winter fuel payment and the government,

Oh, and she also gets free dentistry as she was always available to keep weekday appointments which those of us at work couldn’t do!

Sorry. I know I am not helping myself, but FFS!

Every damn time I see a pic of Robber Reeves in the papers she has a HUGE grin plastered on her chubby, well-fed face. And well she might - Queen of the I'm Alright Jacks with automatic access to expense claims for Council Tax, heating bills paid, travel expenses, etc, etc, whilst dreaming up further methods to give those least able to defend themselves yet another good kicking.
But what goes around comes around.......

Has Ms Reeves paid tax and NI all her working life, or has she opted out in favour of others paying for her?

If the former, hoe is she a ‘robber’?

Many women opted out of paying tax and NI for decades, but now moan and complain about others doing likewise.

They may have ‘chubby well/fed faces’ - in my experience many of them do and others don’t - but why is that important? We all belong to society. Why do some see it ok to opt out of paying in but others to have to do so? I just don’t understand.

Sorry, typos galore, but the gyst is clear, I think.

Sago

Much as despise our current government, shouldn’t we be looking at the energy companies and what they are charging?

Their profits have risen sharply since the so called energy crisis.

www.endfuelpoverty.org.uk/energy-giants-see-457-billion-profits-as-consumers-bills-rise/#:~:text=As%20of%20the%20end%20of,before%20the%20energy%20crisis%20started.

We’ve been had.

My energy company is E.ON and it seems that they are spending the extra profits on letters and phone calls trying to persuade me to switch to a smart meter.
I keep getting letters saying I haven't topped up my meter, then other letters giving me a statement of the top-ups I've made.
Until I can trust their efficiency, I'm refusing to have smart meters.

The simple way to have dealt with the problem of a blanket payment would have been to state that those on a higher tax rate wouldn’t get it. Those on standard tax would.

06PoliticsNerd
I have applied for WFP and been told I am entitled to it . But then I recieved a letter saying I don't qualify .
I applied again recently to be told yes you are entitled to it, I haven't heard anything since .
No savings and only my basic pension .

Nanato3

06PoliticsNerd
I have applied for WFP and been told I am entitled to it . But then I recieved a letter saying I don't qualify .
I applied again recently to be told yes you are entitled to it, I haven't heard anything since .
No savings and only my basic pension .

Have you applied for Pension Credit?

You could try a visit to Citizens' Advice.

DD
but please don’t pretend you are not sniping at the government at every opportunity, as it is blindingly obvious that you are
Another assumption on your part to support your views. Presumably you assume I supported BJ too.
You also imply that I don’t think children deserve to be fed. Oh dear.

So, it’s OK to remove payment from pensioners on the grounds that they may not need it, and OK to give handouts to parents who may not need it because you like the government.

I agree with those who think the WFP could have been better organised.
KS, having told Sunak that it was wrong, had time to think of a fairer way to organise it before going ahead and changing his mind about whether it was right or not, once he was in power.
What I don’t assume, is that all the supporters of free breakfasts and childcare whilst having them for all families whether they can afford them or not, would have been well received under the previous government, whether or not they had gone ahead with removing WPF.

How many LP or other party supporters in RL or on GN, can truthfully say they would have supported these actions unequivocally under the previous government?

Nanato3

06PoliticsNerd
I have applied for WFP and been told I am entitled to it . But then I recieved a letter saying I don't qualify .
I applied again recently to be told yes you are entitled to it, I haven't heard anything since .
No savings and only my basic pension .

Please also get in touch with your energy provider, some have grants to help those in your position. It’s difficult to be specific because you have to put in your personal circumstances to find out. But nothing ventured nothing gained, as they say.

So, it’s OK to remove payment from pensioners on the grounds that they may not need it, and OK to give handouts to parents who may not need it because you like the government.
No.

I’m a LP voter. Whilst I agree with the removal of ANY universal payments to all and sundry, I don’t agree with the way it was removed nor the speed nor do I agree with the criteria of receiving it now.

