Are the pensioners untouchable?

lazygal · 26-09-2012 08:46AM #1

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 · 26-09-2012 08:48AM

I definitely wouldn't touch a pensioner.

CreepingDeath · 26-09-2012 08:49AM

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

spank_inferno · 26-09-2012 08:49AM

Answer: Yes.

Reason: They vote.

.... next question!

Slurryface · 26-09-2012 08:50AM

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 · 26-09-2012 08:51AM

In before Soylent Green !

Cookie_Monster · 26-09-2012 08:51AM

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 · 26-09-2012 08:54AM

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

eviltwin · 26-09-2012 08:54AM

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 · 26-09-2012 08:55AM

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

Lollipops23 · 26-09-2012 09:03AM

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 · 26-09-2012 09:05AM

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 · 26-09-2012 09:06AM

Where To wrote: »

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

I will

*pinch*

gobnaitolunacy · 26-09-2012 09:07AM

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. · 26-09-2012 09:14AM

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 · 26-09-2012 09:15AM

I touched a pensioner and I liked it.

the_syco · 26-09-2012 09:15AM

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 · 26-09-2012 09:16AM

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

lazygal · 26-09-2012 09:18AM

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 · 26-09-2012 09:18AM

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 · 26-09-2012 09:39AM

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 · 26-09-2012 09:44AM

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 · 26-09-2012 10:03AM

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 · 26-09-2012 10:07AM

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 · 26-09-2012 10:09AM

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 · 26-09-2012 10:18AM

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 · 26-09-2012 10:32AM

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 · 26-09-2012 10:50AM

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 · 26-09-2012 10:53AM

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 · 26-09-2012 10:59AM

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 · 26-09-2012 11:04AM

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.

Are the pensioners untouchable?

Comments