Are the pensioners untouchable?

lazygal

They've a fair bit of time to go on an auld march. Plus, they also have the time to spare to call Liveline and complain about how tough they have it. So they can build up a sizeable amount of resistance to any changes pretty quickly.

Seriously, how much longer can the ring-fencing of the rights of pensioners go on? The 'I worked hard all my life, I've paid for my pension/free TV licence and travel/fuel allowance' arguments are starting to wear a bit thin. For a start, in the future people will retire later, so we could argue that the younger cohort are in fact working longer and harder for their pensions. How can we continue to justify cushioning one sector of society based on their age while cutting supports to other sectors, based on their age, such as allowance for unemployed people aged under 25?

starbelgrade

I definitely wouldn't touch a pensioner.

CreepingDeath

They're not untouchable, they get mugged all the time.

spank_inferno

Answer: Yes.

Reason: They vote.

.... next question!

Slurryface

CreepingDeath wrote: »

They're not untouchable, they get mugged all the time.

Actually crime statistics show that the group least likely to be a victim of crime are the elderly.
But don't let the facts get in the way of scaremongering.

suicide_circus

In before Soylent Green !

Cookie_Monster

Pretty much, apart from token snips around the edges.
And of course youth will be target relentlessly once again to keep the elders at their current rates

El Weirdo

Sean Connery was in the Untouchables and he's a pensioner.

eviltwin

There are many pensioners out there who badly need every cent of the pension they get and I wouldn't want to see them lose out but there are many who could take a hit. The only people in my family with any money are my mother and mother in law, they both own their houses and have very little outgoings. They admit themselves they could afford a cut.

But they also have an over inflated sense of their own importance and think they should keep everything they get as a "reward" for all their hard work over the years.

Where To

It's a well known fact that young people never get old and pensioners spend their whole lives as oul wans.

Lollipops23

I do think they are vulnerable, but they're also pretty unreasonable. Everyone across the board needs to take some share of the strain, be it small or big. At the moment young people (20-40) are working their asses off and being squeezed at every turn, so they should shoulder as much of the burden as they can.

Where To

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I do think they are vulnerable, but they're also pretty unreasonable. Everyone across the board needs to take some share of the strain, be it small or big. At the moment young people (20-40) are working their asses off and being squeezed at every turn, so they should shoulder as much of the burden as they can.

I'm 20-40 and no one ever squeezes my ass

Lollipops23

Where To wrote: »

I'm 20-40 and no one ever squeezes my ass

I will *pinch*

gobnaitolunacy

With the rate ppl are heading out the gap, we'll be left with a population on social welfare and old age pensions with hardly any workers to support them.

Uriel.

while I agree that pensioners need to contributesome thing to the economic crisis.

I do however believe that any changes to the financial supports of pensioners need to be analysed and handled very careful.

Typically, a pensioner has zero additional earning capacity for example. So in another words, if there is a hike in the cost of heating, light etc... (essential elements for a standard of living) they may find themselves in difficulty. A normal worker or welfare recipient may also face similar difficulties, but I think the difference is that they should have the potential to earn additional income, get a new job, get a job etc... For a typical pensioner, that potential just does not exist.

kneemos

I touched a pensioner and I liked it.

the_syco

lazygal wrote: »

Seriously, how much longer can the ring-fencing of the rights of pensioners go on? The 'I worked hard all my life, I've paid for my pension/free TV licence and travel/fuel allowance' arguments are starting to wear a bit thin.

The pension of people who worked shouldn't be touched. The free TV license and free bus pass are perks, and the perks can be cut or reduced.

ejmaztec

I don't think Lazygal likes old people.:pac:

lazygal

ejmaztec wrote: »

I don't think Lazygal likes old people.:pac:

I don't think old people like giving up any perks when the country is up sh!t creek, because of some mythical time when everyone in the country worked hard.

Cookie_Monster

Uriel. wrote: »

For a typical pensioner, that potential just does not exist.

rubbish.
Just because you turn 65 doesn't mean you can't still go out and work.
Look at all those retired teachers covering and doing exam work for example

Father Damo

El Weirdo wrote: »

Sean Connery was in the Untouchables and he's a pensioner.

He is a notoriously tight fisted tax exile so I doubt the British government give him a penny :pac:


Not to be downing them or anything, but considering most pensioners do very little if any driving, have no dependant children, nearly all live in homes that were paid off long ago, free medical care, do not eat a great deal of food, rarely use the phone, internet or subscription tv, rarely tke a foreign holiday, and they can sit in the pub all night on the same three pints of Guinness, they really generally do not have many overheads bar heating and the Sunday collection plate. Yet garnishing even a feq quid off the average pension rate has the men of 1916 threatening to rise from the undead.

