IS IT TIME TO LIMIT THE STATE PENSION TO THOSE WHO ACTUALLY NEED IT?

Have your say on these MetroTalk topics and more in the comments.

What pension cuts should look like

Labour chancellor Rachel Reeves is right that we need to tackle the enormous cost of pensioners’ social security by cutting the winter fuel allowance for those not receiving pension credit.

It’s basically common knowledge that the only reason previous leaders have avoided the issue is they’re scared of the backlash from the powerful ‘grey vote’.

It’s also common knowledge that, on the whole, pensioners are considerably more well-off than people under 40.

The key phrase there is ‘on the whole’. Many are more than wealthy enough to go without the state benefits they get thanks to their age.

Many others are seriously struggling to get by on basically the same level of support from the government, with a bit extra for the particularly needy.

So instead of cutting a benefit that some pensioners do need, why doesn’t the government simply stop paying the state pension to the richer people who don’t?

That way they can cut much more money more easily without leaving any retirees unable to pay their bills.

The government is willing to take the political hit of cutting spending on the elderly, so why not do it properly? Sharon, Manchester

METRO TALK - HAVE YOUR SAY

Let us know what you think...

Start a text with VIEWS followed by your comment, name and where you live to 65700. Standard network charge applies. Or email [email protected] Helpline for Views, Rush-Hour Crush and Good Deed Feed: 020 3615 0600.

Remember, you are more likely to be published if you provide your name and location with your

Full T&Cs here. Metro.co.uk is a member of the Independent Press Standards Organisation. Comments may be edited for reasons of legality, clarity or space.

Taking responsibilty

Neil (MetroTalk, Thu) asks ‘when will old people stop going on about how hard they worked’, saying students are nowadays forced into debt, unable to get on the housing ladder and will be forced to work into their 80s.

When I left school in the 1960s, the school leaving age was 15, so many began their working lives then and continued working until 60 or 65.

Boys would be offered apprenticeships and girls had jobs as typists or nurses. It was unacceptable to be out of work.

We married in our 20s as cohabitation or ‘living in sin’ was frowned upon. Women often left work to bring up their children.

Discipline was strict both at home and at school with the threat of the cane if you misbehaved either at school or at home.

At one point in the 1970s, the interest rate was as high as 17 per cent.

True, things are inevitably different today. I disagree with the school leaving age of 18 forcing students to study for longer rather than experiencing real life, earning a living and helping the economy.

At 17, I knew that a third of my salary would go in income tax and National Insurance, which really was an insurance in case you lost your job. I hope Neil can understand why us ‘old people’ look back at how we managed without expecting someone else to take responsibility. Pam, Gillingham

The government says that it will save £1.3billion by limiting winter fuel allowance. The UK has pledged £12.7billion to Ukraine for a war that is nothing to do with us and which will only end one way – Russia is 27 times bigger and has three times the population of Ukraine. Let’s put our country’s needs first. Owen, London

Tenants can go rogue too

Robert welcomes proposed legislation aimed at ‘rogue’ landlords (MetroTalk, Fri).

The other side of the coin is bad tenants, who can be a nightmare for landlords if they leave the property trashed or refuse to pay the rent, but can also be a nightmare for neighbours. I lived next door to one who threatened me with violence on several occasions. With the support of the police, he stopped but when I complained to the landlord – who had some seven other properties – he called him a ‘good tenant’.

Perhaps this was because he regularly got his rent as the tenant was on benefits.

What I would like to see is a legal clause that holds landlords responsible for their tenants’ behaviour. In most, if not all, tenancy agreements, it states that ‘antisocial behaviour will not be tolerated’.

In my case, the tenant’s behaviour was  a gross violation of this but the landlord refused to do anything. Victor Parks, Brighton

So, how near is that big bang?