The DWP's £10 Christmas "Bonus"

Due to the high price of fuel, pensioners, and indeed the entire population, were given ‘energy payments’ of £400 by Sunak’s government. Cost of living payments were also made to pensioners and households with low incomes. The pensioner payment in 23/24 was £300. This was all in addition to the WFA.
I know which government tried to look after pensioners and I know which government removed the energy payment for pensioners.
People have very short memories.

No, I wasn’t born yesterday either Casdon.

Mollygo

Do RTWP PoliticsNerd.

RTWP?

Google tells me it means Received Total Wideband Power, but whatever that is, it doesn't sound right in the context of the thread

We weren’t born yesterday petal53. Time for a fact check.
fullfact.org/economy/state-pension-labour-conservatives/

The Conservative/LibDem government introduced the triple lock in 2010. Labour did not try to protect pensions during the Blair years, and in fact in 1999, Gordon Brown induced anger from both pensioners and others, after his derisory 75 pence per week pension increase. People do indeed have short memories, but not all of us do. Labour have never supported pensioners, probably regarding us as Tory voting and as expensive and unproductive. The triple lock has protected pensions since 2010, but nonetheless it is clearly insufficient, bearing in mind that those on full time minimum wage earn approximately £20,000, and it will have gone up as a result of the budget. Pensioners definitely cannot survive on the state pension, either the new or the basic, and many having realised this have made some sort of other provision for their retirement. Luckily.

Do RTWP PoliticsNerd.

MissAdventure

It's £4 a week.

Yes, but to hear some talk it is the difference between starvation and plenty.

If people can be reduced to penury for the lack of £200 a year, that is a very good case for increasing pensions across the board. I know these cuts all add up, but it's a dreadful indictment of 14 years of Toryism that people are living so close to the bone.

Among the most generous

By comparison to what or who Mollygo?

It's £4 a week.

I agree that it's not fair, llizzie2. But what would be fair? Currently, we have a system which allows everyone to take out, whether or not they've paid in. Is that fair? Do we want to change it so that those who haven't paid in get nothing? Workhouses? Parish relief? I don't think many would want to see that - I certainly wouldn't - but any suggestion that we should all pay in (unless we are sick, disabled or looking after babies, the sick or the disabled) is met with horror.

The trouble is that sometimes those who don't pay in get more than those who do, particularly if those who've worked all their lives have saved for old age, and find that their savings bar them from the benefits they would have had if they'd spent their money as they went along. That disincentive is particularly unfair to those at the bottom of the pay scale, as the better off won't be eligible for benefits anyway, and saving the same percentage of a high salary as someone on a low one will have a much greater yield. I know it irritates people when I say it, but means-testing keeps people 'in their place' (ie poor), and it's easy to overlook this when you're comfortably off, and aren't at risk of losing money because you've worked overtime or been promoted.

So what do we do about that? If the WFA goes to those who haven't paid in and not to those who have, is that 'fair'? Or should we watch those who didn't work and contribute go cold and hungry when it's too late for them to start?

Is giving those who have paid in nothing the same as those who paid for decades fair? And yes, I know that there is no 'pot'; but neither is there any denying that most people pay a significant percentage of their income in various taxes, often for up to 50 years, on the understanding that they will be able to retire and get a pension.

There is providing for everyone and being 'fair', and they are not always the same thing.

I don't know the answers, really. In an ideal world, everyone should get a basic pension so nobody is cold or hungry in older age, those who paid taxes for long enough should get an additional payment on top in recognition of their contribution, and having paid for an occupational pension should not disadvantage people when it comes to handouts. I don't know who would pay for that though.

Rosie51

On the question of MP expenses and allowances, they are amongst the most generous and it should always be remembered they come from the public purse.
So really, it would seem reasonable, that when the public purse is shrinking, because of rising taxes etc, so should the MP’s expenses.

Doodledog

‘The majority’ of pensioners are not on pension credit.

The WFP has been means-tested - something that, when it applies to other benefits (eg child benefit and universal credit) doesn’t raise an eyebrow as a rule. We’ve had threads saying that even birthday presents to benefit claimants should be declared as income and deductions to benefits made accordingly, not to mention the outrage when claimants have ‘the latest phone’ or a flat screen tv.