Father Damo

El Weirdo wrote: »

Sean Connery was in the Untouchables and he's a pensioner.

He is a notoriously tight fisted tax exile so I doubt the British government give him a penny :pac:


Not to be downing them or anything, but considering most pensioners do very little if any driving, have no dependant children, nearly all live in homes that were paid off long ago, free medical care, do not eat a great deal of food, rarely use the phone, internet or subscription tv, rarely take a foreign holiday, do not dine out, and they can sit in the pub all night on the same three pints of Guinness, they really generally do not have many overheads bar heating and the Sunday collection plate. Yet garnishing even a few quid off the average pension rate has the men of 1916 threatening to rise from the undead.

conorhal

Uriel. wrote: »

while I agree that pensioners need to contributesome thing to the economic crisis.

I do however believe that any changes to the financial supports of pensioners need to be analysed and handled very careful.

Typically, a pensioner has zero additional earning capacity for example. So in another words, if there is a hike in the cost of heating, light etc... (essential elements for a standard of living) they may find themselves in difficulty. A normal worker or welfare recipient may also face similar difficulties, but I think the difference is that they should have the potential to earn additional income, get a new job, get a job etc... For a typical pensioner, that potential just does not exist.

Ah lets not be talking sense now!

There is another factor that posters like the OP have not considered.

I know several of my parents friends that would love to retire and relax into old age but can't, they are paying their childrens mortgages.

I heard of others whose pension money may be surplus to them but it gets spent on uniforms an school books for the grandchildren, or keeping a son or daughters car on the road so that they can work.

I know a couple of pensioners that find themselves raising children again because their sons and daughters can no longer affort creche fees. Many others are re-raising their children that have moved home and and the folks are meeting all their bills.

Others are cashing in savings bonds, pensions and shares that they had saved for their retirement to provide an early inherritance for kids so that they can keep the roof over their head.

So let the self entitled OP whinge and the government slash the OAP, but they should be prepared for the law of unintended consequences. If they wonder why there's a sudden spike in mortgage defaults and small loan repaments like car loans falling into arrears, people applying for back to school allowances and flooding the SVP with calls for help with utility bills, well the reason might well be that the 'not carrying their share of the burden' generation can no longer provide the support that they have been silently giving.

suicide_circus

One must remember the massive transfer of wealth from young to old that took place during the boom. On the whole, young people bought property and land from the older generation at hugely inflated prices, meaning obscene profits for many of these vulnerable old dears. If you ask me, the really vulnerable ones are the young working families living hand to mouth week to week, not the elderly with their steady pensions, multiple benefits, no mortgages and free healthcare.

Hannibal Smith

No way should pensions or old peoples income be touched. You think this is the first economic crisis the country has faced? In the 80s my dad paid nearly half his wages on income tax. His entire wages went on tax, feeding us and the mortgage. Disposable income wasn't even part of the equation. He did nixers to pay for Christmas presents. So the older generation may not have taken a hit during this recession but they sure paid enough over their lifetime. Why should they take a hit for the 20 year old who took loans and mortgages out beyond their means?

In your retirement after contributing so much to the economy, yes I think you should be cut some slack and to cut their allowances is just stingey money grabbing greed.

CreepingDeath

Slurryface wrote: »

Actually crime statistics show that the group least likely to be a victim of crime are the elderly.
But don't let the facts get in the way of scaremongering.

Shush ! It might keep a few of them off the roads.

conorhal

suicide_circus wrote: »

One must remember the massive transfer of wealth from young to old that took place during the boom. On the whole, young people bought property and land from the older generation at hugely inflated prices, meaning obscene profits for many of these vulnerable old dears. If you ask me, the really vulnerable ones are the young working families living hand to mouth week to week, not the elderly with their steady pensions, multiple benefits, no mortgages and free healthcare.

I'd stop reading David McWilliams if I were you, he's a spoofer and that 'wealth transfer' is largely a myth. The young we buying houses in new developments and tiny apartments in Priory Hall. The wealth transfer occured between young professionals buying and selling apartments to each other largely on loans from the banks, which promptly went bust translating all that wealth into a national debt.
The wealth transfer occured, not intergenerationally, but between housebuyers to a very small wealthy elite and the banks.

