that the young will retire even later. While this s true at least they have time to prepare for it. For those caught in today's trap there was no time to prepare.

Having said that it is the old/retired and folks of your generation that has chosen to screw the young. It is, I feel, deeply hypocritical to have enjoyed free higher education and then deny it to the young. Particularly when the justification was so obviously flawed. Similarly while allowing home building to fall benefiting us who already have property and the artificially inflated prices whilst denying access to most of the younger generation.

Jim, you have seen means testing and i hope you see how mean some of the criteria always end up. That's why I have always favoured universal but taxed benefits. Cheap to administer with only the highest tax payers not benefiting.

The big lesson is the old are respected as a group - even though proportionately we probably have as many villains as any other group. Whilst the none-old who are also on benefits are assumed to be bad unless they can prove otherwise - and then are treated pretty badly. Oh and as a group they are the least likely to get pampered later on when they die prematurely or spend less time retired.

Stuart

[Robin Orton]

I agree that we are all in hock to the grey vote, and that it is difficult to justify some of the tax and benefit perks which younger, fitter and richer pensioners receive. I think raising the qualifying age might be a more efficient way of cutting the cost of some of these (e.g. the winter fuel allowance) than means-testing, though it would no doubt produce rough justice in some cases. If only more young people could be persuaded to vote!

On the other hand I agree with JimJeroo that the standard of health and social care provision for the older, frailer and disabled pensioners seems in many ways inadequate and that it is likely to become more so as the number of very elderly people increases.

[JimJeroo]

Stuart - yes I have witnessed first hand the injustice of the social care means testing and have to fend off arguments that the NHS is free, so why isn't social care? Essentially because there budget and dare I say value attritbuted to social care is dwarfed by the NHS / health budget and value attached to health.

Totally agree Robin - The problem that I believe is that the government / policy makers do not (or cannot / will not) see that a well resourced social care system would have a positive impact on the health service (among other benefits to society). For example the number of elderly people taken to A+E as a default option would be significantly reduced with investment in proper training for carers, health and social care in the community being more integrated and more suitable housing schemes such as extra care and sheltered housing accommodation being available. I am a social worker in an older adults team and we only become involved when people are at crisis point due to the lack of resources we have and the increasingly stringent criteria to gain access to services; this inevitably means we are fire fighting and cannot implement strategies that would prevent people needing to go to A+E or needing 24 hour care.

Unfortunately the government only see the current balance sheet i.e. savings in overheads by cutting services and staff and not the longer term, bigger picture with the knock on effect that such a short term outlook has.

[Tim Lund]

The incomes of older individuals have caught up with those of the rest of the population in recent years, while living standards have fallen the most for young adults. After adjusting for group-specific inflation, median income among those aged 60 and over is projected to be 1.8% higher in 2014–15 than in 2007–08, compared with a 2.5% fall for those aged 31–59 and a 7.6% fall for those aged 22–30.

Tim, you or they are confusing the old and the retired receiving benefits. Not quite the same thing.

Well, please follow up the link to the IFS report I gave. They are probably the most respected group researching this sort of stuff, so I'd be surprised if they are making the sort of error you suggest. I just assumed they wouldn't.

[sparticus]

A very wealthy friend of mine once told me that to him the winter fuel allowance represented a tank of petrol for the Range Rover. This was enforce the drop in fuel prices. I don't go for the "baby-boomers screwed the young" argument, but I am very aware of what an amazingly privileged generation I belong to, free health care, leaving university debt free and being able to buy a house in London after a couple of years working, albeit with modest help from my parents, being able to retire in my early 60's on a decent pension and so on. There was a feature on the news last night where a group of young people were interviewed about the upcoming election. All of them said they weren't going to vote because politicians were all liars, didn't keep their promises and so on. Maybe not entirely representative, but the figures quoted were staggering. About 3/4 of people over 60 vote, less than 1/3 under 25 do. I don't know what the solution to this is, and as someone who has been politically engaged since the 1960's and having voted in every general election since 1970 I find this appalling, but until young people start to vote in significant numbers they will continue to be screwed. We live in an enormously rich country, far richer than it was when I was growing up in the 50's, and there is certainly enough wealth to provide the sort of start I had to our young people today, and not at the expense of the elderly or disabled either. It is the increasing concentration of wealth in the heads of fewer and fewer people and governments in thrall to rapacious capitalists and their media lackeys that needs to change.

[Tim Lund]

It is the increasing concentration of wealth in the heads of fewer and fewer people and governments in thrall to rapacious capitalists and their media lackeys that needs to change.

Actually, it's the NIMBYs who need to change, rather more than capitalists.

NIMBYs in the twenty-first century

What we need is a People's Plan for Housing