However, one good thing has come from this and that’s the amount of pensioners now claiming the pension credits they were always entitled to but didn’t claim.

Rather than just continuing to slate both the govt and its members I’m just going to wait and see what happens in the next 12 months.

I’m more concerned about the rise of Reform, Musks constant tweets about our govt., Trump taking up power formerly, various wars and our economy than constantly “Labour bashing”

I agree with your last paragraph absolutely, Cossy. I am very worried about those things too.

If you dislike universal benefits, however, how do you square the circle which penalises those who try to improve their standard of living - what some call ‘bettering themselves’? If you have little, so are on the cusp of relying on benefits, but have worked to get out of that situation, it can be really difficult to do, because as soon as you have a few pounds more than is deemed ‘necessary’ it is clawed back.

This might be the WFA, social care, pension credit or just getting a concessionary rate of entry to various things for being on benefits. It doesn’t affect those with money, as the sums involved can seem small; but to those involved the sums represent what they have worked for. How do you protect the right to improve your standard of living whilst also looking after those who can’t look after themselves?

Should have said I've applied for pension credit, not WFP

Doodledog

*So, it’s OK to remove payment from pensioners on the grounds that they may not need it, and OK to give handouts to parents who may not need it because you like the government.*
No.

Hurray!

Just a small note- breakfast clubs in my area are paid for by parents. Perhaps they are free in some places, but in my school ( former HT) and in the schools my GC attend, there is a charge. Parents do not have free food and childcare: the system is run at cost by each school.
I'm not clear how this relates to the WFP but I want to clear up the misconceptions which seem taken as fact.

Nanato3

I suffer with health conditions which means I have to keep warm otherwise I have severe problems.
My heating is on and staying on . I only recieve the 'old' state pension which is less than the New state pension
But I still don't qualify for the WFP. People who only work part time can claim working tax credits , child tax credits and get help to pay the mortgage plus the WFP on top of their wages . Something wrong somewhere

Nanato3 if you have significant health issues it might be worthwhile applying for attendance allowance. I think the lower rate is around £80 per week. From what I’ve read elsewhere Age.UK and Citizens Advice can be helpful in completing the application.

Absolutely, Chocolatelovinggran. School breakfasts are very much a dead cat, and I, for one, am not buying into further discussion of them if they are linked to WFP or any other emotional manipulation.

Doodledog

I agree with your last paragraph absolutely, Cossy. I am very worried about those things too.

If you dislike universal benefits, however, how do you square the circle which penalises those who try to improve their standard of living - what some call ‘bettering themselves’? If you have little, so are on the cusp of relying on benefits, but have worked to get out of that situation, it can be really difficult to do, because as soon as you have a few pounds more than is deemed ‘necessary’ it is clawed back.

This might be the WFA, social care, pension credit or just getting a concessionary rate of entry to various things for being on benefits. It doesn’t affect those with money, as the sums involved can seem small; but to those involved the sums represent what they have worked for. How do you protect the right to improve your standard of living whilst also looking after those who can’t look after themselves?

I should have perhaps clarified, I think many things are wrong, I totally support people being able to “better” themselves, but I think it’s awful that some rich organisation and huge corporations pay so little people became reliant on tax credits and then UC.

If we must use means testing then use our tax codes and only those earning and paying in the higher codes should be penalised.

I’m actually a fan of universal basic income, if it could be introduced and administered properly, and set at the right limit, I think that model could benefit all.

Nanato3

I suffer with health conditions which means I have to keep warm otherwise I have severe problems.
My heating is on and staying on . I only recieve the 'old' state pension which is less than the New state pension
But I still don't qualify for the WFP. People who only work part time can claim working tax credits , child tax credits and get help to pay the mortgage plus the WFP on top of their wages . Something wrong somewhere !

Just so you’re up to date, Universal Credit has taken over most out of work and in work benefits, so working tax and children tax credits are being phased out and replaced with less “generous” benefits.

In addition, help with mortgages, which was only help with interest anyhow, is now a repayable loan.

None of this addresses why in our working population people are not paid enough to sustain a reasonable lifestyle or why our state pension is one of the lowest in Europe.