The statistic you are quoting is largely based on the fact that pensioners have not seen the rapid decline in wealth that 'the negative equity generation' have, in fact with deflation factored in they may have seen a small wealth increece, but I see no reason to punish the financially prudent for the proflagacy of others. It's immature to expect mummy and daddy to bail you out.

swimming in a sea

is the talk of taking from the pensioners just the perks or some smart person going to tax their savings?

I know some people say we got to force people to free up their savings and spend, but your money your choice.

gobnaitolunacy

I would put small charges on the freebies. Blanket free travel for all comers is not sustainable.
Say a fiver/tenner or something reasonable to get to Dublin on the train or something.

achtungbarry

I actually had a bit of an argument with my mother about this a while back which got me thinking. She was complaining about the general state if the country and how the government should leave pensioners like her and my father alone. Until this point I was happy to agree and sympathize. Then she said something that really annoyed me: 'It's ok for you young people to take more cuts. You can handle it'.

I found this to be quite a selfish attitude and it got me thinking.

Lets see how the cuts have affected us both. I am 33 and married. We live in a small one bedroom apartment. We would love to start a family but we are in negative equity and cannot get a bigger place. This aside, we do not even come close to being able to afford childcare. We cannot afford a car. Things are tight but my wife and I work hard and can (just about) pay all our bills. We can't go out much but despite the tough times we live in, we are happy. We have a roof over our heads and have all we need. We would love to have even one child but simply cannot afford it as things stand. My parents have no mortgage, two cars, have just come back from their 4th foreign holiday this year including a Carribean cruise. They take frequent weekend breaks around Ireland and travel for free.

They both worked hard for all this all their lives in modest jobs and they certainly deserve it. No one could begrudge them a nice retirement. However, being told that 'we should not be touched by cuts' but 'you young people can handle more cuts' was a bit much to take. We all have to share the pain. It is not fair for any one group to expect to be exempt. Some small contributions to say travel would not be unteasonable.

the groutch

the image of the impoverished OAP is in reality a small minority.
the majority of them have very little outgoings (mortgage paid, all healthcare paid, free transport, utility bills heavily subsidised, discounts from private sector businesses, etc) and still get a state pension that's bigger on the dole.
is that what you'd call fair? I'd call it a cushy number.

Kess73

These would be the same OAPs who as younger folk had to put up with massive unemployment, wage cuts, rises in the cost of living etc the last time this country went tits up in a recession?


Seems to me that they did take the cuts in a big way back then, and would be right imho to say that the main thrust of the current fight should mostly fall at the feet of younger generations.

ballsymchugh

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

No way should pensions or old peoples income be touched. You think this is the first economic crisis the country has faced? In the 80s my dad paid nearly half his wages on income tax. His entire wages went on tax, feeding us and the mortgage. Disposable income wasn't even part of the equation. He did nixers to pay for Christmas presents. So the older generation may not have taken a hit during this recession but they sure paid enough over their lifetime. Why should they take a hit for the 20 year old who took loans and mortgages out beyond their means?

In your retirement after contributing so much to the economy, yes I think you should be cut some slack and to cut their allowances is just stingey money grabbing greed.

agree 99%, the only thing i'd differ on is that your father probably paid more tax than that. the high rate in the 80's was 60% (according to wiki, i thought it was higher.

ejmaztec

Some are very well off. An accountant was telling me that during one of the tax amnesties he advised one of his old lady clients, that she should own up to the 750,000 that she had stashed away, but she refused on the grounds that it would affect her pension.

eviltwin

Kess73 wrote: »

These would be the same OAPs who as younger folk had to put up with massive unemployment, wage cuts, rises in the cost of living etc the last time this country went tits up in a recession?


Seems to me that they did take the cuts in a big way back then, and would be right imho to say that the main thrust of the current fight should mostly fall at the feet of younger generations.

Why? Wouldn't it make more sense for the cuts to be made where they can be afforded rather than take away vital services like health/education to protect bus passes or take money from people who are already struggling

Elfinknight

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

No way should pensions or old peoples income be touched. You think this is the first economic crisis the country has faced? In the 80s my dad paid nearly half his wages on income tax. His entire wages went on tax, feeding us and the mortgage. Disposable income wasn't even part of the equation. He did nixers to pay for Christmas presents. So the older generation may not have taken a hit during this recession but they sure paid enough over their lifetime. Why should they take a hit for the 20 year old who took loans and mortgages out beyond their means?

