U turn on winter fuel payments- is it a good move?

Doodledog and Sleepyhead I couldn't agree with you more on this issue.

I book gigging musicians so am very aware of their lifestyles and Musician Union rates which I pay as a minimum.

The single performance fee is £162.30 for up to three hours, £216.40 for four hours plus setting up time, travel expenses, porterage, overnight stays etc.

Most of the musicians I work with are playing gigs almost every night and are teaching too, personal tuition or multi-person workshops, plus they make money from composition and the sale of recorded music either directly or through royalties.

It’s perfectly possible to earn £35,000. Many earn a lot more. And these are not household names, just very competent hard-working people.

Two things. It depends on how much work someone can get or wants to do (the same as any job) and whether hirers pays MU rates. Many don’t but that isn’t the fault of the Government.

growstuff

albertina

What sort of a Labour Government starts out its programme by kicking the elderly ?

Too right they have to do a u turn.

Hope you feel happier now!

I think the government would always have been damned if they did and damned if they didn’t. Means testing the WFA so soon into their term of office was a very bad move, I can’t think who advised it but I can only imagine it was a misguided attempt to get across the message that the finances of the country were in a very bad state, unfortunately the threshold they chose was ridiculously low and has undoubtedly caused hardship for some pensioners. The change of plan was the right thing to do but unfortunately Nigel Farage is claiming it is all down to pressure by Reform which is ridiculous, I don’t agree it is a U Turn because if it was payments for last winter would be paid retrospectively but they have changed things for this year. If a similar thing is done with the two child cap on benefits Farage will also claim credit for that despite Labour having said they will do this as soon as the economic situation allows it.

Perhaps married couples shouldn't get the WFA!
After all -

The snow is snowing and the wind it is blowing
But I can weather the storm
What do I care how much it may storm
I've got my love to keep me warm

WFA is to be per household.

Allira

Perhaps married couples shouldn't get the WFA!
After all -

The snow is snowing and the wind it is blowing
But I can weather the storm
What do I care how much it may storm
I've got my love to keep me warm

What? Are you suggesting married couples should cuddle up to keepo warm? (Or what?

growstuff

RSALLAN2002

No point in marriage then. Still seems strange to give benefit to well off/ rich households.

Doesn't love have anything to do with it?

Actually, there are financial advantages to marriage, especially if there is likely to be inheritance tax or pensions.

I give up! First we have moans about denying poor people a vital lifeline, then we have moans about giving benefits to rich households. Moan, moan, moan!

I think RSALLAN2002 does have a point though, which could well result in further changes later down the line, in that .couples who live together don’t need to heat their house twice as much as single pensioners do. It’s a loophole which may be capitalised on by a future government.

Jane43 I agree with you absolutely. It was very stupid move in the first place. I just hope Labour has learnt some lessons about political tactics and policy (and has redeployed some advisers).

Sorry. that is rather brief. As I posted yesterday, the quote from Rachel Reeves clearly says it will be per household, amounts of either £200 or for age 80 or over, £300.
I think this makes sense.
I'm guessing though that it would be paid to the lesser earner.
As uusual of course the cliff edge cut-off point.

MayBee70

Although I wasn’t dependent on the WFA I did find that this winter I was more careful about my use of gas and electricity, something that I should have been doing anyway. I hope that, with its reinstatement I’ll continue to be careful for the sake of the environment. As a lifetime Labour voter I still can’t get my head round why they removed the WFP because it has overshadowed all of the good things they have done eg free breakfasts for schoolchildren, money being allocated to fix pot holes etc etc.

I agree. It was the energy crisis of 2022 that made me (most people I think) much more conscious of how I use energy and to use less where possible.

I don't go cold in winter. The economy comes through other things e.g. like buying an airfryer which has reduced by cooking bills by £20 a month. Every little helps and all part of my desire to have as small a carbon footprint as possible.

We have had discussions before about comparative bills. I know mine is low - it averages £20 pw over the year - for a four bedroomed house but it is doable. I don't think paying less than £3 day for gas and electricity outrageous at all.

Last year, this was a mistake by Reeves no question and which people are still latching onto with glee. First the concern was all about the poorest and now it's become an intergenerational war - all over a payment that few under the age of 66 had even heard about a year ago but had been paid for 28 years.

The latest polling from YouGov about voting intentions doesn't indicate that young people are drawn by the false narrative of Reform so maybe much of this is just social media noise which will soon die down.

