The DWP's £10 Christmas "Bonus"

Sadly it would appear that most of the posters on here are fairly well off and don't appreciate the problems facing those a lot less well off and who are just above the pension credit limit and who therefore are entitled to nothing at all.

Galton

This magnanimous amount to the tune of 10 pounds is from the days of Maggie Thatcher. Ten quid in those days would buy you quite a lot but now you would struggle to buy a packet of soap powder. I still welcome it and will not say no. It would probably cost more to stop it for the majority of us nuisances called pensioners. The sooner we all die off and it is all left to the Generation Z lot the better. We have got one A card left to us and that is this, if and I mean if they all live to our age , they will all struggle and know how it feels. As for the entitled ones that think a new phone or hair extensions and false nails are the mainstay of life good luck to them.

such bile needlessly aimed at young people. I do despair of some on here

PoliticsNerd

argymargy

Winter fuel allowance has not been axed.

No, it hasn't. It is still being paid to those on Pension Credit.

To balance that those receiving Pension Credit - those rcognised as the poorest retirees - lost around £1,000 Cost of Living payment they had been getting annually for the last couple of years.

It's not difficult to apply for NHS dental charges. You need to apply for an HC2 which also covers opticians, wigs, hospital transport costs and prescriptions. The first time you apply you have to fill in an HC1 which you can download and print out. Subsequent renewals are much easier as they can be done online.

The problem isn't getting your NHS dental charges covered, it's finding an NHS dentist.

Sorry above message covers the wrong quote. It isn't about Politic Nerd's post.

It was replying to a post about NHS dental costs.

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. A private employer who gives staff such benefits would be obliged to factor this into the costings for the service/goods supplied which might impact their profitability. Because they have enjoyed these generous benefits for years and years isn't in itself justification for their continuation. When we are told that certain payments must now be restricted for the good of the country I see no reason why MPs' allowances shouldn't come under scrutiny for reassessment downwards. They do not need to travel first class, they do not need fancy menus and alcohol subsidised by the taxpayer, taxpayers including nurses who are forced to use food banks. They should look to the Swedish model, their MPs don't enjoy anything like our MPs and somehow they manage. Isn't Sweden often held up as a shining example of great public services etc?

homefarm

Sadly it would appear that most of the posters on here are fairly well off and don't appreciate the problems facing those a lot less well off and who are just above the pension credit limit and who therefore are entitled to nothing at all.

I might be wrong, but I can't remember through all these months, anyone who has said cuts in WFA should go ahead at the levels they are,

rather,

people saying that it can't remain a universal benefit but the cut off level to receive it is currently too low.

Isn't it always, with every benefit?

As for expenses, it's not as if labour have awarded themselves, out of the blue, is it?

They've always been there, and have always been questioned.

May13 I don't think Rachael Reeves has a good thought in her so long as she is alright. No talk of WASPI in Keir's latest 6 plans forward announced today.

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

Was it more, before labour came along?

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.

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

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

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

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.

crossed posts again MissA

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

^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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's £4 a week.