In your retirement after contributing so much to the economy, yes I think you should be cut some slack and to cut their allowances is just stingey money grabbing greed.

I agree. I remember my parents in the 80s. my father was working 12 hours a day 6 days a week to keep a roof over our heads and my mother who would be taking care of the accounts getting stressed.

As I heard someone saying once, the government would very much like you to stay good and healthy and pay your taxes until you retire, and then have the good grace to die.

The majority of O.A.P.s have paid their income tax through out their working lives and now should be left to reap the benefits of a hard working life, rearing all of us and probably in a lot of cases still helping out their kids.

I hope those of you who advocate making cuts to the pensioners remember your comments when your turn comes around. I cannot believe that you have forgotten the sacrifices our parents made for us growing up.

Sleepy

No one's benefits should be touched.
All taxes should be done away with.

How would we afford this?

Use the last of our funds to build a gigantic deathmatch arena somewhere in the midlands (Keynesian Stimulus) and then throw in every person who's held a Dail seat for the last 30 years. The TV rights (and licensing the format) should more than cover our problems

fishy fishy

if you think that people nowadays that are in their 20's and 40's have to work hard, then god help ye if ye were working forty or fifty years ago. now THAT was hard work. Leave the pensioners alone - they deserve a bit of comfort in their old age. They worked for it.

suicide_circus

conorhal wrote: »

I'd stop reading David McWilliams if I were you, he's a spoofer and that 'wealth transfer' is largely a myth. The young we buying houses in new developments and tiny apartments in Priory Hall. The wealth transfer occured between young professionals buying and selling apartments to each other largely on loans from the banks, which promptly went bust translating all that wealth into a national debt.
The wealth transfer occured, not intergenerationally, but between housebuyers to a very small wealthy elite and the banks.

The statistic you are quoting is largely based on the fact that pensioners have not seen the rapid decline in wealth that 'the negative equity generation' have, in fact with deflation factored in they may have seen a small wealth increece, but I see no reason to punish the financially prudent for the proflagacy of others. It's immature to expect mummy and daddy to bail you out.

Never read David McWilliams but your probably right in the rest of what you say except i don't advocate punishing the financial prudent. Rather i suggest the elderly not be totally cocooned from the reality of the countries situation while our young, our future are completely thrown to the wolves.

eviltwin

fishy fishy wrote: »

if you think that people nowadays that are in their 20's and 40's have to work hard, then god help ye if ye were working forty or fifty years ago. now THAT was hard work. Leave the pensioners alone - they deserve a bit of comfort in their old age. They worked for it.

Normally I would agree but when we are in the situation we are in we have to take what we can where we can. I don't want to see any elderly person go hungry or cold but there are areas that can be touched. I know my elderly family members could well afford to take a hit and would probably be happy to do so.

starbelgrade

OAPs don't really need much to live on. A typical weekly spend for a pensioner is as follows:

- Box of teabags
- Bale of briquettes
- 2 packets of custard creams
- Packet of Johnnie Blues
- Pint of Milk
- A half sliced pan
- 4 small tins of peas

€50 a week would easily cover that.

Tigerandahalf

I think the pension will have to be cut. It is becoming clear that some pensioners are living in a bubble and think they are immune to any cuts. A letter in the Indo todays sums it up well. Yes people in the 80s had it tough but who is to say that the young generation today wont go through one or even two more bad recessions before they retire. You can only tax people so much. It is all about affordability now not about fairness or the past. It is how the most taxes can be squeezed out of everybody. Many pensioners also backed FF to the hilt at election time having been bought by FF. They have to take some responsibilty now for the mess we are in.
Whether the gov have the guts is another thing. I have no doubt that people worked hard and are entitled to a decent retirement but working people cant be squeezed all the time. A retired public servant would have a greater pension than the income of a public servant starting out. It is unsustainable.

suicide_circus

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Many pensioners also backed FF to the hilt at election time having been bought by FF. They have to take some responsibilty now for the mess we are in.

Very good point.

whatdoicare

starbelgrade wrote: »

OAPs don't really need much to live on. A typical weekly spend for a pensioner is as follows:

- Box of teabags
- Bale of briquettes
- 2 packets of custard creams
- Packet of Johnnie Blues
- Pint of Milk
- A half sliced pan
- 4 small tins of peas

€50 a week would easily cover that.

Jaysus, anyone trying to live on bread, tea, biscuits and peas all week would probably be dead by Christmas or would seriously be hoping for it!

