https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48046595

Scrap 'outdated' free TV licences for over-75s, peers say

...

It is calling for other universal pensioner benefits, such as the winter fuel allowance and free bus passes for the over-65s, to be cut and for the triple lock guarantee for the state pension - which ensures the weekly allowance rises by a minimum of 2.5% every year - to be reconsidered.

You see, those old age pensioners are lording it up in luxuriant standards few people in the country can dream of, said Lord True, the Baron of East Sheen.

You see 'em up't pub, always with pint, eh?

Luxury. When I were lad we ate anyone over 40.

I'm a pensioner, and nearly as poor as Job.

anybody trying to tell you that the little advantages given senior citizens are a bad thing deserves to be tarred, feathered, drawn on a hurdle around the country, and hanged drawn and quartered.

None of those things should be universal just because the recipients have reached a certain age
Pensioners should definitely not be subsidised when there is no financial reason for them to be

Normally they are not targeted because they vote and so this is a refreshing approach
More so given that those suggesting it are pensioners themselves or at least rather old

As with much Tory policy there's indeed a good idea in here, in that lots of pensioners are very rich and don't really require these benefits to maintain a decent standard of living.

However, I'd remain highly sceptical of their ability to deliver such a policy without fucking up badly and denying essential services to people, resulting in much misery and even in some cases death. You've only got to look at their track record so far on disability benefits, the bedroom tax, universal credit, etc. to see what's likely to happen.

On the whole, keeping them universal and raising additional revenue from the higher tax brackets to offset their provision, if required, seems a more sensible strategy.

A simple less bureaucratic solution would be to scrap all of these extra provisions and to have
a pension that was equal to a living wage subject to annual increases above the inflation rate

Some of these provisions are only granted in rare circumstances so scrapping them is viable such as for example this :
The winter fuel allowance is only given when there are 7 consecutive days with an average temp not above 0 degrees
The last cold winter we had was in 20I2 - I3 and since then they have all been relatively warm
It therefore makes zero sense to have such a thing as a winter fuel allowance in such a climate

I would however support the waiving of any bills that a pensioner could not pay due to a winter that was particularly cold
Utility companies could make their other customers pay the difference and old people would not be dying unnecessarily

I would however keep free bus passes for all pensioners regardless of wealth because in old
age the eye sight and motor skills required for driving will not be as good as they once were

surreptitious57 wrote:None of those things should be universal just because the recipients have reached a certain age

Why not?

surreptitious57 wrote:Pensioners should definitely not be subsidised when there is no financial reason for them to be

There is a financial reason for them to be: they're pensioners, as in, existing solely on the income of their pensions.

surreptitious57 wrote:Normally they are not targeted because they vote and so this is a refreshing approach

Sounds like the 'we are all very excited' approach to something horrible occurring.

Regardless, your sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Other people vote too, but they are targeted?

surreptitious57 wrote:More so given that those suggesting it are pensioners themselves or at least rather old

And exceedingly wealthy.

A pensioner is merely someone who has reached retirement age but not all of them exist solely on their pension

They are more likely to vote than the rest of the general population and is why politicians have to take notice of them
If they were as apathetic as non voters it would not matter what was done to them but they arent so therefore it does

surreptitious57 wrote:A pensioner is merely someone who has reached retirement age...

What does 'merely' mean there?

Of course a (n old age) pensioner is someone who has reached statutory retirement age - that's what the word means.

Being a pensioner also means they typically no longer have as significant an income as they did when they were part of the full-time workforce.

Being a pensioner can also mean an elderly person who is reaching the end of their life and experiencing all manner of age-related difficulties including frailty, isolation, and hampered mobility.

surreptitious57 wrote:... but not all of them exist solely on their pension

Not all of any group does anything, but that doesn't mean that a significant percentage of them doesn't. And who is it most likely to subsist solely on their pensions? Well, the poorest of them - i.e. the ones least likely to be able to pay for a licence, bus fares, and heating.

surreptitious57 wrote:They are more likely to vote than the rest of the general population and is why politicians have to take notice of them

That's a bizarre claim.

While an OAP may well be slightly more likely to vote than, for example, the youngest generations, all OAP's altogether constitute only 20% of the total electorate, so politicians taking notice of them at the expense of the remaining 80% would be electoral suicide.

surreptitious57 wrote:If they were as apathetic as non voters...

The non-voting OAP's are just as 'apathetic' as the non-voters in other age brackets.

surreptitious57 wrote:... it would not matter what was done to them but they arent so therefore it does

Just befuddling to see how befuddled you are.