I am no fan of means-testing, but where is the consistency? We also get countless threads about how people should be grateful for everything they get, specially Christmas presents, so again, the consistency is missing.

I get neither WFP nor the Christmas bonus, as I am still waiting for my state pension, but wouldn’t be doffing my cap or curtsying in any case - you go ahead if you think it necessary though. How will the logistics work? Do you have to go to the HofC to doff and curtsey, or can you do it from home via Zoom or FaceTime?

The WFP was not taxed. It meant that pensioners just below the 12K+ would not be taxed on it.

I am horrified that pensioners readily admit to giving it to charity, and the £10 because they don't need it. It isn't just the pensioners either. The disabled won't receive the help unless they are also on means tested benefits.

We should have had notice, so we could budget for it. If it was announced for next year it could have been debated in Parliament. I am old and disabled since I was 46. Last year I qualified for £600 with the cold weather payment. It saved my life because I had no central heating or hot water from Christmas last year to June of this year. I survived on small heaters which are expensive to run and a kettle.

The Chancellor kept saying that pensions had risen so we didn't need the extra. She was talking about the new state pension. Many of us who lived through the war only get £169 a week. Added to that are a few extras, like opting out or delaying receiving it. I get £806.24 a month. According to the Chancellor, we can manage on an income of £218 a week.

Those receiving the pension credit top up to £218 a week plus other benefits. In many cases, pensioners can claim benefits which, added to the state pension, could give them an income over the £12K+, yet unlike pensioners on the same income, they do not pay tax.

It is so unfair. The Chancellor has access to higher income tax payers, (I think is about 40%) and could have removed those from the WFP and given it to those on £221 a week. Why didn't she? Those pensioners are just £3 shy of the means tested benefit. Is that fair?

I get a widow pension from my late husband's employer which brings me over the means tested credit. It doesn't mean I am living the high life, just that I am better off than many other pensioners, who didn't have a pension pot and didn't save for retirement - and pay no income tax.

You don't have to be well off to want a fair system homefarm. However, to make a judgement about what is fair we need to have an opinion based on facts, an honest attempt to draw a reasonable conclusion from factual evidence.

Very difficult to stop the £10 bonus as set in an Act of Parliament. Woukd take years of time and effort to abolish. Bet Rachel is fuming at that.

Rosie51 my grandmother said at the time it was 4 weeks housekeeping money - she was thrilled

^lots of other benefits which will work out more than the full state pension.^(sazz1)

Firstly, the additional benefits are also available to those who are above Pension Credit who may at least get a proportional award.

The automatic application of the awards with Pension Credit just tells us the claimant may well have been eligible for some time. Some are already receiving these before claiming Pension Credit.

Secondly, the relationship of Basic State Pension (BSP) to Pension Credit seems to show a misunderstanding of means-testing. Simply getting Pension Credit would take you above the Basic State Pension. No one is expected to live on BSP alone. Pensioners are expected to use any other income they may have and savings above a certain level.

I go back to the fact that this is an insurance benefit not something you have saved and invested in. People paying for insurance do not all receive the same insurance benefits. They receive the one where they can show the reach the criteria for that benefit.

Certainly better than a poke in the eye with a blunt stick!

crossed posts again MissA

MissAdventure

I thought so.
Even in 1972 it wasn't much, was it, £10?

My follow up post tells you it was more than you might imagine. I've just checked the Hargreaves Lansdown rpi inflation calculator and £10 in November 1972 would now be £176 today! More than I thought and enough for a good Christmas dinner and other treats.

Oh, so it was actually a reasonable bonus, back in the day.
Worth having. Thank you for answering.

I thought so.
Even in 1972 it wasn't much, was it, £10?

It would need to be about £120-£130 today to have the same buying power.

MissAdventure

Was it more, before labour came along?

It's been £10 since it was introduced in 1972, initially as a one off gesture. In the intervening 50+ years, through successive governments of various hues it has remained unchanged.

Was it more, before labour came along?

Wow!!! What a treat. Bloody insulting - giving the little people £10 -£8 after tax. Especially after removing WFA.