Punishing pensioners?

This report must come from someone who is either very well off of a long way from pension age.Yes,there are those in pension who,due to careful planning and good luck,are quite well off,good luck to them BUT the vast majority live well below the governments own existence level,even with pension credit,the money one receives is way below even a juniors minimum wage.We are being squeezed all ways with higher bills but again one can believe that this is intentional to kill off as many as possible as soon as possible so to keep the payments low.Also remember that we pensioners,at least the majority,have paid in all our working lives,it is not something that we get for nothing,not like some benefits that are handed out to immigrants and such like.If pensions were doubled,it would not be too much.

Those now reaching pensionable age are the ones that spent decades spending beyond their means, mortgaging the future of the country and passing the debts on to their children.

National Insurance was supposed to be used as a fund to provide for workers on their retirement. Instead it has been spent as fast as it comes in by successive governments. If a private pension fund was doing this, they would be prosecuted.

Aren't we already being punished enough?

We went without to save for our retirement and contribute to pensions. We now find it impossible to get a return on our savings better than half the rate of inflation, and that same inflation is destroying the purchasing power of our pensions. If we have a decent pension, the higher rate personal tax allowance is taken away.

It's true that we bought homes at a relatively lower price than todays homebuyers, but at at interest rates that would be unacceptably high today. Those same homes that we struggled to buy would not be regarded as good enough to provide as social housing today.

All our working life our savings and pension funds have provided the funding and fuel for UK Ltd. We are not the people that took on unsustainable personal debt to have a lifestyle we couldn't afford.

We're already being ripped off enough.

Sorry, myneerkop, but it is precisely because you ARE the people that took on unsustainable debts that pensions are in the situation they are in now.

For the last 60 years Governments have spent the money that was meant to be set aside on free university education plus grants, a historically generous and lax benefits system, massive social housing projects and a defence budget well beyond our status as a frankly unimportant nation.

Whilst you enjoyed the benefits of these facilities, nobody was bothered at all about the future and how it would be paid for, and now the money has dried up, the workers of today are being asked to shoulder the burden of their own pensions and also to subsidise the generation that "never had it so good".

Please don't think I'm referring to you personally, but it's a fact that the pensioners of today enjoyed the fruits of spending beyond their means on a national scale.

Sorry Dan, YOU'VE got it wrong. What you say is true about, as you say, those now reaching pensionable age. They were the ones conned by the banks with ridiculously high and unrequested credit limit offers. I recall several banks that tried to woo me with offers of up to £10,000 credit and banks were trusted by our generation to know this was sensible. Its only in the last year or two we have discovered just how greedy they were for profits and how stupid the so-called regulators were. And as for "sub-prime" mortgages, well the name tells you everything - sub-prime = less than first class risk - just as it turned out.

As the first comment says, some pensioners are lucky enough not to have to worry about the cost of living, but many others live at or below the official poverty line (60% of average income - around £15,000); they spend 10% of income on Council Tax, over 10% on fuel for heating and cooking, similarly large amounts on other utilities and transport (concessionary fares only work if you have a bus service). That then leaves little enough for reasonable survival, especially for those in rural areas where the Joseph Rowntree Foundation says it costs everybody around 20% more for a reasonable life style than the urban equivalent.

Like another commenter, I have paid NI, income tax and other taxes throughout my working life to support the pensioners of the previous generations. Politicians led my generation to believe that this would continue. They have the qualifications in economics (allegedly), they claim to know how to maintain the country in a reasonable state (allegedly) - and they lied - and the last lot cheated on us too - they found out it's hard to live on the average wage, let alone the average pension. So now they are in an almighty mess and, one way or another, they expect the low paid (including the majority of pensioners) to get them out of the hole they and their cronies have dug.

Don't complain that my generation benefited from all this spending folly (e.g. useless computer systems;MOD cancellations). I gained little enough of the consequences of government ignorance, incompetence and empire-building between Departments that has caused our plight - and continues to do so with ill thought out pie-in-the sky schemes that are nothing more than knee-jerk reactions to problems they seem too foolish to be able to analyse properly.

Should pensioners shoulder more of the burden, in the age of austerity?
No, even though I realize that the number of seniors is growing and will continue to grow.
Another solution must be found.
Mark Littlewood, of the Institute of Economic Affairs, reckons we could save billions from our spending on the elderly, thus lifting the burden from those he says are most affected by the cuts - the young, and those with young families."
A basic moral test for any society is how we treat the most vulnerable in our midst. We will be judged by our response to the “least among us".
How much will actually be saved by
- ending pensioners' universal benefits
- not linking state pensions to earnings from 2011
- raising the state pension earlier than is already being proposed?
This is not about fairness as Mark contends; this is about petty-cash savings that will mean suffering and uncertainty for the elderly. Don't forget that you too will become a senior; you too will have to operate on an essentially fixed income.
I agree that a great disservice has been done to the young, but not by seniors; so, why are we punishing seniors?
"To ringfence particular perks for a generation... is unreasonable."
"Unreasonable" only in the sense that we should be designing more perks for the elderly, a golden age of limited worry and well-earned relaxation.
Pensioners have told the Government that they are
- being squeezed by rising costs - of fuel, food and transport - and
- they'd worked hard all their lives so they could retire in peace and dignity.
Good for Steve Webb MP, the Minister for Pensions, that he makes no apologies for championing pensioners' rights in Whitehall.
Why not just disenfranchise the elderly; then, the Government won't have to worry about how they vote?
How will we pay for these senior benefits?
1. Stop the wars. Wars are primitive. If there were no wars, or threat of wars (except as approved by the United Nations), millions could be diverted to senior care. Diplomacy would become an art. Countries would learn how to negotiate. The best of our young would not become canon fodder.
2. Reduce unemployment by refining the educational system to insure that the country is truly getting the best productivity from each potential worker. Educate in accordance with demand occupations so that there will be jobs waiting for graduates - whether they are graduating from University or Technological Schools.
3. Redesign the criminal system/the prison system so that we only incarcerate persons who are a danger to themselves or to society. Change from the very expensive jury system to a judgmental system where a panel of judges decides the outcome and the sentencing. This will eliminate the show-boat lawyers and the dual standard of justice (rich vs poor).
Surely the UK is capable of getting outside the box and thinking about viable alternatives instead of just saying: Let's cut benefits to seniors!