The bias against the under 65's by the English government

David49

“But ‘wealth’ continues to prevail. Whether it can be overcome is anybody’s guess. We certainly don’t have a government at the moment that is prepared to challenge the status quo. The only time when wealth was seriously challenged was in the 3 decades post WW2 and Thatcher soon put a stop to that..”

Well put Maisie those that have enough are getting far too much for free they can well afford to pay for, Starmer & CO are far too timid to make a difference - so far.

You might think that it's 'well put', * David*, but you are missing the point. I'm not talking about the sort of 'wealth' that hovers around the very lowest echelons of those who are considered to be wealthy. The few 'freebies' that you object to those getting are chicken feed in the context of the national budget.

I'm talking about those who are in the top 10% of capital wealth owners ( which produces what I think PN is referring to as 'passive wealth, and I would call unearned income). Statistically. 10 years ago when Piketty wrote his seminal work on capital and inequality, they held more than 50% of all wealth.

By now it could be much more as more people have become million and billionaires. What is more, I suspect that the wealth they hold is not adequately accounted for in the National Wealth Survey because of the tendency for the ultra wealthy to send money abroad and to hide their beneficial ownership of companies.

These are the people who get far more meaningful 'freebies' by way of tax concessions and tax avoidance schemes.

I can't imagine that anyone at all in that category is posting here on Gnet... We are scrabbling for the crumbs from the rich man's table...Reducing the debate to personal circumstances doesn't help to move it on.

One thing that Gary Stevenson says time and time again is that national wealth flows upwards to the already wealthy. He knows this having seen it in action...and been a beneficiary...

Given that a prescription 'season ticket' costs £114.50 a year. I can see no reason why older people should not pay for their prescriptions. Just increase Pension Credit by £2 for singletons and £4 for couples.

As I have often said, I would abolish every bell and whistle that clings round the state pension, it is demeaning, because it suggests we are all too feeble minded to look after money unless doled out to us in little allocatted amounts, and unfair on people who, for example, do not take medication, or do not/cannot travel by bus.

Adjustments to the PC level will ensure that the poorest pensioners do not suffer and bring other pensioners within all the other benefits PC confers.

Bus companies will soon bring out their own concessionary cards, probably not as flexible as the current ones, but I have found, for example, that my Senior Railcard, brought out by train companies to encourage us oldies onto the trains when others aren't travelling very useful.

“I think the criticism of "wealth" is often too broad. Wealth can include both passive and active income. One of our problems is the way the tax system works, giving different taxation to each firm of income.”

The 2 largest contributors to wealth are your residence and pensions, both are tax loopholes you all despise, understandably because very little tax is levied both are first priority for spare cash, then when you die another loophole, a couple get £1m tax free to give away.

GrannyGravy13

I think if pensioners are going to be in receipt of freebies they should be available when you get your state pension, and not before.

Currently prescriptions are feee in England from the age of 60, when I imagine the majority are still working.

I agree with your post before this one, that people should not be penalised for providing for their retirement. That doesn't mean that pensioners should be a special case though - millionaires are millionaires whether they are 25 or 75.

I'm less sure about prescriptions though. I don't think that it is pensioners per se who get free prescriptions at 60, but that that age was arrived at as a time when a lot of people develop age-related conditions. Men got free prescriptions at 60 when they retired at 65.

Having said that, the whole 'who pays what' for prescriptions is a mess. As a long-term asthma sufferer I always had to pay for inhalers, but a friend with diabetes got all her drugs free, whether related to her condition or not. Inhalers are as vital to life as other drugs, and if someone can't afford them it could be fatal. Asthma kills young people as well as older ones, so it seems daft to give free inhalers to me and not my daughter, who is also a sufferer.

I would rather see all prescriptions free at all ages, but a more limited range of things that can be prescribed, so people could pay for things like paracetamol (maybe not the best example, but there will be others) and everyone get essential drugs free when needed.

I think if pensioners are going to be in receipt of freebies they should be available when you get your state pension, and not before.

Currently prescriptions are feee in England from the age of 60, when I imagine the majority are still working.

I'm a WASPI woman and so not sure when I would have had my buspass in the event - whether at 60, my revised SPA or the new SPA.

