Peers wanting to remove pensioners' benefits

Means testing is not always taken up by people who need financial assistance. They may have problems filling in complex forms, or they may be too embarrassed to apply for additional benefits.

Whilst I appreciate the winter fuel allowance, we could manage without it - but it is a lifeline to others.

I would be extremely upset if we lost our travel passes. Again, we would manage without it but I feel sure we would be much less likely to make so many journeys. For people who have to be careful about what they spend, I feel quite sure that they would forfeit all but the most essential journeys. It is healthier to walk, of course, but if some distance has to be covered, the weather is awful or you do not have the same degree of energy or mobility as when younger, longer journeys require public transport or a car. If people become isolated in their homes their physical and mental health will deteriorate - and that has a cost also.

Additionally, people who can afford cars and, and the fuel to power them, will use them more frequently - to some degree cancelling out the ongoing efforts to cut down on pollution. That too has health and cost implications.

As others have said, not all pensioners are living comfortably. There was a report in The I today about the increasing numbers of pensioners who are renting privately (and this is predicted to increase significantly in the coming years). Most of them are paying at least 30% of their income on rent (and some as much as 60%) and have the same issues of insecure tenancies as younger people.

I find it extremely annoying that peers - many of whom come from very comfortable backgrounds and who are also the beneficiaries of the most generous allowances and additional perks - see fit to put forward these divisive proposals.

I do think that young people have a very rough deal but I feel more effort should be made to ensure that corporations and rich individuals pay their fair share of taxes. In my view, instead of cutting inheritance taxes they should have been raised and all "loopholes" to avoid them closed. Too much money is also being wasted on inefficient, and sometimes corrupt, private providers of public services.

I feel there is an attempt to pit one generation against the other in order to detract from the massive damage this government's austerity programme has done to the longterm prospects of this country and its inhabitants.

Kitty did you know that the wfp was originally given instead of a rise in the state pension? I did mention this some pages back. If it were added to the current pension it would save all this debate year on year and those who are in a position to would pay tax on it.

The disadvantage of a basic income is that if it were even a little more than the basic pension there would be many people who would choose not to save for a private pension. I know there are some who have never been able to do so but I'm thinking of the person I know who cashed in their pension at 55 in order to get maximum from the state when they retired.

Not sure about taking the extras from anyone paying tax but that may be because it is quite a while since we were really hard up. Is it possible to run a house, pay all the bills, eat and replace worn out household items on £12,500 a year? What is the average rent, council tax etc? I believe the average household fuel bill is about £1300 but maybe higher for someone housebound.

Not so BOB, well, they could say it but once tried I think people would begin to see the plusses. I think it would help those with a tiny bit above the benefit level not to feel they have struggled for nothing. Often these feelings are not entirely the truth but it doesn't stop people feeling them.

People with additional income would be paying more tax as there would be no personal tax allowance - and it would be graduated in a way that meant they lost more and more of the initial amount until the top 20% lost it all - and still paid the tax they do now. You would get rid of many of the small and costly benefits and people would be less stressed. Living on benefits can be extremely stressful. Less stressed people tend to be better able to take care of themselves and contribute to the community. It almost seems as if some people feel that anyone receiving a benefit must be punished for needing it.

£1,000 a month is not huge but would be very welcome to those living on a basic pension at the moment. You would have to pay for some things that come as extras at the moment but it would be your choice. It would mean some additional disposable income, people more able to manage the upkeep of their homes and spending more in the community. It would certainly help the economy.

Gracesgran, I completly agree, pay a decent pension and do away with add on but you would have the same problem people saying those with a second pension, however, small don't need such a high pension. I would love to have a pension of £1000 every month

Martha the suggestions that the TPA gave to,the committee were rejected. It’s clearly stated in the report

Maggiemaybe, well said.
My eldest brother who is 85 is really upset by the report, he participated in the consultation and cannot identify any of the views expressed by grassroots forums. He is particularly incensed by the infactual views from high earners and the likes of Taxpayers Alliance and other RW wing organisations.
The real benefits to the nation of so called benefit perks that help to keep pensioners active have in the main been ignored. Pension poverty is also almost ignored, instead the report continues to build a intergenerational divide, which is appalling.
How can so many high earners sit round a table and
produce such an important report without offering any real potential solutions to tackling key issues, such as adequate Care funding, loneliness and social isolation, pension poverty?
In addition, the need for adequate funding to meet the prevention support costs to help reduce the much higher costs on the NHS and Councils?
I wonder how much the Members of the Lords each claimed for their involvement in producing such a one-sided inaccurate report? They have come up with very few acceptable solutions, that are progressively feasible without causing more problems in late life for those living longer.

