For Newsnight: should we end universal benefits for better off pensioners?

Mamie,
Nothing to do with the temperature, You're not here, you are lucky to get some pension never mind fuel allowance.
Thinking of deserting the sinking ship are you? Check first which countries are suitable, many are not places where your full pension will be payed, and any future rise will not be payed.

Here, (Isle of Wight), it costs £9 to get to Newport, the nearest large town, which is about 12 miles away. That is just for one trip!

Anagram - yes, it has the last 10 minutes or so! I've just watched Geraldine's part on iPlayer, though, and thought she was very good.
Like ayse, I also have a small personal pension as well as my State Pension. The same goes for my partner. This, along with the small amount of savings we have, means that we cannot get Pension Credits. We got rid of the car last year, and use buses all the time, now that we both have our passes.

Remember men had to do their National Service until the 1960's & had no choice either, unless they emigrated! Now having served their country - pension messed with, how fair is that?

No! no! No! I am fed up with the government robbing my husband and I of a retirement we have worked our socks off for!

My husband and I I have paid a full NI stamp since 15 yrs old and have never taken a penny in benefits except child benefit for our 2 children. We ran our own car bodyshop business for 40 years, employing staff including training school leavers until my husband had to give up due to working 80 hours a week. I am 60 next month yet I can't have my pension til 2015 so that's about £14000 gone, I can't have a bus pass til then either and now they want to take away every other benefit I have worked for. It is just not fair!!!

My husband is still working full time in a car bodyshop, (he's 65 this year) as without my pension he can't retire either. The government is made up of young people mainly, who have never done a hard manual days work in their lives. They have no idea how it feels to be old and have to get up and go to work every day, and frankly they don't care either.

I feel the elderly (because we're too tired from working all our lives to kick up much) are very unfairly being asked to take the brunt of the cuts. Our pensions have been slashed by 27% over just the past 4 years by Quantitive Easing. At this rate we may as well just lay down and die at 65. There will be little to look forward to in our retirement if we ever manage to retire.

AND we should ALL get the new pension or not have a new pension at all. I voted for this government in the last election but I will not be voting for them next time!! It's time to make ourselves heard or there will be more and more cuts for us oldies.

Scotland even has its own Newsnight???

I'm in Scotland, and unfortunately Newsnight switched to Scottish Newsnight before Geraldine came on. I really wish I could have seen this. Wonder if I might get it on iPlayer? I'll try.

What other insurance premium wouldn't pay out when due? We have paid in for many, many years and now they are suggesting they default on their obligations. As I said before, having children is optional, growing old is not.

Perhaps there would be less moaning about us if young people today had to save for things the way we did. We had to save with a particular building society for a number of years before they would give us a mortgage. We had no central heating, no carpets and were happy to have anything second hand when we started out. Many young people go out a couple of times a week and expect to have everything when they start out. Mortgages have never been cheaper, I remember paying an interest rate of around 18% in the early 70s.

Yes, there will always be poor people but that does not mean all young people are poor any more than all old people are poor but I object to being demonised because I worked hard and saved and now have a comfortable life. deserving made a very good point, one my FiL used to make after he had worked hard and saved and his nieghbours had earned just as mcuh or more than him but had spent it all and were now claiming from the state.

Hi marleog - I think the war also had an impact on health of that generation. Yes we hear that the average nutrition was better - but it was better than a pretty darn low ebb in the 1930s. My MIL was 7 when the war started - 80 this year. She lived in a heavily industrial area of the midlands. For years nights were spent in damp underground shelters at the bottom of the garden. She suffered diphtheria and scarlet fever, which damaged her heart valves. Everyone had their rations but "dad" was apparently given more than his fair share as he was doing a heavy industrial job in a steel mill. She was not sent to grammar school because they could not afford the uniform (she found out decades later). She has suffered horribly with multiple health problems throughout her adult life and I do wonder how many of them have their roots in those years.
My mother too, same generation, had rheumatic fever etc and poor health for many years.