Thanks for your reply.

I agree with much of what you say, but tax codes are arbitrary, and also represent cliff edges. If someone earns what is now only a bit above average and moves to the 40% tax bracket it is fair enough that they pay more on the proportion of their wages that exceeds the threshold. But to then deny them other allowances seems to me to push them towards a position where getting to the point of ‘just above average’ was counterproductive.

If you earn £100k rather than £50k (or whatever the tax threshold is now) you have incentive, but it is Mr and Mrs Average who are in the position of having aspirations removed every time, not the better off.

I don’t know what I think about universal income. I don’t like the principle of those who can afford to opt out of work getting a free ride through life, and I suspect that’s what would happen if it were introduced. It’s not just that non-workers don’t pay tax or NI that bothers me, but that they don’t produce anything or provide services to society.

Maybe AI will mean that this won’t matter so much in future though, in which case I would support it. I’m conflicted for now though.

Doodledog

Thanks for your reply.

I agree with much of what you say, but tax codes are arbitrary, and also represent cliff edges. If someone earns what is now only a bit above average and moves to the 40% tax bracket it is fair enough that they pay more on the proportion of their wages that exceeds the threshold. But to then deny them other allowances seems to me to push them towards a position where getting to the point of ‘just above average’ was counterproductive.

If you earn £100k rather than £50k (or whatever the tax threshold is now) you have incentive, but it is Mr and Mrs Average who are in the position of having aspirations removed every time, not the better off.

I don’t know what I think about universal income. I don’t like the principle of those who can afford to opt out of work getting a free ride through life, and I suspect that’s what would happen if it were introduced. It’s not just that non-workers don’t pay tax or NI that bothers me, but that they don’t produce anything or provide services to society.

Maybe AI will mean that this won’t matter so much in future though, in which case I would support it. I’m conflicted for now though.

Yes I get exactly what you mean on both tax codes and UBC, difficult conundrum indeed.

As an old-school socialist, I would rather have universalism than Thatcherite residual welfare. The former creates solidarity: everybody with a State Pension receives WFP; everybody with a child receives Child Benefit; everybody’s child can have a free school breakfast - whereas residual welfare causes division, as evidenced by the unfairness of what has happened over the withdrawal of universal WFP, ignoring those on the cliff-edge of Pension Credit. The cut-off is too low but wherever it is set, it will alway leave a body of people just missing out.

It was never compulsory to spend WFP on fuel. It was only ever supposed to be temporary help for two years - and was paid at a higher rate for those on what was then called Income Support. All state pensioners received £20 and those on Income Support received £50. It was supposed to encourage the poorest to claim Income Support in order to receive the higher amount but just as now, a whole generation of pensioners later, it didnt work very well - hence a flat rate payment for everyone from 1999. The higher rate for households where someone was age 80+ was introduced in 2003.

History here:

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06019/SN06019.pdf

Studies showed most recipients didn’t spend it on fuel. There was an argument for renaming it just Winter Payment but it was thought that if fuel was left in the title it would encourage people to spend more of it on fuel.

This from 2011:

An IFS press release on 8 June 2011 stated: Households receiving the Winter Fuel Payment spend 41% of it on fuel even though there is no obligation to do so. When the same households receive additional income which is not labelled in any way, they spend just 3% of it on fuel. To put it another way, simply increase the income of a pensioner household by £100 and they will increase their spending on fuel by £3. Label that increase a “Winter Fuel Payment” and £41 will go on fuel.

That’s a long time ago and energy prices have risen (but not the WFP). Back then I think more people paid for their energy as they used it, either by cheque or variable direct debit.

Nowadays, energy providers expect customers to spread their annual costs evenly over the year (or even make it mandatory) through fixed direct debits - a sensible thing even for those who baulk at paying for energy in advance so that customers build up a credit over the warmer months towards larger winter bills.

