Elderly 'hit' the hardest when it comes to States' policies
HOW unfair that whenever the States want to cut costs, the mature and elderly seem to be first on the hit list. Never mind that these are the very people who have paid the most into the system. Elderly residential care/benefit is to be restricted (in favour of so-called 'care in the community'), the over-75 free TV licence is to vanish, and OAP free prescriptions may also be abolished. And the pension age is gradually increasing from 65 to 70 eventually – God help those in manual labour jobs, struggling around the building site on their Zimmer frames.
Yet the States seem happy to fork out so that young parents can have free childcare, and now talk of fathers' maternity benefit.
Young adults are presumably the most able-bodied group of people, with the most earning potential – it's their own choice whether to have children, when, and how many. Mothers and young families already enjoy benefits both via their employers and state-funded – e.g. paid maternity leave, with many employers also offering flexible working hours, and free family medical cover – as well as States maternity grant and maternity allowance.
The younger population have also benefited from ultra-low interest rates for years now, making it easier to pay their mortgages/loans. Whereas pensioners will have paid a lot more in mortgage interest, and now any savings they managed to put by gets next to nothing in interest.
Society in general seems to disregard the mature and elderly – plenty of mother/child preferential parking at supermarkets etc, but not for OAPs. Same with charities – there are many good causes in the world, but it seems few of these charities assist the elderly. The majority seem to be for other disadvantaged groups.
Older people have paid plenty into the system for many years, and a lot of them take precious little out. What's more, their voice is seldom heard, in these days of high technology which most OAPs cannot access.
No offence to the young, but a more balanced approach needs to be taken – everyone should remember that they will be old one day.
NAME AND ADDRESS WITHHELD
Editor's footnote: Deputy Allister Langlois, Social Security Minister replies:
Thank you for the opportunity to reply to your reader's comments on the way older people are treated by the States. In our experience, older adults are given a voice and that voice is heard. There are increasing efforts to make plans and improve services for older people in our community.
The development of the extra care flats at La Nouvelle Maritaine and Le Grand Courtil, the Supported Living and Ageing Well Strategy and the proposal to introduce a Secondary Pensions Scheme are good examples of ongoing work aimed at improving the lives of older people. These are in addition to social policy initiatives, some of which relate to other age ranges and are also mentioned by your reader.
The long-term intention to review and potentially withdraw various universal benefits, available to all regardless of their financial circumstances, was set out in the Personal Tax, Pensions and Benefits Review, which was considered by the States in 2015.
This review was prompted by the need to ensure that government finances are sustainable. In the long term, projected changes to the make-up of our community include an increasing proportion of people who are of pensionable age and a decreasing proportion of people of working age.
Free TV licences will remain for over-75s who are receiving supplementary benefit. This is an example of the principle of targeting benefits to enable greater financial sustainability, at the same time as ensuring that the people most in need do not lose out. These are not policies made to put the elderly first in line for cost cuts, but rather to ensure fair and consistent support is available where it is most needed.
