"I don't want pensioners to be impoverished. I want pensioners to have a
standard of living that reflects the fact they have worked hard and
saved hard all their lives."
Said our illustrious, and now we must all acknowledge, mega-tough Chancellor, on the Andrew Marr programme today; immediately seeking to make some suitably reassuring noises given that he had indeed just said that the commitment on pensioner benefits applied only to this parliament, and, without making any commitment to
funding pensioner benefits beyond the 2015 election, acknowledged that
"we have got to look at how we can afford them .... all those pensioner benefits - not the basic state pension - all those
other pensioner benefits, of course we have got to look at how we can
afford them".
The other oft repeated soundbite is of course "hard working, hard pressed families" and no doubt the Comprehensive Spending Review announcement will be littered with reassurances and explanations that, whatever is being proposed; whatever is being cut, it is all being done in the interest of "hard working, hard pressed families", who, we should surely assume in addition to working hard are saving hard too. Or might be, were "saving" in just about all its forms being pretty hard for a lot of people and additionally hardly "rewarding" at the moment.
Big question, can one be a member of both groups at the same time? Can pensioners continue to be "hard working"? If someone reaches pension age without ever having been "hard working" - perhaps because of some physical condition or illness, or simply because they inherited a bucket load of dosh and never had to worry about working - do they still deserve the same reasonable, protected standard of living too? Just asking ...
Meh
3 hours ago
5 comments:
Clearly, there will be plenty of pensioners who did not work hard all their lives, they were unemployed, or they were lucky and found a job where they didn't need to work hard, they inherited wealth, retired early, went into BTL and so on.
The government knows perfectly well who did or didn't work hard from their NI records.
And clearly, most pensioners didn't save hard all their lives either, or else they'd have a load of savings.
Any pensioner couple who doesn't have at least £250,000 in savings didn't save hard, so they are easy to identify as well.
Finally, if all pensioners had worked hard and saved hard, there would be no need for state old age pensions at all, because they'd be able to look after themselves.
So, what's the difference between the Hardworking Hardsaving Pensioner and the Rich Pensioner who Doesn't Deserve Universal Benefits? Is a Poor Widow in a Mansion a HHP and if so, why is she poor? If not, why does she deserve our sympathy? In fact can a woman be an HHP? Why wasn't she at home looking after the children?
Lets be clear: "hardworking, hard pressed families" is a dog-whistle code for the Homeownerists' constituents: families where man, woman and child work all hours to pay an inflated mortgage (or associated rent). When you hear talk of "the hard-pressed underpaid worker" you will either be a) watching a historical drama or b)coming out of the present political nightmare.
BTW My PC does not recognise Homeownerist as a real word.After all the mileage its got!
"Finally, if all pensioners had worked hard and saved hard, there would be no need for state old age pensions at all, because they'd be able to look after themselves."
So, in reality, Boy George can do what he likes about the state pension and pensioner benefits, the hardworking hardsaving pensioners will still be OK, because they didn't need it in the first place. Of course, what he is trying to obscure with this piece of disingenuity, is that he is currently shafting the HHPs, not by taking away their miserable benefits, but by keeping interest rates close to zero.
DBC, agreed.
B, also agreed.
If Georgon Osbrown allowed interest rates to rise to inflation + 2%, then that would be a net transfer to genuinely hard saving pensioners of about £20 or £30 billion a year.
Post a Comment