Winter fuel allowance result

Am I on the old or new pension. Born in Feb 50 could have retired at 60 in 2010 but did not claim until 2020 when I was 70? I of cause do not receive the full pension as I did not work enough years in the UK so it is difficult to work out

Rekarie

*It will cost, though, obviously*.

Who will it cost though? In my example there is very little cost to the taxpayer. She and her now deceased husband worked all their lives. It's not her fault that her house is now worth over a million.

I totally agree that not all pensioners need the WFA. It makes sense to means test. However I believe that it might have been better to have given warning and implement it next year.

But that's not what I was talking about. I got annoyed with this presenter insisting people with horses should move. It's unfair and unreasonable in my opinion.

Wasn't it a Conservative MP who said a similar thing? Old people rattling around in their family homes should move out.

I just find it sad

It’s IS sad, but it’s also a fact that having older single people in larger properties, whether social housing or owned outright, are preventing others younger than themselves from finding suitable housing.

I also agree then WFA should be means tested. I think using HMRC to monitor income s a great idea and £25,000 per person seems a very fair amount to use.

BevSec

Beckett,
I agree its the hypocrisy and no Labour supporters have posted anything to justify MPs keeping their allowance while removing it from pensioners!

Actually, I've said several times that MP's should "take a hit" too. It cant be done in the HoC as a bill as pay and expenses are made by the completely Independent IPSA but could be done voluntarily.

That's the million dollar question, isn't it?
Who will pay?
People who are themselves just above the threshold to get any help, such as families in privately rented accommodation?

Is that fair?

People with horses should definitely move out!

Good old predictive text . I obviously meant houses!

It will cost, though, obviously.

Who will it cost though? In my example there is very little cost to the taxpayer. She and her now deceased husband worked all their lives. It's not her fault that her house is now worth over a million.

I totally agree that not all pensioners need the WFA. It makes sense to means test. However I believe that it might have been better to have given warning and implement it next year.

But that's not what I was talking about. I got annoyed with this presenter insisting people with horses should move. It's unfair and unreasonable in my opinion.

Wasn't it a Conservative MP who said a similar thing? Old people rattling around in their family homes should move out.

I just find it sad

Eloethan

I think Starmer has an enormously difficult job on his hands. Whatever he does will enrage somebody. It was pretty obvious that, given the total mess that the previous government has made of everything over the last 14 years, difficult decisions would need to be taken to try and restore this country to some sort of normality.

We, and all of the people we know, say that they did not need the winter fuel allowance. Some of them gave a part of it, or all of it, to charity. There are probably a fair number of pensioners who felt somewhat uncomfortable about receiving extra money that they didn't really need.

I do think it is wrong that money was being paid to people who were very well off. But the pension credit criteria for money being awarded is a very blunt instrument. However, I suppose any other form of means testing would be a bureaucratic nightmare - time-consuming and expensive.

Maybe if the scheme could have been altered so that pensioners were given the option to decline the payment, some of the money would have been saved. Though I suppose there are always people who, however well off they are, won't turn down some free money.

I think people who own properties that are much larger than they require at least have the option to downsize and release some capital The increasing number of people - particularly younger people - who cannot afford to buy a home, have no such option. Many young families are paying exorbitant rents, which they may have to pay in perpetuity.

It wouldn’t be a bureaucratic nightmare, they already apply this for the two child cap which you don’t get the allowance if your salaries are at a certain level.They know everything about us, it’s all on computers.They just had to consider what a reasonable income to not need the WFA would be and apply that rule, say anything over £25,000 annually or whatever figure they want.It could be done, but they’ve gone for the easiest option which sucks in those not far over the pension credit limit as well.I was heartened to hear a few Labour MP’s speaking out against it in Parliament yesterday.

It should just have been taxed.
Universal benefits are the sign of a collaborative society,we all put in and we all benefit.

Nobody ever posted anything to justify mps explaining how it was possible for lazy sods to feed their families for 30p a day.
Lots agreed with it.

Does this have to go to the House of Lords for a final vote?