PS I joined Gransnet because of last nights Newsnight, well done!

I watched & listened to this discussion with great interest & I want to point out one or two things, as the elderly seem to be a burden to the State.
I am 71 years old & until the late 1970’s paid 40% income tax as a basic rate. I was a teacher &, for many years, ½ of my salary was taken as my contribution to the country & my occupational pension. Thus I feel I have paid for what I get now, and in full, since people do not pay that amount these days. Also our generation may have been the most fortunate materially since the war, but we carry emotional scars from our parents. Many of us never saw our fathers until the age of 7 or so, or lost them in battle. They came home disturbed and remote. Many people in their 80’s are scarred as their teenage years were ruined by WW2, & then they did their National Service for our country. Britain owes a debt to the over 80’s & to hear a pensioner, on an earlier programme last week, ask “When would you like us to roll over & die then?” was a disgrace. The points were well made when people said that we still contribute materially & with home care.
I have written to & reminded the PM & Others that many of our friends & relatives gave their lives, without having a choice about it, and we are FURIOUS when people are avoiding tax & using off shore accounts & bringing the taxpayers to their knees without care, & then blaming pensioners for being too old.

I'm due to retire in 2 1/4 years time and will have my state pension plus a small pension, enough to take me above pension credit level. I cannot afford to run a car so use public transport. Here, an all day ticket for local travel (one bus company only) £3.60. a weekly pass at £12.50 (approx). I do hope that for all older people in this position that they do not take the bus pass away as it seems that many pensioners where I live use it to do their weekly shopping and get out and about, rather than being housebound for most of the time. It really depends where the bar is set.

For the first time this year I did not have to pay prescription charges as I'd reached 60. As I am still working, I would have been happy to pay for the prescription. I'm sure that very shortly the government will ensure that those still of working age but over 60 will be paying for prescriptions soon enough.

I would favour any adjustments made were done using the tax system rather than means testing as this is a blunt instrument. No wonder so many older folk are fearful about the future!

Many private pensions, however small, reduce significantly upon reaching the age of 75 or thereabouts Annobel. It is also the age when mobility reduces for very many people. Retirees then require help to stay in their own homes (home helps, meals on wheels) etc. These 'helps' are not free. TV licence is a big bill and it may mean the difference between having a TV and not having one atall. TV, especially for a single elderly person is good company, especially if they can't get out and about like they used to. Having a TV in the house means choice, it doesn't automatically mean 'spending your whole life in front of it'.

If benefits are 'means tested' there is a possibility that those who are entitled do not claim, and suffer in silence as a result. Another way would be to make the benefits taxable if your income is over a certain figure. If they make that figure high enough, the majority of pensioners would not be affected, and would not need to complete a tax return, and would still be in receipt od their benefits.

What about if you are living abroad and freezing in winters that are far colder than the ones in the UK, deserving? At what winter mean temperature would you take it away?

Re, not many pensioners earning more than £30'000, Many have not earned even half of that amount when they were young and working full time.Will this intolerable suggestion of means testing, should it become law, be applied to those who have savings? Or is it a tax on those who are earning? Once established it will never be repealed, not voting for the originators will not mean a change the next lot will continue with the imposition. We are doomed Mr Mainwaring,
The majority of pensioners are not appearing on this, or any other site, they are not computer literate, some will rather be paying for a loaf than saving for a computer.Nevertheless those with computers, and a bit put by, are, because of contributions, and promises, made before Nick Boles was born, entitled to the full range of benefits that are provided. I make one exception, If you are no longer resident in this country, and sweating abroad, you are not entitled to the winter fuel allowance.

I do think the French way of dealing with TV licences is better - it is collected as part of one of the council taxes and you tick to opt out if you don't have a TV. People over 60 who are below the taxation threshold (higher than in the UK) don't pay the council tax that includes the TV licence. Seems fairer to me and avoids a separate collection system.

