Winter fuel payment

Yes I keep reading this.

We will see.

I do think that pip should be reconsidered first though from what I read.

It is a good thing to encourage people into work, of course it is, but help, training etc should be prioritised.

It may need a review because it was very unpopular. However, I think payments like this should be means tested. That way those who need it would still receive that help.

Sarnia

It may need a review because it was very unpopular. However, I think payments like this should be means tested. That way those who need it would still receive that help.

It is isn’t it?

Yes, it is. Those qualifying for Pension Credit qualify for it, and if you are on Attendance Allowance, you qualify for the Severe Disability Premium of £82.90 added to Pension Credit, which mean that you can claim some Pension credit even if your weekly income is as high as £309, or for a married couple, who are both on Attendance Allowance, who qualify for 2 SDPs, £512.40

As with all "benefits" there's never going to be a one size fits all solution.

My only income is a state pension. However, I do have savings which take me over the threshold. But, each month I'm having to drawer on those savings to pay my energy bill. So my savings will dwindle and then I'll have to claim Pension Credit - indefinitely. So instead of paying me a small amount every year as fuel allowance, the government will pay me significantly more for ever.

It's a benefit. It was universal for pensioners but attached to means tested benefits for others. Now it is attached to means tested benefits in the same way for pensioners as it is for others on low incomes.

I wonder what suggestions those who complain would have to turn this into a logical system?

I don't mean to be unkind ferry23, but "forever". Really?

Obviously someone has done the maths and it costs the less to do it this way.

Just raise the threshold.

Simples!

I do have savings which take me over the threshold. But, each month I'm having to drawer on those savings to pay my energy bill. So my savings will dwindle and then I'll have to claim Pension Credit - indefinitely. So instead of paying me a small amount every year as fuel allowance, the government will pay me significantly more for ever.

ferry23 regardless of how low your savings dwindle in the future you may not be eligible for pension credit. Recipients of full new state pension don’t qualify for pension credit. My sole income is my state pension and I’m not eligible for pension credit as I receive the full amount of pension. Pension credit is a top up to raise the income to new state pension level.

I think it would be very wrong (and I don’t think for one minute that they will) to completely reverse the decision. So many pensioners are relatively well off enough not to need it.

merlotgran

Just raise the threshold.

Simples!

I think this is what is being discussed. We may know as early as next month.

My recollection of many (not all, but large number) of posts in GN was that means testing was proper but the cut off point was too low, and this as a LP member has been my view all along and emails to MP etc.

So I hope they do review it, the problems is however how to find a straightforward way to do it without causing so much bureaucracy its self defeating.

merlotgran

Just raise the threshold.

Simples!

Yes, that seems obvious to me. It was the right decision but the threshold was set way too low.

Would raising the threshold at which pensions begin to pay tax work?

It was so unfair that those who had contributed to a pension, not only paid tax on it but also lost the fuel allowance.

Another vote for raising the threshold 👍

Whatever good things this Goverment achieves, it will always be remembered for this PR catastrophe.

I hope they reinstate this a universal payment to all state pensioners. It was never mandatory to spend it on fuel.

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

The Winter Fuel Payment is paid as a cash lump sum and recipients are not obliged to spend it on fuel bills. … the Energy and Climate Change Committee argued that it would be “more intellectually honest” to rename the benefit and to concede that it was merely a general income supplement.

As a means of tackling fuel poverty, the case for Winter Fuel Payments is weak. Its payment is unfocused and not targeted on people in or near fuel poverty. However, as a universal means of supplementing pensioner incomes, which is easily understood and easy to pay, the political case for the retention of Winter Fuel Payments is strong. However, it would be more intellectually honest to rename the benefit; concede that it a general income supplement; and stop accounting for it as a fuel poverty measure.

There’s a good economic argument for saying it’s better not to spent the payment on fuel but to spent it on other things where the government gets a bigger tax yield.

Were someone to spent £200 on 25 bottles of Christmas wine at £8.00 a bottle, the Government would receive £100 in VAT and excise duty plus business taxes on the retailer’s mark up.

Most other spending attracts VAT at 20%.

To quote Richard Murphy: Until it's appreciated that spending creates taxation and not that tax funds spending, nothing else about how the government works makes sense.

There’s evidence too that plenty of people donated the WFP to Christmas charity appeals. Were these services not being provided by charities: support for homelessness, cancer support, mental health support, medical research, humanitarian aid, emergency services, animal welfare etc, the Government would be obliged to pay for them.

The Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment (Amendment) Regulations 2024 says:

A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, public or voluntary sectors is foreseen.

Really? Whose crystal ball was that?

This decision was always made without the proper assessment and scrutiny and that’s the reason it should be reversed now.

Means testing is very expensive and very divisive. If a new cut off were to be applied, there will still be people on the cliff edge who will feel aggrieved.

My hope is that more don't have to worry about heating their homes next winter.

Whitewavemark2

I think it would be very wrong (and I don’t think for one minute that they will) to completely reverse the decision. So many pensioners are relatively well off enough not to need it.

I agree WW.

I hope the government won’t go down the road of complete reversal of the policy - I don’t think they’ll be that daft!

Perhaps raise the threshold but, of course, there will still be people just above any new threshold. Will they be disgruntled - and so it goes on🤷‍♀️

merlotgran

Just raise the threshold.

Simples!

This already happens annually. How would you suggest it is raised diffently?

PoliticsNerd

I don't mean to be unkind ferry23, but "forever". Really?

Obviously someone has done the maths and it costs the less to do it this way.

My forever, obviously.

I can assure you that I'm not stupid enough to think they pay me when I'm dead.

Lathyrus3

Would raising the threshold at which pensions begin to pay tax work?

It was so unfair that those who had contributed to a pension, not only paid tax on it but also lost the fuel allowance.

Pensions are just another form of income. If raising the base level for paying tax on income is seen as the right thing to - and there will be points of argument for and against - it will automatically affect those who income comes wholly or partially from pensions.

All citizens are, or should be, equal when it comes to paying tax.

The threshold needs to be raised by more than it normally would annually.

Don't take umbrige so quickly ferry23. I wasn't suggesting that you did expect the government would pay you after death.

What I was pointing out was that government need to make schemes work for the tax payer. After all, we all know by now that the the proportion of our NI tax allocated to pension payments didn't go to pay our pensions, it went to paying the previous generations. Our state pensions are paid by the tranche who are current earning through work. The government has to take their taxation into account too and must set up a system that can continue.

AGAA4

The threshold needs to be raised by more than it normally would annually.

Governments have to accept both need of some pensioners and the acceptability to the current tax payers, who are funding the current State Pension. It is already being raised above other areas, by use of the triple lock.

Much of the conversion on this topic is over simplistic - especially in the MSN. It doesn't help us understand the problem or how it can be resolved.