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

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?

WFA is to be per household.

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

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.

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.

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

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!

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

Doodledog

keepingquiet

Wonder how many people will post now they got what they wanted?

I will certainly be eligible if it's for those on less than £25 000 pa.

However, on the news now it's just more government baiting... seems they can't do right for doing wrong...

I think that in years to come this government's term will be used in schools as an example of how the media influence opinion. I've been interested in that sort of thing all my life, and have never seen things as bad as this. Maybe that's because there are more media sources than ever before, and because 'ordinary' people have access to them in ways that allow everyone to give their opinions, but it's been poisonous.

I have said for a fair few years, Doodledog, that there are many, many small groups of very noisy, shouty people putting their points of view forward - he who shouts loudest gets heard!

How did a Labour Government not know that lots of people needed the annual payment to get through the winter? How did they manage in one fell swoop to show how ignorant they are in not knowing how people live? But they know how to blame the previous government, just get.on and do YOUR job.

albertina

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

Too right they have to do a u turn.

Absolutely agree with you there. It was a horrendous start to this government's first term

I agree. The previous threshold was far too low .

Chazz01 Do you always describe political parties in such derogatory terms? It sounds like the kind of language primary school pupils use.

Chazz01

Yes, it's good that the WFA of either £200 or £300 is being reinstated to those pensioners receiving less than £35K.
That it should NEVER have been applied in such an irrational and draconian way, without consultation, just shows how little thought was given to the effects of such a policy in the first place.
Don't you think that this £35K cut-off point is very interesting?
People are missing a very important point here.
Why such a discrepancy between the personal allowance of £12,570 before the iniquitous tax-take kicks in, and this £35K poverty level?
Surely, the Personal Allowance will now HAVE to be set at a level commensurate with reality?
How about a PA of £20K to start with?
Somehow, I don't see either of the two withered cheeks of the same Uniparty bum adopting a Reform policy, can you?

You do realise that people with incomes below the tax threshold (and there are many) wouldn't benefit at all and that people all the way up the income scale would benefit from lifting the threshold, unless adjustments were to be made to the tax people up the scale pay (either tweaking thresholds or increasing the per cent people pay).

Then there would be more anger. More moaning. More people shouting "it's not fair!"

That’s because Tory austerity was nothing of the sort, there is worst to come, the pigeons have come home to roost.

As far as WFA is concerned a couple with an income of £70k is way above the “moderately comfortable” level so it’s not a U Turn it’s a give away.

The spending review is highly optimistic.

Yes, it's good that the WFA of either £200 or £300 is being reinstated to those pensioners receiving less than £35K.
That it should NEVER have been applied in such an irrational and draconian way, without consultation, just shows how little thought was given to the effects of such a policy in the first place.
Don't you think that this £35K cut-off point is very interesting?
People are missing a very important point here.
Why such a discrepancy between the personal allowance of £12,570 before the iniquitous tax-take kicks in, and this £35K poverty level?
Surely, the Personal Allowance will now HAVE to be set at a level commensurate with reality?
How about a PA of £20K to start with?
Somehow, I don't see either of the two withered cheeks of the same Uniparty bum adopting a Reform policy, can you?

growstuff

Allira

I've just been reading indignant posts on Facebook from someone who says he's a musician and doesn't earn £34,999 pa, nor do the check out operators in supermarkets.

The cut-off point had to be someone and the average salary of working people in the UK is £37,430 so obviously some will earn less than that or it would not be an average.

Seems they can't win whatever they do!

I think we live in angry times. It seems some people can't be happy unless they have something to be angry about - they should be warned it won't do their blood pressure much good.

Judging by other posts, it's being so angry keeps him happy!

Thankfully I don't know him, he's just on a local page.

Hevs

I think it is right, because the alternative presented - applying for help via Pension Credit - is almost impossible to do.
It's a lot easier to apply for Universal Credit than Pension Credit, and yet many of the people who need the latter are cognitively or visually impaired. Even if you're not, it's still jolly difficult. And it was a completely unnecessary own goal by a new government.

Applying for Pension Credit really isn't impossible. If people really do have problems with the form, there are charities who can help.

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!