Many pensioners may be cash poor but will own their own property which is also a part of their wealth
And many of them will carry on working after retirement age and not necessarily for financial reasons

living on property you own is not a factor of wealth, you still have to pay for maintenance, taxes and I don't know what else, which fully offsets not having to pay rent.

surreptitious57 wrote:Many pensioners may be cash poor but will own their own property...

And many wont.

So do we keep playing this weasel word game?

How are they leveraging their property to create income? Only, you don't say.

surreptitious57 wrote:And many of them will carry on working after retirement age and not necessarily for financial reasons

Apparently, we will: and many won't.

Matt_B wrote:As with much Tory policy there's indeed a good idea in here, in that lots of pensioners are very rich and don't really require these benefits to maintain a decent standard of living.

More pensioners are very poor and, whether it could be argued they don't need TV licences, bus fares, or fuel rebates to maintain a decent standard of living or not, they won't be able to enjoy these things in the absence of subsidies.

Matt_B wrote:On the whole, keeping them universal and raising additional revenue from the higher tax brackets to offset their provision, if required, seems a more sensible strategy.

Just one antithetical to modern Conservatism.

surreptitious57 wrote:
Some of these provisions are only granted in rare circumstances so scrapping them is viable such as for example this :
The winter fuel allowance is only given when there are 7 consecutive days with an average temp not above 0 degrees
The last cold winter we had was in 20I2 - I3 and since then they have all been relatively warm
It therefore makes zero sense to have such a thing as a winter fuel allowance in such a climate

Just boggles the mind.

It's already practically laughable.

0 degrees centigrade is fatal exposure temperature. For elderly people with poor circulation, even much higher temperatures can be extremely dangerous.

When temperatures here in Thailand dropped to 16 degrees a few years back (a temperature barely heard of) dozens of people died, mostly the elderly.

Quick clarification here as I was being interrogated by a 6 year old while writing it and forgot to contextualise my point.

Spearthrower wrote:
While an OAP may well be slightly more likely to vote than, for example, the youngest generations, all OAP's altogether constitute only 20% of the total electorate, so politicians taking notice of them at the expense of the remaining 80% would be electoral suicide.

I meant: using your utilitarian logic.

Svartalf wrote:living on property you own is not a factor of wealth, you still have to pay for maintenance, taxes and I don't know what else, which fully offsets not having to pay rent.

And still doesn't explain how they do other things, like eat and pay for utilities.

Spearthrower wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Some of these provisions are only granted in rare circumstances so scrapping them is viable such as for example this :
The winter fuel allowance is only given when there are 7 consecutive days with an average temp not above 0 degrees
The last cold winter we had was in 20I2 - I3 and since then they have all been relatively warm
It therefore makes zero sense to have such a thing as a winter fuel allowance in such a climate

Just boggles the mind.

It's already practically laughable.

0 degrees centigrade is fatal exposure temperature. For elderly people with poor circulation, even much higher temperatures can be extremely dangerous.

When temperatures here in Thailand dropped to 16 degrees a few years back (a temperature barely heard of) dozens of people died, mostly the elderly.

I should fill you in that during your absence, it emerged that surr doesn’t use the heating, as he said he has become psychologically resistant to the cold. There seems to be a resistance also to understanding that it’s just a fact that some of the temperatures he sits through will lead to hypothermia quite often, but because he sits through them, it doesn’t get ‘cold’ here and people don’t need help with their heating. The NHS advises people to keep their homes at at least 18 C, especially if you’re elderly or sedentary. The winters we have here are NOT mild, and each year people die.

I wasnt actually thinking of myself even though it is true I dont have the heat on anymore

I think on reflection given what has been said that the criteria for winter fuel allowance is actually too low
I now think it should go to any pensioner who cannot afford their electricity - regardless of the temperature
No old person in this country or anywhere for that matter should be dying because they cannot pay their bill

surreptitious57 wrote:None of those things should be universal just because the recipients have reached a certain age
Pensioners should definitely not be subsidised when there is no financial reason for them to be

Normally they are not targeted because they vote and so this is a refreshing approach
More so given that those suggesting it are pensioners themselves or at least rather old

I tend to agree. The worry here seems to be that "tinkering", as the article puts it, with benefits could put more pensioners at risk. So I would think that when someone comes up with such a proposal, they have an alternative ensuring noone will be put at risk. It is not clear from the article whether there is one or not.

It would be interesting to see an analysis how many pensioners who get benefits don't need them and how much money would be saved if they would not get them.

The age requirement is just easy to implement and enforce. Universal here should be standard of living, regardless of age.

surreptitious57 wrote:No old person in this country or anywhere for that matter should be dying because they cannot pay their bill