There are massive advantages in couples living together whether they are married or not, singles pay through the nose for everything

Casdon

growstuff

RSALLAN2002

No point in marriage then. Still seems strange to give benefit to well off/ rich households.

Doesn't love have anything to do with it?

Actually, there are financial advantages to marriage, especially if there is likely to be inheritance tax or pensions.

I give up! First we have moans about denying poor people a vital lifeline, then we have moans about giving benefits to rich households. Moan, moan, moan!

I think RSALLAN2002 does have a point though, which could well result in further changes later down the line, in that .couples who live together don’t need to heat their house twice as much as single pensioners do. It’s a loophole which may be capitalised on by a future government.

But the couples don't need to be married to save money. If taxed separately, it makes no difference if they are married. When claiming benefits, you're supposed to declare whether you live with somebody - not whether you're married.

There's an issue here. On the one hand, it's absolutely right that people's taxes should be treated as individuals. All pensions and benefits should be too. On the other hand, it is cheaper for people to live as a couple rather than as individuals. The problem for benefit agencies is how to prove that people do actually live together.

I've had reason to look into all this over the last few weeks because I'm going to move in with my partner at the end of the summer. We've been looking very closely at the financial implications. He's a romantic and wants to get married. We've both taken a big financial hit from former spouses (in different ways), so I'm a bit more cautious and wanted to make sure we're doing the right thing. We came to the conclusion that, financially, getting married is the right thing. There are inheritance tax implications and both of us would receive widow's pensions when the other dies. My partner will lose his single occupancy council tax rebate, but I won't have to pay my current council tax, so we'll both be better off when we split the amount, but it doesn't matter if we're married. We have an appointment with a solicitor over the next couple of weeks.

David49

There are massive advantages in couples living together whether they are married or not, singles pay through the nose for everything

True, but marriage is irrelevant.

AN41

Sorry. that is rather brief. As I posted yesterday, the quote from Rachel Reeves clearly says it will be per household, amounts of either £200 or for age 80 or over, £300.
I think this makes sense.
I'm guessing though that it would be paid to the lesser earner.
As uusual of course the cliff edge cut-off point.

If one person in the household has an income of £35,000+ they will still be paid it but their share will be retrieved via HMRC ie income tax.

There's a link up thread which explains it in detail.

growstuff

David49

There are massive advantages in couples living together whether they are married or not, singles pay through the nose for everything

True, but marriage is irrelevant.

No need for a piece of paper for love to keep you warm.
😁

Was the comment after the link yours or taken from the linked information Silverbrooks. If it was from the linked briefing it seems rather odd view.

The Workplace Pension has been in place since 2012 and was designed to replace the need for a state earnings related scheme so younger people do have an opportunity to build up an earnings related pension. Why do you feel that needs to be state run?

The Workplace scheme may need updating but there really is no reason for such a scheme to be run by the government. There will be some this doesn't cover but that was the same for the state schemes.

HLooking for Hearing Aid. Help
Hi does anyone use Amplifon Hearing aids? I would be very interested to know how you get/got on with them.

When it comes to contributions-based benefits, treating people differently based on marriage is fraught with issues though. I may be wrong here, but isn't that why married women could pay less into NI than unmarried ones - as they were assumed to be supported by their husbands and inherited their pensions, which were paid as a couple? That has caused problems for those women down the line, particularly if they divorced.

Now the new state pension is not paid to widows there is no need to make patronising assumptions about who pays for what in households and give more to one person than another, or to assume that bills are paid as a unit rather than as individuals - they will be in some households but not in others.

Married men used to have a special tax allowance, as 'head of the household', too, so a husband and wife on the same salary would have different take-home pay, and married men took home more than single ones. Would that be seen as fair nowadays? I doubt that many women would be in support, and nor would cohabiting couples. Now that gay marriage is allowed, would both husbands be able to claim, whilst lesbians were denied?

As we are all taxed at the same rate as individuals nowadays, I can see no reason why household incomes should come into it. Also, it would mean HMRC and probably DWP linking the financial affairs of married couples, or people who are deemed to be in a household.

Giving the allowance to everyone, then taxing it back from those not entitled to it seems fair to me.

growstuff

Casdon

growstuff

RSALLAN2002

No point in marriage then. Still seems strange to give benefit to well off/ rich households.

Doesn't love have anything to do with it?

Actually, there are financial advantages to marriage, especially if there is likely to be inheritance tax or pensions.

