Have baby boomers stolen the family silver

PS. It's not true that most pensioners have a low income. On average, they have a high disposable income compared with many other groups. On average, household pensioner income after housing costs is around £20,000, which is considerably higher than the average. Many people (including me) will have a higher income as a pensioner than they currently do. Ask WASPI campaigners!

Estimates are not figures plucked from the ether.

Why is everyone so defensive about the costs to the NHS of 'older people'? You're not being attacked. It is a fact that there are a lot of us and we are costing more to maintain as we get older.

It is also a fact, as has been pointed out by others, that we're the generation who voted in the Conservative governments who have broken the consensus on social welfare and have left the NHS very short of money.

Exactly, Maizie! It's not a question of 'blame', but some people seem to stick their fingers in their ears and go 'la la la'.

"On average, household pensioner income after housing costs is around £20,000, which is considerably higher than the average"

Averages are very deceptive DD and when it comes to earnings almost always substantially higher than the mode, because the relatively small numbers who are very well off raise the average in a way thats deceptive. Some pensioners are on high incomes with very generous pensions. Some are able to work part time in well paid roles.
They are not typical. The majority of pensioners do not have the scope to increase their income by working harder or getting a better job either. The options are more limited.

I was going to say something similar earlier, but had to go out and then forgot.

My income is nowhere near £20,000 and although a few pensioners I know must have quite substantial incomes (or are spending savings), most have less than £15,000 to live on.

It's like saying the average UK income is £27,000 or whatever it is - only in certain areas and only in certain professions is it higher and the majority earn a lot less.

It is a fact that there are a lot of us and we are costing more to maintain as we get older.
And that is why we should be making a contribution, means-tested.

means-tested does not mean that someone who pays income tax should have to pay a reduced rate of NI towards the NHS, but certainly there are pensioners who are on more than £20,000, £25,000, who could be contributing say 5%.

It is a fact that there are a lot of us and we are costing more to maintain as we get older.

And that is why we should be making a contribution, means-tested

Perhaps by the same argument recently arrived immigrants with no previous contribution record should be covered by private insurance until theyve lived here five years.

Its utterly unfair that they should be able to rock up work for the statutory fifteen months or whatever then enjoy free maternity services, dental treatment maternity pay etc.

We are a couple of the fortunate ones who receive a bit more than £25,000 combined pensions, and, after a life time of effort, own our own home and would be happy to pay an additional bit. Provided it was guaranteed to go towards the NHS. And provided it went on older person care. But since it seems NI now gets absorbed into the general tax bucket that's not going to happen in a month of Sundays.

It does irk somewhat that no credit is given to us for having scrimped and gone without to pay off mortgages and save for pensions. That a generation who eat out and go away on holidays as a matter of course and not as a rare treat expect us to continue to go without.

It's our turn!

I expect it irks them that you have such a stereotypical view.

Well, when we do eat out - and the choice of venue around here is huge now - the places are crowded with young families and groups. So, yes, I do have a stereotypical view. There are more young people around with more disposable income. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to afford to eat out. Or afford to go to places like Centreparcs which quadruple their prices in the school holidays and are still booked up way ahead.

Things were hard for us at that age and yes, they are hard for a lot of families now. That's the way of things. But does it mean that we have to feel guilt for now having a home of our own? One which we worked for? We did downsize to a small house near the centre of town so we don't need to rely on a car. And our rambling four bed family home with half an acre was bought by a young couple with no intention of having children. They're not penalised for living in somewhere far too big for their needs.

In answer to MaizieD's last paragraph,14th. Jan, Thats as maybe, but how on earth could we have been aware of the consequences of our vote at that particular time, bearing in mind how long ago it was?! so why should we feel even faintly guilty about anything?!

Another comment following MaizieD's last paragraph which states we're the generation that voted in the conservatives.
I didn't and neither did many other contributors to this thread. Those who did surely can't claim they were not aware of the consequences of their votes. It's like saying I voted Trump, but I'd no idea what kind of man he was or how his approach might affect people dependent on Obama care.

Thank you, Iam64.
'Rolling back the state' has been the explicit mission of the Conservatives from Thatcher onwards. I can only think that people were being incredibly naive when they voted for them. Perhaps they didn't realise that 'the state' included treasured institutions such as the NHS?

(I've never voted tory, either.)

I We are a couple of the fortunate ones who receive a bit more than £25,000 combined pensions, and, after a life time of effort, own our own home and would be happy to pay an additional bit. Provided it was guaranteed to go towards the NHS. And provided it went on older person care.

You shouldn't be able to choose where your contribution goes NfkDumpling .

That would be like a young person saying that their NI contribution should only go towards helping the young . Surely we are at a stage where people are living far longer and medicine has moved at a rate that we can barely keep up with (financially). Those who can afford it (and £25k a year is a huge amount to me and I work 32 hours or more a week) should have to contribute.

So presumably the voting habits of today's younger generation will, in X number of decades time, be held responsible for all the perceived/actual ills (and there will be some!!) of the then current younger generation!! Perhaps today's younger generation are clairvoyant, or at least have a crystal ball, something we, not unsurprisingly,or perhaps foolishly, didn't!

Wholeheartedly agree with maizied 's post. Tory policy to dismantle significant elements of 'the state' has been clear and obvious since long before the last election. That's why I did not vote for them.

I'm not talking about clairvoyance or crystal balls. I'm talking of looking at the long term implications of a party's policies not just the short term personal advantage of whatever financial bribe a party might offer to catch voters.

We pay tax on our pensions so we are making a contribution. Plus a working lifetime of NI contributions. I personally wouldn't mind paying some direct charges for GP appointments as I do for my dentist, osteopath and vet for the cat, could be means tested as for prescription charges, so those on low incomes didn't pay.

Though I'm still not clear what the family silver is that I am supposed to have stolen.

And I didn't Vote Tory either. Wasn't it M Thatcher who sold off most of our manufacturing industry, started all the privatisation of public services and utilities, so now foreign companies own all our assets?

But you don't pay NI contributions if you're a pensioner and you didn't pay enough when you were of working age. You were paying for the previous generation, which didn't have such high costs, because they died younger. There were also more baby boomers to pay for a much smaller cohort of elderly people.

Governments have kept down the headline tax rates and increased NI contributions, which are now higher for some working people than tax. This is one of the ways governments have protected the elderly and why younger people think it's not fair.

Something has got to give!

Family silver = the country's wealth.

It is an indisputable fact that the elderly own more of the country's assets than younger people. It's not all in one property either. Since the credit crunch, the elderly have increased their assets, while younger people have seen incomes frozen.

The easiest way to means test payments to the NHS would be to charge a reduced NI when people pay their tax. HMRC already has all the data. Offloading means testing to the NHS would just increase paperwork for them.

But I see the countries wealth tied up in its industries and utilities, most of which have been sold off by successive governments. Older people are bound to accumulate more over a lifetime, paying off a mortgage over x number of years. Why should they be poor?