Means Testing The Winter Fuel Payment For Oaps

Hmmm. I'd like to think I'm pretty attuned to political news and I wouldn't say I've seen many leaks. There's been a lot of guess work about what might in the budget (or rather, hysteria in some corners of the Telegraph or Money Mail sections). The only thing I think possibly qualifies as the government floating an idea was around the single person's discount for CT. Everything else has just been lobbyists spewing out reports, media releases and other attention-seeking proposals - which makes sense as a new government means new ears to listen to things the previous lot couldn't / wouldn't do. I know you're far more knowledgeable and switched on to the pensions/investment world than me. I'd suggest various lobbyists in that world have been making hay since it was obvious who was going to win the GE, rather than imagining the government is actively leaking to such a niche audience.

As for the last bit, I really don't know what people thought the government had left for revenue raising once they'd ruled out increasing any of the big beasts. People are stupid if they dreamt up something else. I think I've said before though if I was Starmer / Reeves this is the moment I'd go back on that promise, rather than fiddle at the edges.

 

I'd say so indirectly, as councils are also dependent on a central government grant (which the Tories also slashed). If they could start to raise local taxation by a bigger amount again, especially if it was linked to the key things that cost the most, they'd potentially demand less from the Treasury.

 

Ah yes, I see. Thanks.

 

Two tier Kier at it again:

 

Next level Kier Bear Stare.

 

You're both right.

I think the biggest mistake they have made is having the budget so long after the election and after they have promised money for overseas climate, additional support for Ukraine and everything else they have committed £78bn to. Especially when this comes on the back of a £22bn or £40bn black hole that they can't really explain.

If they had had the budget in the first month or first week back after summer and then made the spending pledges, it would all have been better received.

No one really cares about the means testing of the winter fuel allowance, as Deborah Meaden said she doesn't need it and would return it. But as someone pointed out, she would only get it if she draw her state pension, which she doesn't need that either.

The issue with the whole Winter Fuel Payment is how they did it. Simply by reducing it to £300 per household, not per person (11.6m people in 6.1m households) would have saved them pretty much the same amount of money. I think everyone would accept that it costs no more to heat a house for two as it does for a single person.

UEA has hit the nail on the head, ruling out the big three tax revenues left them in a corner. It was a naive thing to pledge, simply by saying the two lower brackets of tax or NI would have left them some space to increase tax at a higher level. It now looks like they are going to adopt the Tories policies of freezing thresholds to capture more tax on working people, without increasing levels.

If they want to create funds for investment, it has meant that they have to tax people with pensions or assets and that now looks like businesses as well. Its also unsustainable in the longer term. If they want to keep investing then they need to keep raising money to invest. The only way they can do that is by breaking their promise.

The longer into this 5 years they go the harder that becomes, as they aren't filling any historical black holes, but backtracking on the things they have done.

 

It was already effectively limited to £300 per household….a pensioner living with another pensioner only got £150…although it was also true that a pensioner living with someone who did not qualify for WFA still received £200 under the old calculation.

 

Anyone got any idea how we're supposed to believe this lady loses out on £200 WFA and says as a result she's had to "...take out a credit card, overdraft and a credit account to be able to pay for things this winter." This is despite the triple lock pushing the state pension up by around £20pw since last winter, though she likely wasn't a state pensioner last winter.

Is she just incredibly financially incapable? Should a relative be looking to get power of attorney for her? At the not very grand old age of 66 could she not get a little part time job to help pay the bills?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7gzx2dz23o

Seems like disingenuous nonsense from the Beeb.

 

According to this thread I must be a fat bloated liberal boomer. Strange really as I seemed to work hard all my life to provide for a family and have a decent standard of life. I opted out of the NI part that could be opted out (can't remember the correct term perhaps becauseI am a senile bloatee) because I worked for a small company that had no pension scheme so had to pay into my own. Cutting what costs I could I managed to buy my own house and although on paper it is worth stupid amounts (as are all houses) it is worth nothing to me while I live in it. I now have a (reduced) state pension and also a pension from the money I paid into a private pot. As a result I can live without going cold or hungry - and am grateful for that and appreciate the millions who are not so fortunate. I do not need, never asked for and never wanted a WFA.
This whole argument should be about people who struggle - not the likes of me but no need for abuse of people like me just because we are more fortunate.
The WFA was always stupid and if ever given should have been means tested from the start. I think it was originally a "one-off" but was difficult not to continue. The way to help people on or near to poverty is not by individual handouts but by having a robust and integrated benefit system which pays most to the poorest and is gradually reduced as someone's circumstances are better. The WFA goes into a bank account and is not tied to paying for energy. For those who need it it pays for food, clothing and many essentials to living which are ever present not just needed in a cold snap.

The proposal to drop it was hamfisted and showed a remarkable lack of understanding of those just above the poverty line. A better method would have been to simply let it remain but never increase it with inflation. Then remove it when you introduce a comprehensive new set of benefits that are genuinely targeted towards those who need them.

 

When skirting the line of self sufficiency any amount whether large or small can make a material difference. Likely she'd have been in trouble due to cost of living increases anyway, the removal of the WFA is not causing her issues but it certainly isn't helping.

 

Absolutely. A stupid idea clumsily implemented and withdrawn without thought. Labour could have just upped the tax threshold for pensioners by £300 instead and then done away with it. Simply removing it or making it means tested won't save much if any money and hit people that actually need it.

 

Exactly why the article is disingenuous in my view. It's impossible to lump all the blame solely on the WFA withdrawal. They could just have easily have focused on the fact we had the coldest night in 15 years earlier this month. Or that some people seem not to have made sufficient provision for their impending retirement.

 

It's all about the page impressions.

 

It was a political bungle... but only in the sense they had to announce it so early to get the in-year savings but then left the focus stuck on it by not holding a budget until 3 months later.

The WFA hasn't increased in a very long time anyway. It real terms it must be worth substantially less than it was 25+ years ago. And there are plenty of other benefits to fill the gap - including a big chunk of cash given to councils to hand out to vulnerable people and the big rise in the state pension.

 

As would appear to be the case with many (most/all?) State benefits, it's the precipice nature of the eligibility criteria that is most pernicious. Get, for argument's sake, £2300.00 per year and then the next find out that a pay rise pushes you £50 per year over the threshold and you receive....nothing.

 

It's why a ground up redo of the tax and benefits system is required. Too many credits allowances etc.

Just need to set a living wage, possibly varied by area and then tax on top of it. Limit un-needs tested benefits to that same threshold. Baying benefits then taxing them doesn't make sense. Nor does taxing someone then refunding because they're not paid enough. All highly inefficient and prone to abuse.

 

With global warming - how long before the undeserving over 67’s start to demand summer cooling payments?

 

Hopefully within a decade, perhaps sooner, an enlightened society somewhere will introduce some sort of universal basic income that will show the way.

 

Just set the minimum living wage to a sensible level and start taxation after that. If there's a universal basic income you reward people for doing nothing and penalise people who work hard.

 

That's ok because it will be offset against the winter fuel payment which will no longer be required.