I also age3 with the older people funding the local economies as said above. Our town centre is peopled by pensioners mainly a few mums with prams and the usual drunks and junkied each day. Take way the buse passes and many more shops will close

I wholehartedly agee with the issue of bus passes. Many older people in poor health use cars to get to appointments. If they have their bus pass it would keep people from using their cars if they have an illness and maybe a danger on the road.
The issue of tv licences annoys me. Im coming up to 65 and it does not affect me yet but i see a lot of older folk who have family living in who are watching free tv. It should be means tested and if their are workers or younger people in the house then they should pay. I agree that for those living alone the tv will be their only company.
I also agree that money needs to be spent on young people who cant get jobs or housing. Its a complicated issue

I’m really with you on this kitty. A system could be introduced if there was a political will. As a well,off pensioner, I absolutely know from evidence and experience that some pensioners are hard up. I get rather tired of those posters who refuse to believe that there are many very comfortable pensioners who should not be receiving WFA, BP and free TV.

I understand where you are coming from Barmyoldbat. Earlier in the thread M0nica and I were having a discussion about how the pensions could/might be means tested. A step further forward from this could be old age Basic Income. Most countries are looking at a form of Basic Income and some have been trialed. It seems to me that Pensions are a good place to start. There are worries people have about this sort of system but fewer should arise with people who have reached state pension age.

I think the best way to explain would be to use an example. Say the level was decided to be £11,500. Each and every person on reaching a certain age, would get exact amount. Nothing more, nothing less.

They would not get a personal tax allowance or (obviously) any pension benefits that this level of income would exclude. They would not get the "add-ons" we have now. All income would be taxed but probably on a more gradual system at the lower end than we have now. The tax system would tax from zero and be incremental ensuring that, say, the top 20% of earners over this age would loose the whole of this amount in addition to their normal taxation.

The payment would be regular, weekly or four weekly as it is now, into the individuals account. It would be paid on an individual basis not a household one. There would be no means test: it would be unconditional. You would only have to be a citizen ( the government might decide on a period of that citizenship) to get it.

It would be funded from saved benefits - which could not include housing until we have more houses - and the increases in tax for high earners. It has much the same effect as means-testing but it cannot be taken away as there are basically no complicated rules to break - either by accident or design and an increased income would not affect it.

barmyoldbat I was just trying to point out that 'means testing' is an outdated concept. There are computer systems aplenty that can keep track of us and our wealth or lack of it. If I pay tax then I have more income than someone who doesnt pay tax - generally speaking.

Currently, we have pension credit that could be a useful indicator of whether a person needs various extras as mentioned. Or disability benefits could be a decider. My son, for example, gets PIP and, therefore, gets some of the other benefits that we are talking about but, also, free transport in our area. He qualifies for a disabled rail card, reduced rate at the gym, a free place for his pa at lots of events etc. He does not have to fill in a means assessment each time. There are computers nowadays.

If the money I get for wfp etc stayed in the pot there would be more for others.

I think it is misguided to think that charities dont waste income!

Kittlester I don't see your reasoning that if you are paying tax then you don't need the other benefits. There are many people just over the tax limit who are on a tight budget. As for we shouldn't have to give to charity statement, I and I am sure many more, would rather give to to a charity than to the government to waste.

I agree Barmey granny bashing is designed to curry favour with the younger generation.

I do find it hard when people compare their free university education to having to pay today. When it was free it was for only about 5% of the population, now it is about 50% so much harder to fund. JC promised free university education for all at the last GE and only afterwards realised how much it would cost and said it was an aspiration. In principle I agree that education should be free but how would we pay for it? Everyone says they are in favour of more money going on NHS, education, roads, welfare etc. but when the LibDems campaigned for an extra penny on tax to help the NHS they were roundly defeated. It seems to be a different thing talking about it and voting for it.

We shouldn't have to give it to charity. It should be in the pot for people who need it.

Means testing shouldn't be costly nowadays. We have systems that should link up so that, if I pay tax on my income, its fairly obvious that dont need all the other benefits - or some other system or criteria.