I give up! First we have moans about denying poor people a vital lifeline, then we have moans about giving benefits to rich households. Moan, moan, moan!

I think RSALLAN2002 does have a point though, which could well result in further changes later down the line, in that .couples who live together don’t need to heat their house twice as much as single pensioners do. It’s a loophole which may be capitalised on by a future government.

But the couples don't need to be married to save money. If taxed separately, it makes no difference if they are married. When claiming benefits, you're supposed to declare whether you live with somebody - not whether you're married.

There's an issue here. On the one hand, it's absolutely right that people's taxes should be treated as individuals. All pensions and benefits should be too. On the other hand, it is cheaper for people to live as a couple rather than as individuals. The problem for benefit agencies is how to prove that people do actually live together.

I've had reason to look into all this over the last few weeks because I'm going to move in with my partner at the end of the summer. We've been looking very closely at the financial implications. He's a romantic and wants to get married. We've both taken a big financial hit from former spouses (in different ways), so I'm a bit more cautious and wanted to make sure we're doing the right thing. We came to the conclusion that, financially, getting married is the right thing. There are inheritance tax implications and both of us would receive widow's pensions when the other dies. My partner will lose his single occupancy council tax rebate, but I won't have to pay my current council tax, so we'll both be better off when we split the amount, but it doesn't matter if we're married. We have an appointment with a solicitor over the next couple of weeks.

I was only thinking of this in relation to the WFA - I didn’t mention married, although I know RSALLAN2002 did. If two people live in the same house the house only needs to be heated once, whoever they are. I’m not saying I agree that it should happen, but there is opportunity for a future government to only pay one person per household.

They should have taken time to look properly at what would be a reasonable threshold originally. The pension credit threshold is so low that it was blatantly obvious this was too low a threshold for the means testing.

Casdon The house might only need to be heated once, but people use fuel for other purposes. Two people will have twice as many showers/baths (presumably in water which needs heating). There will be more washing and washing up to be done. Both people might have their own computers and TVs which need power. Both might have their own phones which need charging. While it's cheaper for two people to live together, it does cost more for two than for a singleton.

I don't have the heating on for six months of the year, but I know when my partner is here for a few days that my gas and electricity usage increases. The same happens when I stay at his house.

TBH I find this squabbling over what is effectively peanuts a bit silly. Labour was stupid to change it in the first place and should have foreseen the fallout. Now it's been brought o everybody's attention and people are squabbling about some people getting WFA who don't need it, whether couples should receive twice singletons ... and so it goes on. Meanwhile, there are far more important issues which need addressing.

The Winter Fuel Payment cancellation is primarily one of lack of respect. Cancelling was despicable. Older people now are from our parents generation. Those that worked and saved too. Took nothing. Choosing us, was so easy and truly a deplorable and
totally unforgivable act. It’s the principle. Anyone is free to return the money, but it’s the lack of respect to an older generation which sent out the most awful message. Luckily we now have a better place in society.

Doodledog I can't remember when the option to pay a married woman's "stamp" was phased out, but I don't think many women under 70 are affected. I'm also not sure when a married woman's tax affairs were separated from her husband's but I know that I have always paid my own income tax. That meant for a time that we didn't receive the married couple's supplement (or whatever it was called) but I'm fairly sure that was phased out.

mothball64

The Winter Fuel Payment cancellation is primarily one of lack of respect. Cancelling was despicable. Older people now are from our parents generation. Those that worked and saved too. Took nothing. Choosing us, was so easy and truly a deplorable and
totally unforgivable act. It’s the principle. Anyone is free to return the money, but it’s the lack of respect to an older generation which sent out the most awful message. Luckily we now have a better place in society.

Errmm! I'm not sure what you mean by claiming that older people are from our parents' generation. I'm a pensioner, so presumably I'm old. My parents are both dead, but they both had their marbles to the end and would be incensed to think that they deserved any preferential treatment just because they were old.

I actually think stopping any benefit to people of any age at short notice is wrong. I don't accept that there's anything special about old people (including me).

Allira

Perhaps married couples shouldn't get the WFA!
After all -

The snow is snowing and the wind it is blowing
But I can weather the storm
What do I care how much it may storm
I've got my love to keep me warm

When poverty comes in the door, love flies out of the window🤔or is it the other way round? Something my Nan used to say years ago.

Anyway Allira sounds like a might fine song to me, I can hear it in my head now😁