I moved to Wales anyway and knew it was 60 here - so got it at 60. The thing I find puzzling is that I can only use it in Wales (even though I'm now retirement age by anyone's definition - being in my 70's).

So that tends to result in me saying "I've got a buspass - can I use it here?" every time I get on an English bus (on visits back) and sometimes I can/sometimes I can't and have to pay and it seems to be dependant on the busdriver accepting the logic I'm obviously British and in Britain or "dividing off" according to what part of Britain I live in currently and then I get charged.

I'd always thought it was the same everywhere and I could travel across the country until I discovered that the law differentiates between whether one is one side of that border or the other. Blowed if I've bothered myself to figure that one out....

👏👏👏

We (UK citizens) have been encouraged by successive governments to save for our dotage.

Those who have managed to do so, sometimes going without over the years are now criticised as having wealth( mortgage free, maybe a private pension and savings)

This really is Lewis Carroll’s looking glass territory…

David49

From the ONS report on wealth 2022

“The wealthiest households were those where the household head was around state pension age, retired, or owned their property outright

Median household wealth was 33 times higher among households with a head aged 65 to 74 years, compared with households in which the head was aged 16 to 24 years. Median household wealth gradually increased with age, from £15,200 for households with a head aged 16 to 24 years, to a peak of £502,500 for households with a head aged 65 to 74 years. After state pension age, household wealth often starts to decline as pension wealth is used in retirement.”

Wealth includes property, investments, pensions and other assets.
£500k plus is top 50% of group, those with mortgage paid off is much higher.

Quelle surprise - those around retirement age have worked, saved and paid mortgages for decades and may have inherited from deceased parents. Those aged 16-24 are fresh out of school/uni. Isn’t that stating the bleedin’ obvious?

David49

“But ‘wealth’ continues to prevail. Whether it can be overcome is anybody’s guess. We certainly don’t have a government at the moment that is prepared to challenge the status quo. The only time when wealth was seriously challenged was in the 3 decades post WW2 and Thatcher soon put a stop to that..”

Well put Maisie those that have enough are getting far too much for free they can well afford to pay for, Starmer & CO are far too timid to make a difference - so far.

I think the criticism of "wealth" is often too broad. Wealth can include both passive and active income. One of our problems is the way the tax system works, giving different taxation to each firm of income.

Active income is generally taxed as income tax, which is assessed based on multiple income bands while the taxation of passive income is far more diverse and includes allowable deductions and expenses. These deductions and expenses are not available to the majority of active earners who pay tax through PAYE.

This is a pretty basic explanation, but in my view one of our biggest issues is the potential for exploiting loopholes. Talk of how to deal with this is as diverse as the political stances. There will be talk if closing loopholes, increased regulation and transparency, more progressive taxation, increased funding for HMRC, simplification of the tax code, incentives for compliance, regularity freedom, minimising tax and government intervention, voluntary compliance, robust welfare and public services.

We will each pick from that list according to our political stance. What we can't do is find an easy answer. What we may be able to do is find a compromise which keeps money active in the economy and drains passive income back into the churn.

But I really doubt my or any of your ability to explain how we do that in such a way that it can be implemented by governments. From my point of view gaining knowledge of the issues, and therefore reasoned debate, is all we can do to prepare ourselves to support one party or another. Many people still go for the "my party says this so that us the only right way but I do think more and more are educating themselves and coming to their own conclusions.

From the ONS report on wealth 2022

“The wealthiest households were those where the household head was around state pension age, retired, or owned their property outright

Median household wealth was 33 times higher among households with a head aged 65 to 74 years, compared with households in which the head was aged 16 to 24 years. Median household wealth gradually increased with age, from £15,200 for households with a head aged 16 to 24 years, to a peak of £502,500 for households with a head aged 65 to 74 years. After state pension age, household wealth often starts to decline as pension wealth is used in retirement.”

Wealth includes property, investments, pensions and other assets.
£500k plus is top 50% of group, those with mortgage paid off is much higher.

“But ‘wealth’ continues to prevail. Whether it can be overcome is anybody’s guess. We certainly don’t have a government at the moment that is prepared to challenge the status quo. The only time when wealth was seriously challenged was in the 3 decades post WW2 and Thatcher soon put a stop to that..”

Well put Maisie those that have enough are getting far too much for free they can well afford to pay for, Starmer & CO are far too timid to make a difference - so far.