Sorry you’re not getting the SP Barmey I’d suggest you go to Citizens Advice for help - it may be back dated

Here we go again, granny bashing and stirring up trouble between young and old. Why not bring down the of travel so people can afford it. Also students can get discounted cars and I read somewhere that student accommodation pays no council tax. I have worked since I was 15 and 72 I am still paying tax, never claimed any benefit expect child allowance so why not have something back. If you don't want it don't apply for it or donate yo winter fuel allowance to charity.

Paddy - if your GP wrote you a prescription for athletes foot cream and it was free (or even the £3 that our prescriptions cost latterly) you may be inclined to take that prescription given that the cream costs more over the counter. You might think that people would just go to the pharmacy for these kinds of medications but the saving to the NHS since they’ve been removed from the list of medications that can be prescribed has been significant - suggesting that not everyone thinks the way you do.

Re the cost of multiple items - DH was in that position, he bought a multi item thingie and prescriptions didn’t cost anything like the £9 per item you mention.

Peers get their £300+ allowances for signing a register. They don't have to stay in the House. That is a scandal and a total waste of people taxes. That House should be abolished.

It can also cost so much to do means testing, it is hardly worth it. What about those who would just miss out on getting it but their friends qualify and all meet up every week? Older people using bus passes for trips to shops, cafes etc also boost the economy in nearby towns/villages.
Folk are also physically and mentally better when they can get out for a while and interact with others - which can save money for NHS as well.
The means testing should really be done via a fair tax system and be designed to cover free bus travel etc for older people. If anyone feels they can manage without this financial help, they can always donate the money they would have spent to a reputable charity.
BTW So glad we also have free prescriptions in Scotland - a very wise decision by Scot Gov.

I’ve just spent some quiet time reading 10 pages of comments on this contentious topic. I was particularly interested as my younger son was discussing it with me this afternoon & we had a ‘lively’ conversation because he was using the sorts of generalisations that are popular in some of the tabloids. It’s a good thing we get on so well together.

I feel very sad that politicians have set the generations so against each other. As someone has already said it’s bad enough that Brexit has torn the country apart.

I worry that his generation - he is 39 -will not have adequate pensions. Both my sons are now on the housing ladder because I felt guilty that it was easier when I was young so I gave them my savings as deposits. A couple of friends have supported their children through University- our higher education was free.

I object to the suggestion that pensioner ‘perks’ should be removed. I think that dignity in retirement is important. And personally I find them very useful. I was a bit naive & found it a real shock that I have to budget quite so strictly since I retired. I had thought after working 45 years as a teacher that I’d be well off. (I know I’m much better off than loads of people, I’m not complaining).

Like many pensioners I try to give back by volunteering in a school, supporting the family with regular free childcare (especially in the school holidays) providing transport, helping pay for swimming lessons etc.etc. as loads of us do.

I think that it was unfortunate that the Lords, some of whom do excellent work scrutinising & improving bills before they are made law, have made such suggestions. Especially considering what they are paid...

But as another poster said, it will be political suicide especially for the Conservatives & Labour wouldn’t dare. So I think it might not happen if there is the outcry I think there will be.

Shame on the government whose spending decisions make it impossible for the young to afford housing or even to earn decent money...

but if all you need is athletes foot cream or paracetamol surely you wouldn't go to your GP for a prescription ? You'd buy it yourself from the chemist shop..like we do and most fol do.You wouldn't get past the receptionist if you said you needed a prescription for paracetamol or cream foor a sore foot.Thats just ridiculous.There are a huge number of people who DONT get benefits who are just a smigeon above the level and who still cant afford to pay for prescriptions.I ahve a friend who needs multiple prescriptions monthly who wouldn't bbe able to afford the cost if it was £9 an item as down south.It would literally be making a choice about which was the most necessary and which ones could wait another week.....now thats clearly not right .My local pharmacist says its the best thing to happen the "free" prescriptions because she used to dread people asking which ones would mean less harm if not taken

I think the most stupid allowance is the 25p extra given on the age of 80. What can you buy with 25p? It has never altered.

Gas payments?

I think things like bus passes, TV licences and gas payments should definitely be means tested. Whereas basic pension is paid for through tax and NI so should not be.

Quite right gabriellag. I don't want to be bombarded with their lies and poison either!