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

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.

You seem to be under a misapprehension, Casdon. The WFA is a household allowance and it made no difference if you were married or not. I received the full £200 until my then, long term, partner, to whom I was not then married, reached pensionable age. We then received £100 each.

Being legally 'single' made no difference. We didn't get a whole £200 each.

Doodledog

I agree that young people should get help too - I think CB should be universal, for instance. I would also like to see more free childcare, and am pleased about the rise to the minimum wage.

It shouldn’t be a race to the bottom. I’m not bothered about the WFA personally- it will make little difference to me- but I will not start telling other people what they ‘need’, as I have no idea of others’ circumstances, and object to that as a way of allocating public money. It drags everyone down.

The Government can find/create any money it needs.

I agree that young people should get help too - I think CB should be universal, for instance. I would also like to see more free childcare, and am pleased about the rise to the minimum wage.

It shouldn’t be a race to the bottom. I’m not bothered about the WFA personally- it will make little difference to me- but I will not start telling other people what they ‘need’, as I have no idea of others’ circumstances, and object to that as a way of allocating public money. It drags everyone down.

Many old people have paid off their mortgages, so don't have the same outgoings as many working age people. They don't have children to feed and clothe either. It's not true that they all have the same or higher outgoings.

True but many of us have been there, done that.

If my parents had been given a Winter Fuel Allowance I would have thought that was a brilliant idea. I would certainly not have felt resentful after they'd worked hard all their lives and deserved some comfort in their old age.
Certainly income tax was higher and mortgage rates were high but did we feel resentful of our parents who may have paid off their mortgages and were managing on their limited pensions too? Certainly not.

growstuff

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.

Yes it was phased out, but not until about 1990, I think. Here it is:
Before 1990, the income of a married couple was added together for tax purposes and treated as if it were the income of the husband. A married man had a personal allowance, which was just over one and half times the single person’s allowance. A married woman who was at work had her own allowance – Wife’s Earned Income Allowance (WEIA) – which was the same as the single person’s allowance, but all the allowances including the WEIA were in law given against the husband’s income which included his wife’s income. The system had its roots in the social legal concepts of the early nineteenth century.

www.taxandthefamily.org/history-article

Oreo

A lot of older people no longer work so have less money coming in yet have the same everyday needs as anyone else.
They often have various health issues, aren’t all very mobile and feel the cold more.
I think old people are a special case.

Many old people have paid off their mortgages, so don't have the same outgoings as many working age people. They don't have children to feed and clothe either. It's not true that they all have the same or higher outgoings.

Not only that, but not all "old" people are frail and immobile. Yes, I accept some are and they should be getting Attendance Allowance. Apparently, I'm old now I'm 70 and I get a bit fed up of the stock photos of "old people" with hunched backs and paper thin skin counting out their pennies.

Maybe I should give up on GN because I really am getting tired of the moaning and whinging, criticism of "young people" and seeing old people as a special case. It's just as divisive as the IF.

Not being able to afford the basics of life - food, clothes, housing - doesn't just affect one age group. It can affect everybody. Yes, older people deserve a pension (and like Silverbrook I think the WFA should be integrated into the SP and taxed) but the squabbling about thresholds and who should get what is petty.

That surplus in the National Insurance Fund really bugs me as it need only be about £25 billion.

NIF’s only purpose is to pay out SP and other contributory benefits like maternity and bereavement benefits. 95% paid out is SP.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-insurance-fund-accounts/great-britain-national-insurance-fund-account-for-the-year-ended-31-march-2024

£2 billion from an £86 billion surplus is peanuts.

The idea came to me partly of the unfairness to people who are off grid who could buy in more oil at cheaper summer prices if they received the WFP earlier. There was a suggestion backalong to pay WFP earlier to those off grid but it was rejected as too costly to adminster.

The gloves are off now! 🥊

From April 2026, add the weekly equivalent of the WFP to the State Pension for everybody.

Well, that's far too simple and sensible Silverbrooks! 😃

Of course, once combined with the State Pension, it can't be taken away. However, any pensioner who pays income tax would be paying slightly more so it would, in fact, probably be cost-effective.

If some inter-generational warrior wants to fight me over a taxable weekly pension rise that’s less than the price of the cup of coffee, I’m ready.
👏👏👏

What I would have done.

Reinstate for everyone this year then forget the faffing over splitting it as a household payment and clawback as proposed.

From April 2026, add the weekly equivalent of the WFP to the State Pension for everybody.

If you are pension age and under 80 then you get £200 at £3.85 a week.

If you are 80 then you get £300 at £5.77 per week

There are about 13 million pensioners of whom about 3 million are 80 or older.

About 9 million pay income tax. About a million pay at 40% or 45%, the rest at 20%.

The net annual cost would be just be over £2 billion, about the same as it costs to pay universal WFP.

The WFP hasn’t risen from £200 since the year 2000 (other that the extra £100 for older pensioners which was added in 2003). If it had rised with inflation, £200 would be nearer £400 now.

The equivalent pension rise would now be index linked although not triple locked, just as additional state pension is not triple locked. But the cost of the rise is offset by taxation.

Some might complain that at a once tax free payment has become taxable but you would be getting it earlier than previously and index linked rises will eventually even this out plus two person households would be receiving more. There night need to be some tweaks to be fair to single householders.

The government could in theory round up the extra pension to say £4.00 pw and £6 pw to compensate for this.

Key. By paying this as extra pension it would now be paid out of the National Insurance Fund. This has a current credit surplus of £86 billion around £60 billion more than needs to be held in here as a surplus. The surplus is invested and generated almost £4 billion in interest in 2023/24.

The GAO say the fund surplus is expected to rise each year for the foreseeable future and so it will continue to earn interest more than enough to pay this as additional pension.

DWP save money as they no longer have to send out annual letters to people telling them they will receive the WFP. No more expensive computer runs to pay the WFP as a lump sum. No expensive admin for HMRC to clawback WFP from those with incomes over £35,000.

The whole thing is simplified.

Moreover, most people on grid spread their annual energy costs evenly over 12 months. The energy companies more or less force up to do this now. We now have the extra money on a weekly basis to put towards Direct Debits. Those who are offgrid now have money in advance to put toward buying oil at cheaper summer prices.

Nor perfect but a decent compromise. It won't happen of course.

If some inter-generational warrior wants to fight me over a taxable weekly pension rise that’s less than the price of the cup of coffee, I’m ready.

Oreo

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😁

An ear worm, Oreo!

A lot of older people no longer work so have less money coming in yet have the same everyday needs as anyone else.
They often have various health issues, aren’t all very mobile and feel the cold more.
I think old people are a special case.

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😁

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
😁

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.

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.