What did it matter what universal WFP was spent on? Whether it was spent on a Christmas tree and some baubles, Christmas cards and gifts, a meal out, a trip to see Nutcracker or a panto - it all put money into the economy and, moreover, put money back in the Exchequer at 20% tax as opposed to the 5% levied on fuel.

A few months ago I watched a discussion about the benefits of Government spending to promote well-being. Feeling part of society, feeling that everyone can enjoy the same small benefit after a lifetime of work seemed to me to be part of that ethos. Solidarity not division.

This change was never about the alleged “black hole”. There is no such thing. It’s just a phrase Labour latched onto long before they were elected and will now use it at every opportunity to excuse poor funding decisions.

True, the upside is that more people are now claiming PC but it must be said that more claims are failing that succeeding - plus the number of claims made so far is only about 15% of those 880,000 households said to be eligible but not claiming.

The cut off date for claiming Pension Credit in order to get the WFP for 2024 has now passed.

The last date to make a backdated claim for Pension Credit if you want to receive the Winter Fuel Payment, is 21 December 2024. However, you must have been entitled to Pension Credit during the ‘qualifying week’, which is from 16 September to 22 September 2024.

www.turn2us.org.uk/get-support/information-for-your-situation/winter-fuel-payment/how-do-i-claim-a-winter-fuel-payment#:~:text=For%20the%20winter%20of%202024/2025%2C%20claims%20must,from%2016%20September%20to%2022%20September%202024.

There is no shortage of Government money. There is £65 billion of excess funds sitting in the National Insurance Fund for no apparent reason - an excess that is growing year on year. That’s money that employers and workers pay in NIC which is used to pay State Pension and other contributory benefits. More is collected than paid out every year. For 2023, £15.6 billion more was collected than paid out, For 2024, £14 billion more was collected than paid out. These numbers are after the NHS allocation.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-insurance-fund-accounts/great-britain-national-insurance-fund-account-for-the-year-ended-31-march-2024

The minimum working balance required to be held for 2023 to 2024 was estimated at £21.8 billion, being 16.7% of estimated benefit expenditure, as stated in the report on the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order published by GAD in January 2024. HM Treasury Ministers made provision for a Treasury Grant for 2023 to 2024 of up to 5% estimated benefit payments, which can be requested if required. The balance of the Fund at 31 March 2024 was £86.4 billion and was above the estimated minimum requirement throughout the year. No Treasury Grant was therefore required in 2023 to 2024.

Why so much?

NIC in ring-fenced and can only fund the NHS and contributory benefits so I see no reason why so much money (net of NHS allocation) is sitting there and why the Government could not legislate to use the 65 billion elsewhere. (nor can I understand why Reeves felt it necessary to hike employers NIC unless the revenue raised is to increase the NHS allocation (which would be fair enough but that is not what she said in her Budget speech). The NIF is reviewed every five years and is due for review this year. I am looking forward to reading the findings and what they have to say about this massive excess.

As an old-school socialist, I would rather have universalism than Thatcherite residual welfare. The former creates solidarity: everybody with a State Pension receives WFP; everybody with a child receives Child Benefit; everybody’s child can have a free school breakfast - whereas residual welfare causes division, as evidenced by the unfairness of what has happened over the withdrawal of universal WFP, ignoring those on the cliff-edge of Pension Credit. The cut-off is too low but wherever it is set, it will alway leave a body of people just missing out.
Agreed. It’s the means-test that’s the problem. I never see means-testing as a solution and this is no exception.

I find the ‘bleating’ of people who can clearly afford to do without a boost of £200 (as evidenced by their posts about spending on other things) extremely offensive though. It is so obviously a dig at Keir Starmer and/or Rachel Reeves, as the same people moan about everything else the government does, and were conspicuously silent about the plight of the poor before money was being taken away from their own pockets.

That is not to ‘make excuses’ or ‘just because I voted Labour’ 🙄. It is because it looks so grasping and uncaring - the money could be better spent on those with not enough, but the moaners are too busy checking out the phones and nails of claimants to care about that.

I have lost a lot of faith in humanity since the GE. I am seriously considering a GN ‘detox’, as I think it is bad for my mental health.