Elfinknight

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

I think the pension will have to be cut. It is becoming clear that some pensioners are living in a bubble and think they are immune to any cuts. A letter in the Indo todays sums it up well. Yes people in the 80s had it tough but who is to say that the young generation today wont go through one or even two more bad recessions before they retire. You can only tax people so much. It is all about affordability now not about fairness or the past. It is how the most taxes can be squeezed out of everybody. Many pensioners also backed FF to the hilt at election time having been bought by FF. They have to take some responsibilty now for the mess we are in.
Whether the gov have the guts is another thing. I have no doubt that people worked hard and are entitled to a decent retirement but working people cant be squeezed all the time. A retired public servant would have a greater pension than the income of a public servant starting out. It is unsustainable.

You are correct there.

It seems to be the natural order of things that we have booms and busts in a cyclic fashion.

And when this recession is finished and we go back in to good times, it will be again followed by another bust.

The difference will be that when the next one hits, all going well, the O.A.P.s will be us, and if we let the precedent be set now, we will be the target then.

Will you gladly take a hit when you are retired, after spending your life working hard paying your taxes and levies and charges.

I for one would not

swimming in a sea

ejmaztec wrote: »

Some are very well off. An accountant was telling me that during one of the tax amnesties he advised one of his old lady clients, that she should own up to the 750,000 that she had stashed away, but she refused on the grounds that it would affect her pension.

If you were to take a zero off that figure, i would have some sympathy for pensioners like that. Say i had a nice nest egg of 75k, could this mean I'd get less of a pension? than my neighbour who spent his 75k on holidays and good living over the years.

If it was undeclared income etc like above well then fare game, but if you've saved your income(tax paid) and now they want to tax you again or limit your pension well that's not on.

Kess73

eviltwin wrote: »

Why? Wouldn't it make more sense for the cuts to be made where they can be afforded rather than take away vital services like health/education to protect bus passes or take money from people who are already struggling

I just don't think that cuts for OAPs is the way to go. There are plenty of them that would suffer badly if there was a cut to the pension or a cut to things like their fuel allowences or bus passes.

They have paid higher rates of tax when they were younger compared to the modern rates, they have already had to take harsh cuts in the 80's recession and in earlier ones.

So now people want to hammer them again when many of them are just getting by on their pensions, not to mention many who are on the verge of losing their job pensions thanks to various governments eating into the pension funds like what has happened to ex Aer Rianta workers.

There are plenty of other areas that should see harsh cuts before pensioners imho. One good place to start would be the massive expense allowances/pensions that various local councillors, TDs etc all over this country get.

Tigerandahalf

As I said in my post it is not about fairness now. It is about what can be squeezed from people. Working people have little more to give. Pensioners will have to play their part. Some pensioners are v well off. It is high time that people were means tested. Some pensioners in Ireland are only 55 years of age. How can the system pay out pensions to people who will get a pension for probably more years than they have worked. If young people can survive on 188 a week there is a big gap between that and 230 a week. A 20 eur cut would be affordable with a 10 eur cut this year followed by the same in 2013.

golden lane

there are many way the problems can be solved (short, long and medium term)..but starting at the pensioners is not a very good idea....yes, they will have to pay their share of the burden...but, they are only a very small part of that burden....

Geuze

Anecodotal evidence - a pensioner couple known to me.

Gross pension income, plus some small wages = 900-1000 pw
Tax = low, maybe 10%

Two medical cards, even when one person was <65
Two travel passes

Household Benefits Package, "free schemes" = cheaper telecom, elec and free TV licences

300k on deposit

That situation is not sustainable

Kess73

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

As I said in my post it is not about fairness now. It is about what can be squeezed from people. Working people have little more to give. Pensioners will have to play their part. Some pensioners are v well off. It is high time that people were means tested. Some pensioners in Ireland are only 55 years of age. How can the system pay out pensions to people who will get a pension for probably more years than they have worked. If young people can survive on 188 a week there is a big gap between that and 230 a week. A 20 eur cut would be affordable with a 10 eur cut this year followed by the same in 2013.

A hell of a lot of people surviving on that €188 a week are being helped out by elderly parents on the €230 a week.

A €20 cut may not sound like much, but for some it would be the difference between having a lifestyle where you are just about surviving and one where you go hungry on certain days or their house stays colder for longer.

Maybe if cuts came in that were based on means testing it would be fairer, but a set cut across the board would have a terrible impact on the less well off. I feel the same way about social welfare cuts and medical cuts. If certain cuts are not means tested then the worst off get that bit closer to true poverty.