Beckett,
I agree its the hypocrisy and no Labour supporters have posted anything to justify MPs keeping their allowance while removing it from pensioners!

They don't need to be forcibly removed; they can stay, of course.
Bearing in mind of course, that most pensioners aren't the octogenarian who can barely see, hear, or walk.

Gransnet members become most offended should anyone dare to think they are in any way hampered or less able then the rest of society.
Anyone can stay wherever suits them, for whatever reasons.
M

It will cost, though, obviously.

Many pensioners who received the fuel allowance did not need it. One acquaintance told me she had spent it on a Radley handbag! I understand that there will be a large group who will suffer hardship from its withdrawal and this needs to be address, but the ‘across the board’ payments were a waste of public money.

It is the hypocrisy that I can't stand, - MPs on £91,000 plus expenses p.a. claim they need the "energy" allowance yet at the same time state that someone with an income of £12,000 doesn't!

MissAdventure

People can't expect to live in homes that are far bigger than they need, then expect to be subsidised, though.

Whether they are families, single people, or those on benefits.

It's fine to want to to stay where you have lived, but obviously if it is big, it will cost you more.

I disagree with this, they are not being subsidised, they get the same wfa as someone living in a flat.
Why should they move, especially if they have family support, good transport links and are near to Doctors and hospitals.

MissAdventure

People can't expect to live in homes that are far bigger than they need, then expect to be subsidised, though.

Whether they are families, single people, or those on benefits.

It's fine to want to to stay where you have lived, but obviously if it is big, it will cost you more.

Ah yes. Naughty octogenarians who can hardly walk, hear, see.

How dare they want to stay in their home that has had a price rise since they bought it.

Let's get councils to forcibly remove them. That will do it. Might just finish them off so it's a win win.

I can't understand how anyone can think that's OK.

And has given the Tories an opportunity to shed crocodile tears.

If all the Labour MPs who abstained had voted against I doubt they would have lost the Whip but they don't seem to have coordinated their efforts. I doubt Starmer wants a block of some 60 independents ready to vote against the government on future occasions. Overall, it's a real blunder.

The winter fuel payment was in desperate need of updating in my opinion. Many many pensioners, including within my own family - and me in 3 years’ time when I get my state pension - do not need this money.
What I do think they need to address is how the payments are targeted and there seem to be many alternative ways of doing it. Whether it can be through tax returns and tapered or by council tax bands I don’t know, although I have a millionaire relative living in a retirement flat in a council tax band A, so also not appropriate.

People can't expect to live in homes that are far bigger than they need, then expect to be subsidised, though.

Whether they are families, single people, or those on benefits.

It's fine to want to to stay where you have lived, but obviously if it is big, it will cost you more.

This is devolved to Scotland, so the Scottish Government chooses to keep it or not.
Their choice if they decide to follow the Westminster ruling.
What are they going to spend the saved money on?

Going back to the idea of downsizing. If I was on my own I would happily move to a sheltered accommodation flat - except the service charges are very high and almost like rent every month. Also selling and moving is such an ordeal. I keep wanting OH to agree to move to a bungalow now, as I wouldn't want to have to deal with all that on my own if anything happened to him, but bungalows are expensive and not many come up in our area.

bikergran I think it means they did not vote - either they deliberately abstained or were elsewhere at the time of the vote. Some would have had pre-existing appointments anyway. But I read yesterday that it was surprising how many MPs found they had emergency appointments which prevented them from being in the House at the time of the vote. Not surprising really, there was a lot of bullying of Labour MPs who were unhappy about this policy but afraid to vote against it.

It didn't seem to upload my image so here is the link to the House of Lords business for today.

It's the 8th item on the list

whatson.parliament.uk/events/lords/today

Here is the House of Lords listing for today's motion to annul the Government's decision. I did Baroness Altmann interviewed elsewhere though and she said it depended if enough people voted for it or if they might not want to with a new Government. I really hope the House of Lords does vote it through - just to show the Gov they can't just do things like this at short notice.