Winter fuel payment

Mollygo

See what I mean M0nica. 1.

But it's true!

Yalland444

Martin Lewis from Moneybox is suggesting on Radio 4 News tonight that WFA be given only to those in Council Tax A to C. He thinks that will be fair……. I for one have a small family home which is Council Tax D but my annual income is such that it just takes me over the limit that I could claim income credit so I would still be in the same boat.

Do you mean Paul Lewis? AFAIK he is not related to Martin Lewis.

The benefit threshold was easy and quick to administer, I would be in favour of increasing that to benefit + a set sum not sure how you administer it.

I am dead set against returning to WFP for all that’s a waste of money

M0nica

I cannot see that using the tax band of someone's house is a fair way of deciding who gets WFA and who doesn't, I assume Martyn Lewis was assuming a low tax band for a property equated with a lower income.

However, nowadays when many older people downsize to a smaller property, a house or a flat, possibly in a retirement complex, then they are going to be in lower tax band properties, even though they have very comfortable incomes and possibly, significant savings and investments.

That’s an appalling idea, and it varies so much countrywide.

M0nica

I cannot see that using the tax band of someone's house is a fair way of deciding who gets WFA and who doesn't, I assume Martyn Lewis was assuming a low tax band for a property equated with a lower income.

However, nowadays when many older people downsize to a smaller property, a house or a flat, possibly in a retirement complex, then they are going to be in lower tax band properties, even though they have very comfortable incomes and possibly, significant savings and investments.

Wow! Where are all these smaller properties for all the well-minted pensioners with "significant savings and investments" to downsize to?

I cannot see that using the tax band of someone's house is a fair way of deciding who gets WFA and who doesn't, I assume Martyn Lewis was assuming a low tax band for a property equated with a lower income.

However, nowadays when many older people downsize to a smaller property, a house or a flat, possibly in a retirement complex, then they are going to be in lower tax band properties, even though they have very comfortable incomes and possibly, significant savings and investments.

windmill1

Casdon

I disagree with any government giving money to those who do not need it. That is what has grated on working age adults about the winter fuel payment. It should not be money for people who don’t really need it to use in a discretionary way. To that extent I agree with the original decision taken by the government.
Probably 80-90% of the noise around the removal of the allowance comes from those who don’t need it, but there are some who definitely do, and went cold this winter or relied on others to help them pay for fuel. If everybody completed a tax return (a simplified version equivalent to the pension credit application form) it would be easy to administer an additional payment through the tax system, so that everybody below a preset income level would receive it.

There's no such thing as a "simplified version" of a tax return form and not all of us are accountants.
My father, though, was an accountant and doing his own tax return and for his clients was no joke.

He bitterly loathed HMRC and yet, ironically, they provided him with the majority of his income.

There already is a simple tax return windmill.
taxaid.org.uk/tax-information/self-assessment-tax-return/need-help-completing-your-tax-return#:~:text=Short%20tax%20returns,ask%20for%20a%20short%20return.

Casdon

I disagree with any government giving money to those who do not need it. That is what has grated on working age adults about the winter fuel payment. It should not be money for people who don’t really need it to use in a discretionary way. To that extent I agree with the original decision taken by the government.
Probably 80-90% of the noise around the removal of the allowance comes from those who don’t need it, but there are some who definitely do, and went cold this winter or relied on others to help them pay for fuel. If everybody completed a tax return (a simplified version equivalent to the pension credit application form) it would be easy to administer an additional payment through the tax system, so that everybody below a preset income level would receive it.

I agree with the theory.

I didn’t agree with the cut off level, far too low, and I certainly didn’t agree with the way it was rolled out so quickly,

Lathyrus3

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.

It’s not that simple. I found this useful:
ifs.org.uk/articles/expanding-winter-fuel-payment-eligibility

Council tax bands often bear little relationship to household income.

I know pensioners living in band B and C houses who have incomes well in excess of £100,000 pa. They have beautiful period homes that just happen to be in places where rents were not high in 1990 when council tax bands were set.

They also received the initial cost of living payments in 2022 which were based on CT bands A-D.

At that time, it was a quick way to get money to people but it took no regard to who needed help and should never be seen as a solution to this problem. It would just replace one poorly targeted system with another.

Casdon

I disagree with any government giving money to those who do not need it. That is what has grated on working age adults about the winter fuel payment. It should not be money for people who don’t really need it to use in a discretionary way. To that extent I agree with the original decision taken by the government.
Probably 80-90% of the noise around the removal of the allowance comes from those who don’t need it, but there are some who definitely do, and went cold this winter or relied on others to help them pay for fuel. If everybody completed a tax return (a simplified version equivalent to the pension credit application form) it would be easy to administer an additional payment through the tax system, so that everybody below a preset income level would receive it.