Thank you for the Prof. Steve Keen link Maizie, I'll catch up with it tomorrow. I've put a link in a new post here:

www.gransnet.com/forums/news_and_politics/1346720-Is-the-economy-on-the-brink-of-collapse-Gary-Stevenson-and-Daniel-Priestley-break-down-the-emergency-financial-crisis-no-one-is-talking-about

It's good to see a good debate but it is quite long. I have to admit I agree and disagree with both on different occasions. Steven Bartlett guides it all very well and joins the discussion more at the conclusions.

In reply to Doodledog.

Although it is possible to assume that benefits may come from rolling the additional benefits into the weekly Pension Credit (PC) amount, there are also drawbacks. It could be suggested that savings would be made, but this is by no means certain.

Firstly, the additional benefits are funded from different budgets, and not all are currently received by every PC claimant, nor are they necessarily the same amount. What, for instance, do you include to cover housing benefit? Those currently receiving it get varying amounts depending on their circumstances. Some receive none at all, and the amounts provided are paid by the council. In some areas and for certain incomes, housing costs can pose a problem in their own right. This is a housing issue, not a pension issue.

NHS Low Income comes from the NHS budget and is used very little by some while being relied upon heavily by others. Costs increase significantly in the older group of pensioners.

Each year, cold weather payments vary in total and are provided in some areas but not in others depending on the weather.

There are other payments, such as adaptations, which can once again be triggered by receiving PC, are very varied and again increase with age and infirmity. These are administered through the council to the tradespeople employed.

There is obviously a reason why these have been awarded separately.

I discovered him by accident Maizie. What has surprised me is that quite a lot of younger people I've spoken to already knew all about him. If he is encouraging the young to become engaged (obviously some already are) that should be good.

I came across Stevenson some time ago. I found him difficult to follow because of his mannerisms and tendency to repeat himself. Watching the video you linked to I thought that he’d improved his delivery and introduced more clarity in his thinking. I must try watching some more to reassess my judgement of him.

Young people will like him because they're a Youtube generation, visuals and talking heads appeal to them better than reading an article or a book. I just find reading more satisfying and coherent. He’s not saying much that is new, Piketty’s book, which I have referenced several times, deals comprehensively with wealth and inequality and Keynes, almost a century ago, recognised the need for more equable distribution of resources to promote a thriving and healthy economy which all citizens could participate in. Even Adam Smith, the so called Father of classical economics, much admired by free marketeers, advocated for much the same thing. and recognised the dangers of allowing unregulated acquisition of wealth. He warned against allowing the wealthy to set the economic agenda according to their own interests.

But ‘wealth’ continues to prevail. Whether it can be overcome is anybody’s guess. We certainly don’t have a government at the moment that is prepared to challenge the status quo. The only time when wealth was seriously challenged was in the 3 decades post WW2 and Thatcher soon put a stop to that..

I’d point out that current economic orthodoxy is as much based on ‘theory’ as any other variety of economics. There’s no compelling reason why it should be perpetuated, particularly when it is causing such misery and deprivation to so many people. It’s a situation revolutions are born from…

P.S. I think a recession is on its way. Rising private debt allied to cutting government spending makes it just about inevitable. See Prof. Steve Keen’s video here:

x.com/ProfSteveKeen/status/1904327026951282966

Thank you Rosie.

*I happen

Doodledog I have a sturdy wall you're welcome to utilise if you feel that banging your head against it would be more productive!

happen to agree with your analysis, but even if I didn't it is still crystal clear what you're saying.

Unless you can clarify what, in your reply to my quoted post, explains your suggestions to help those who are slightly over the threshold for Pension Credit, I still won’t know. Quoting it or friends quoting the same explanation doesn't clarify it.
Ok, for the third time.

People who have a few pounds over the threshold for PC are unable to claim many of the benefits that go with it. This, IMO, is unfair, as the reason for their being slightly over the threshold is usually that they have paid into another pension. This situation may not bother people who could afford to pay more and have more lucrative pensions, but it very much disadvantages those on the margins.

In order to mitigate that, which is what you asked, I would find out what the income is for someone claiming age appropriate benefits (ie PC or UC), factor in the entitlements that go with that, and raise both the full pension and the minimum wage so that nobody working a full week gets less than someone who has not paid into the system.

