Winter Fuel Payment what would be fair

theworriedwell

I know it is often said that why should the very rich, the multi millionaires, the King get it but I always wonder do these people actually claim their state pension? I mean it would be loose change to the likes of them so would they bother?

Agreed. Mick Jagger was always mentioned when talking about things people didn't 'need' (back in the days when the zeitgeist on here was about boasting about second homes, cruises, fancy cars and so on, and not showing the slightest regard for those who might need more in benefits whilst finding ways to protect money against 'tax raids').

I could never picture him on the Number 45 on the way to keep warm in the library. Is he now deemed to be deserving of the WFP?

knspol

The personal attacks on this site are getting worse and worse, why can't posters put their own point of view without resorting to insulting those who disagree?

If that was meant for me, I wasn't insulting anyone. I was saying that repeating slogans coined by others is not 'argument' or expressing an opinion - it is just repeating slogans.

There is more and more of that on here lately. Why can't people think for themselves and use their own wit if they want to make 'clever' jokes?

I dont think that the prime minister should have taken away the winter fuel payments from those pensioners that need it some of the forms that you have to fill in to get the payments are very long not.all pensioners have someone to help with the forms or have access to the internet .

theworriedwell

I know it is often said that why should the very rich, the multi millionaires, the King get it but I always wonder do these people actually claim their state pension? I mean it would be loose change to the likes of them so would they bother?

Just thought I suppose it is the principle of them being entitled rather than them actually getting the money so my post is probably irrelevant.

I know it is often said that why should the very rich, the multi millionaires, the King get it but I always wonder do these people actually claim their state pension? I mean it would be loose change to the likes of them so would they bother?

The personal attacks on this site are getting worse and worse, why can't posters put their own point of view without resorting to insulting those who disagree?

Biglouis please keep on posting whatever you wish to. Your comments are not childish. I had to read many vile comments on here concerning both Nige and Boris, both of whom I admire as politicians, but I did not comment adversely and attack the posters.

Doodledog

growstuff I don’t know the finer points of UC, and I’m not arguing for numbers of claimants to be cut - I just feel that the ‘direction of travel’ is to get as many people into work as possible. As I say, the phrase ’working people’ is used a lot now, and KS talked of schemes to train British people to do jobs currently done by immigrants. As we all know, pensions are paid by working people and numbers of pensioners are rising. Many people are on sick pay, too. Something has to give.

Sorry to have picked you up on the part-time argument, but I get fed up of reading it, when the system was changed a number of years ago.

I agree that it would appear that it seems as though people are being "encouraged" to work - quite right too IMO. Nevertheless, I do think there have to be some changes in the workplace to accommodate people with disabilities and family lives which make working outside the home difficult.

Wyllow3

Having said that, it is good to read people actually sharing ideas and solutions.

Such as rioting? 😀

Having said that, it is good to read people actually sharing ideas and solutions.

You've said it for me, Doodledog!
This forum is called "news and politics" not "fantasy and speculation"

Your argument would have more validity if you backed up what you say, and didn’t repeat second hand (and rather childish) insults. At least have the wit to make up your own if you must resort to name-calling.

The Telegraph has reported that the discount will not be cut. Can you tell us where you got the idea that it will be, please? Or is it yet another scaremongering attempt to distract us from the reality of the new government and its actual policies?

This is behind a paywall, but here’s the link anyway.
www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/22/rachel-reeves-budget-single-person-council-tax-discount/

If two tier and rathel Thieves tried to remove the 25% tax "discount" for single people (which arguably should be 50%) I believe there would be widespread riots and a whole range of non complience on the scale of the Poll Tax riots. It would not only hit pensioners but many younger single people (including single parents) on low incomes. Many people would probably refuse to pay council tax. They cant send everyone to prison.

Council tax is already very poor value for single people with many of us directly subsidising two income families in similar properties.

growstuff I don’t know the finer points of UC, and I’m not arguing for numbers of claimants to be cut - I just feel that the ‘direction of travel’ is to get as many people into work as possible. As I say, the phrase ’working people’ is used a lot now, and KS talked of schemes to train British people to do jobs currently done by immigrants. As we all know, pensions are paid by working people and numbers of pensioners are rising. Many people are on sick pay, too. Something has to give.

Talking about difference in council tax rates, my daughter living in the south east, band E, five bed house, pays £110 less than me living in a three bed house in the impoverished south west. We are both eligible for single occupancy reduction which I would hate to lose if RR does away with it in October.

Doodledog Have you looked in detail at the way Universal Credit works for part-timers? It's no longer true that part-timers automatically get their income topped up. The days of maximising benefits by working just under 16 hours are gone. The way Universal Credit is worked out is quite complicated, but it depends on income (not worked hours), family composition and certain outgoings. Increases in the minimum wage mean that fewer people are eligible for Universal Credit.

Romola

A year or two back, I had a letter published in the Guardian suggesting that the WFA should be teated as taxable income, so that HMRC would be getting back 20% or more from higher-rate tax-payers.
Those poorest pensioners whose income is below the threshold would of course not be liable to pay any tax.
Maybe that wouldn't have made so much of a dent in the 22 billion shortfall
But it could have been a temporary measure while pension credit was sorted.

But lower rate taxpayers would also lose 20% just for having a small occupational pension or other income that takes them to just over £12500, which will result in hardship. It is the sort of thing that could deter people from joining pension schemes in the future.