Who deserves it, are those that have contributed for probably most of their working lives. The fact that they may be classed as "rich"is immaterial, (although who is rich when £38000, or so, is classed as the minimum a family is supposed to be able to exist on?) The benefits are universal for those that have contributed, if they are not needed it is the prerogative of the recipient to dispose of them as they think fit. Far to many are getting benefits without having paid their dues. We are a soft touch except when it applies to our own.
Having worked alongside people who received the same wage, and in similar circumstances, but because they spent the majority of their wage, and never bothered to save ,are now in receipt of numerous benefits that are denied me because I was abstemious and saved, The same thing is likely when means tested, because I have thought of my future, and have saved and not been a drain on society.
It is easy to quote clichés, to say that life is not a rehearsal, to live it to the full,this is ok if you fund it yourself, when you have no pride, (and I know this is supposed to come before a fall) and you sponge off others, then we get the slippery slope we are on at the moment, and again those that are considerate are bailing out the wastrels.

On a slightly lighter note ...perhaps we should all go and live in Wales ...doesn't everyone there get free prescriptions?? So when you get your pension there ...will you then have to pay for prescriptions if DC gets his way??

I'm actually quite angry about this ...having contributed all my life to these systems. Perhaps we can claim back all our contributions if we are not going to get the benefits?? After all ...we have 'bought goods' that are not now going to be delivered!

The number of elderly people with pre-payment meters has risen, especially as they believe they have more control over how much they pay out, as opposed to over-payment by direct debit. My next door neighbour often goes to bed as soon as it gets dark, so he doesn't have to put his lights on and he is sure of being able to boil his kettle when he gets up. The elderly really are feeling the pinch when they rely on benefits. He is in his 70s and has mild learning difficultes, so relies on help to budget. If he paid by direct debt, he says he would worry about falling aseep with his lights and heating on - at least with pre-payment it would just run out instead of racking up the bill!

There are vast numbers of people below retirement age who get free prescriptions because of the conditions they suffer from. I was surprised - but gratified - when I started taking thyroxin, that I got all my other prescriptions free as well - not as many then as I have now though.

Which used to be the most expensive way to pay Annobel - is it still the case?

Be a bit tricky to tax the free prescriptions - there would have to be an honesty box on the self assessment form "how many individual prescriptions did you have in the relevant tax year..."
If you wanted to take free prescriptions from the most well off you would be means testing again - which would cost a lot.
What he's edging towards is a situation where you only get these so called "universal' benefits if you are a claimant of some kind.

I don't know in what kind of community Flickety has been advising on benefits, but most of the older people I come into contact with at CAB are paying for fuel by prepayment meters, not direct debit.

Welcome Jane and well done Geraldine. Newsnight a bit turgid though wasn't it! Never watch it normally.
The food companied sponsoring the Olympics dragged on for twice as long as the material/contributors justified. Adonis... well wasn't he the chap who started "Academies" programme, a buddy of Blair.
It's interesting how Bowles's argument goes isn't it:
average incomes fallen and unlikely to rise (question - average - what does that mean - there were a lot of people spending a lot of disposable income on rubbish they did not need in the previous decade - is it them who have less money or is there genuine hardship - an "average' won't tell us the answer)
BUT, he argues , this is a BAD THING and THEREFORE we need to "target benefits ONLY at skills and productivity" thereby ditching responsibility for the old, the young and any other "non productive" groups at a stroke of the pen.
(A minute before he was boasting about raising university fees and getting rid of education maintenance grants - which of course ARE involved in skills)
So what does he suggest? Something really radical that is going to save .... well some money... cut those "universal benefits" that are being given to rich pensioners (presumably shortly followed by non rich pensioners?)
And surestart. Not very inspired really is it.
It was an interesting point the economists made about increases in GDP no longer feeding through to the pay-packets of ordinary people. We should assume that it just makes the rich richer, bloats the profits of international companies and allows the machinery of the central state to become more bloated. Of course some of that GDP is generated by... the banks and financial institutions...
So going back to Bowles starting point - maybe looking at this issue might be more fruitful. Encourage people to spend their money in smaller businesses, and if not, UK businesses.