Raising the MW and UC would cost money, and I would raise that money by increasing the number of tax thresholds to higher than the current three bands.

You (or anyone else) may or may not agree with that as an idea, but I don't think it's complicated.

I discovered him by accident Maizie. What has surprised me is that quite a lot of younger people I've spoken to already knew all about him. If he is encouraging the young to become engaged (obviously some already are) that should be good.

The video I posted is one in a series but he also does others which are more of a podcast. In the most recent one he was talking about the Labour Party having asked if they could come on his programme and whether, why or why not he would/should do that.

I don't think he is putting forward a new theory, it's rather more a case of what action should be taken and why. Perhaps more practical solutions based on his knowledge and history.

If, like me, others hadn't come across him this is his background.

From a single-income working class background in Ilford, Stevenson won a scholarship to study for a BSc in economics and mathematics at the London School of Economics, before becoming a financial trader at Citibank in 2008 at age 21. Stevenson became a millionaire in the wake of the great recession by betting on a large increase in economic inequality, and that growing poverty would cause interest rates to stay low. By trading on this prediction, he claims to have been Citibank's most profitable trader globally in 2011, a claim disputed by former colleagues. In 2014, Stevenson retired from financial trading to study for an MPhil in Economics at the University of Oxford. In 2020, he started the YouTube-channel GarysEconomics, where he campaigns against economic inequality and explains economic concepts to a wider audience.

Stevenson is a contributor to policy debates on inequality in Britain and has contributed to outlets such as The Guardian, BBC, LBC, Novara Media, and Piers Morgan Uncensored. In 2024, Stevenson published The Trading Game through Penguin Books, a memoir about his years working in the finance industry.

Just another human being with a view really.

I fail to see any 'interesting ideas' in Stevenson's video. He spends a lot of time stating and restating the obvious.

I quite admire him for trying to get people to understand 'wealth' and how it 'works' but I suspect that he impresses people and they listen to him because he has made a great deal of money in the past. Deference to 'wealth' is always interesting...

Where was the 'theory'?

On the other hand, I have a 750 page on the table near me, researched and written by an economist and published nearly ten years ago which says the same things about wealth and goes into great depth about wealth ownership and how it leads to inequality. When I reference it most people seem oblivious to what it is saying. Or is it just dismissed as 'theory'?

Norah Mon 24-Mar-25 19:16:15

This is another source of knowledge backed information. Rather like the believers in MMT he seems to believe he has the answers. But again, rather like other theories, I find the need to let them percolate - but as with all theories there seem to be some interesting ideas.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bReS9FLpgT4

Doodledog

Thanks Norah.

PN you do seem to pick on everything I (and a couple of others) say.

You asked 'what about them? What would you do?' wrt people with a few pounds more than the threshold for PC, and I told you what I would do, as well as why I think your dismissive attitude is dangerous.

How you see that as answering something entirely different is beyond me - it was a direct response to your questions.

I'm afraid that what you are suggesting the government do for pensioners who are just a few pounds over the qualifying threshold for Pension Credit isn’t clear to me. I am always happy to say that if someone doesn't understand me, that is my fault; I haven’t explained myself clearly enough.

In this instance, I have been willing to admit not understanding how your post is an answer to this single question; it happens. But that actually gets us nowhere. Unless you can clarify what, in your reply to my quoted post, explains your suggestions to help those who are slightly over the threshold for Pension Credit, I still won’t know. Quoting it or friends quoting the same explanation doesn't clarify it.

I’m sure that, in our journey through life, we’ve all learned that when someone doesn’t understand something, it’s important to resist the urge to become frustrated or blame them. Instead, we can take the opportunity to repeat the message, ideally in a different way than before. When someone doesn’t understand, it’s usually because we haven’t done a good job of explaining it.

It was a direct reply to ‘what about them? What would you do?’

I’m bemused by how that is not obvious. What I would do about ‘them’ (ie the people just above PC level) is ensure that they are not worse off for having paid into a pension. In the same way, I would ensure that minimum wage earners are better off than benefit claimants when means-testing is taken into account. I then said that this could be paid for by increasing taxation, and that dismissing the ‘just about managing’ is, IMO, contributing to alienation and support for fascism.