There's no such thing as a "simplified version" of a tax return form and not all of us are accountants.
My father, though, was an accountant and doing his own tax return and for his clients was no joke.

He bitterly loathed HMRC and yet, ironically, they provided him with the majority of his income.

Yalland444

Martin Lewis from Moneybox is suggesting on Radio 4 News tonight that WFA be given only to those in Council Tax A to C. He thinks that will be fair……. I for one have a small family home which is Council Tax D but my annual income is such that it just takes me over the limit that I could claim income credit so I would still be in the same boat.

Lots of people living in a band C home would have no need of the WFA.

A silly suggestion, IMHO.

Thinking about it I would say £20,000 before tax.

It wouldn’t have been difficult to have a cut off point of say £17,000 or £18,000 a year before tax.I think that would have been a fair thing to do. Those are just arbitrary figures, could be more, but not less, but the way it was done, the cliff edge was too low by far.
The worrying thing is that the PM and Chancellor couldn’t see that it was politically a terrible move and on a human level had no understanding of being poor and being anxious about bills.
To do this to old people was hardly what I or anyone expects from a Labour government.

Martin Lewis from Moneybox is suggesting on Radio 4 News tonight that WFA be given only to those in Council Tax A to C. He thinks that will be fair……. I for one have a small family home which is Council Tax D but my annual income is such that it just takes me over the limit that I could claim income credit so I would still be in the same boat.

I did say probably because there are so many variables, but I had read this Oreo.
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/pensioners-incomes-financial-years-ending-1995-to-2023/pensioners-incomes-financial-years-ending-1995-to-2023
About 22% of pensioners currently receive additional payments due to their level of pension income.

It should be part of declared income for taxation, which would be fairer on everyone as it will taper down for lower incomes. Why they didn't introduce this last year beats me and there would have been none of the bad publicity that ensued. FWIT a very distinguished professor of economics agrees with me!

It should be the threshold for taxation IMO.

Casdon

I disagree with any government giving money to those who do not need it. That is what has grated on working age adults about the winter fuel payment. It should not be money for people who don’t really need it to use in a discretionary way. To that extent I agree with the original decision taken by the government.
Probably 80-90% of the noise around the removal of the allowance comes from those who don’t need it, but there are some who definitely do, and went cold this winter or relied on others to help them pay for fuel. If everybody completed a tax return (a simplified version equivalent to the pension credit application form) it would be easy to administer an additional payment through the tax system, so that everybody below a preset income level would receive it.

Where do you get that figure from? You can’t possibly know what percentage of ‘noise’ comes from those who need it and those who don’t , even with the proviso of ‘ probably’.
It has to be faced, this Labour government made a real mess of the WFA and will be forced to U turn on it for next year.
Not necessarily to bring it back for everyone but to create a much higher threshold.
It showed how tin eared Starmer and Reeves really are.

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.

As many on this forum have pointed out over the years…

See what I mean M0nica. 1.

Mollygo

^It is those on the older pension system who suffer the worst.^

I’d agree M0nica, but there will probably be a long string of posts saying that’s not true.

That's because it isn't necessarily true!

Cabbie21

Those who say “ increase the threshold”, which threshold? The level for Pension Credit or taxation? Or a separate means test for WFP?
I wonder what would happen if WFP became something you had to apply for? ( Not people on Pension Credit, of course, as they would get it anyway. )
I suspect those who need it most would include those who struggle with applications, and those who remain unaware of their entitlement.
People who don’t need it might still apply in order to donate the money to charities, whose work is very much needed to plug the gaps in society.
There are no easy answers apart from making it a universal benefit for pensioners again.

There's also a threshold for claiming an HC1 certificate, which pensioners can use to claim free dental treatment and glasses. This threshold is means-tested and different from that for Pension Credit and income tax. It's a minefield.

It is those on the older pension system who suffer the worst.

I’d agree M0nica, but there will probably be a long string of posts saying that’s not true.

Lathyrus3

I suppose we could just raise the State pension to a level that covers a basic standard of living and doaway with pension credit, fuel allowance etc.

Anybody who wants more than a basic standard in retirement would know that extra pension will benefit them.

Last winter people were penalised for having a little extra pension because those who qualified for pension credit were so much better off than they were.

Surely that is what the new pension does? Gives everyone a flat rate pension, regardless of how much they contributed.

It is those on the older pension system who suffer the worst. The simplets thing to do would be to raise the Pension Credit level from £227 to £233, the equivalent of the WFA, on a weekly basis. This would bring into the system many people who did not qualify for Pension Credit before and would taper the benefit loss for others.