Higher rate taxpayers are probably unlikely to miss £200, although many are complaining like mad about it. Council tax bands are already an unfair way to tax people, and adding further unfairness makes no sense. The obvious way is to make pensions higher for everyone, but again that would do away with the contributory nature of the pension, and potentially make people feel there is no point in having a complete NI record, as not having it would entitle them to a lot more in benefits. Raising the level at which PC can be claimed might cost as much as paying the WFP to all, and again, could remove the incentive to work, which is what the government is pushing.

All the talk is about 'working people'. I would be surprised if top-ups for part-time workers are not the next things to be cut, as there is no reason why taxpayers should subsidise low-paying employers who are profiting from paying people low wages, or from keeping them on part-time contracts to avoid paying NI. Equally, there is no good reason why someone working 20 hours (or whatever) should be topped up to the same take-home pay as someone working 40 hours, particularly when there is a need for people to fill vacancies.

Starting with universal benefit for pensioners could be the gateway to removing things like that without making the young feel even more victimised. Pure speculation, of course, but I think the government will work towards removing the dependency culture and encourage more people into work. If they don't, there won't be enough 'economically active' people to pay for social welfare, including the pensions of the retired.

Some good points Madmeg. IMO the problem of pensioner poverty is far more complex than the WFA. It starts much earlier in life.

Romola A number of people on GN have suggested that. Well done for writing to the Guardian! I don't actually think it should be "packaged" as help towards fuel bills. (I wonder how many people use it to pay their energy companies anyway.) It's been a way of boosting the income of a certain section of the population. I think that either some way of boosting the general income of the retired should be found (which could, of course, be taxed) or energy companies should be stopped from making such huge profits. I've already mentioned that I think the standing charges should be reduced as a percentage of the total bill, so that people's bills are a more accurate reflection of their usage. In the long term, people need to start thinking earlier about pensions (which shouldn't be reliant on property). I also think that the higher tax subsidy to higher earners needs to be stopped.

A year or two back, I had a letter published in the Guardian suggesting that the WFA should be teated as taxable income, so that HMRC would be getting back 20% or more from higher-rate tax-payers.
Those poorest pensioners whose income is below the threshold would of course not be liable to pay any tax.
Maybe that wouldn't have made so much of a dent in the 22 billion shortfall
But it could have been a temporary measure while pension credit was sorted.

I'm really not sure what the fairest way would be, apart from taking it away from those in the highest income bands. Labour have a lot of very tough decisions to make just to balance the books after the last 14 years which have left the country in the mess it's in

Allegedly, sometimes the cost of sorting out those who are entitled to any kind of financial support and those who are not outweighs tge cost of mass payment. Eg prescriptions being free for all in Scitlandcwas reported cheaper than having to pay for all the administration assiciated with the different categories of entitlement . Perhaps a gradual reduction of the WFA would have been more acceptable giving more time for adjustment.

I think DH and I are very comfortably off in our 5-bed detached house, 2 cars, overseas holidays and saving £2k a month unless we need something very big (new roof this year for example). We clearly don't need the WFA BUT neither of us is a higher rate taxpayer. Despite being an avid supporter of sex equality it perhaps isn't so logical for couples claiming state benefits (including the state pension).

If DH dies first my income will be far less than his would be if the other way round so I would have to downsize (no complaints about that, we struggle to keep the house clean and tidy now).

All state benefits involve considerable expense, distress, confusion and so on. Far better to up the State Pension to a decent amount, with a supplement for single pensioners (after all many costs do not halve when there is only one of you), and also the tax threshold which is long overdue an increase.

This would be relatively easy and cheap in admin costs, avoid any stigma in claiming "benefits" and be much fairer.

Doodledog

Visgir1

welbeck

because that will discriminate against people who live in areas where house/flat prices are higher.
they may have an old draughty house, with little spare to heat or renovate it.
nor the emotional strength to move.

Don't local price of houses detect that regardless of the cost of your house?
I live on the south coast it's a expensive area. A Band C here is probably a Band D in an other less expensive area's of the UK.

That's not how it works. Bands are decided based on a drive-past valuation in 1990 (or nearabouts). The differentials between houses are the same all over the country, it's just that there will be fewer Band H ones in poorer areas.

Welbeck's right that someone could have a relatively valuable house and no spare money though. The whole banding of properties to determine what people 'can afford' is iniquitous, IMO.

I live 20 miles west of London so in a house in a high band. As I understand it the bands are the same nationwide but the council tax levied is set by the local council, so in a cheaper area there will be more low banded houses so those in lower banded houses will pay more than those in the same band house in a more expensive area since there will be less high banded houses to pay higher charges. If this were not the case councils in poorer areas would not be ablle to raise enough to run basic services - not that any can these days!

The other problem is that many pensioners continue to live in large family homes, as I do, but it does not reflect ability to pay. The homes cost a lot to heat and often only one person lives there so only one income. I want to downsize but it isn't as easy and quick a process as I'd like with many factors to consider.

There is no easy answer to this dilemma. I still have a mortgage while many pensioners are mortgage free. People paying rent are probably far worse off than me! I agree that there needs to be some form of means testing for the WFA but unfortunately any completely fair system woud probably be very expensive to administer so I'd go for giving it to basic rate taxpayers or non taxpayers but not to those in higher tax bands.

Boz

I was surprised to read that WFA was being paid to pensioners living abroad. Do ex-pats in Spain really need it?
Pensioners are seen as Tory and their vote not very important to Labour.

Expats in Spain France and Portugal do not get it.
www.gov.uk/winter-fuel-payment/if-you-live-abroad