MSE News: Winter benefits face cuts in welfare shake-up

BLT_2

Plushchris wrote: »

and women tend to feel the cold more than men, so maybe it should only be old women that get the payment?

Plus women live longer so they should get it late.

In all fairness at that age women have completed their role in society as baby making machines, should we really be concerning ourselves with their welfare.

ceridwen

Yep - another voice for keeping the Winter Fuel Allowance for pensioners.

I really do fear that they might try restricting it to those on Pension Credit only - as my pension won't be much more than that. I also fear whether they might put up the qualifying age instead. life was so much simpler when all my pension income was going to turn up at 60 - rather than having to pick up this bit here and that bit there. I certainly need to still receive my WFA - and my free buspass and free prescriptions.

I really dont understand people who say "Some of them might be spending it on something other than fuel.....<whinge>". I fail to see how - as I'm sure none of us have fuel bills less than £250 pa. Even in my little (relatively well-insulated) house anyway - I suspect literally every single penny of that £250 will go straight towards the higher fuel bills I have come the winter (not forgetting the fact that people obviously use their lighting more in the winter and cook more hot foods - as well as using the heating more).

Joyful

During the winter I speak to many people who are obviously upset when they cannot pay for the fuel but sometimes feel like making things change. On the one hand I have a customer who gets the money and immediately puts in on the fuel account/meter. They then tell me this allows them to heat the house without worrying.

On the other hand someone tells me they are cold but when I enquire about the rebate they say buying presents is more important. At this point in time that is their choice but it is not the reason they are given this money.

When you talk about adding to a pot of money with many people there is no pot. They live up to the income coming in and then struggle through the winter. I advise People especially on PP meters to put more in the meter during Summer so they don't have a problem in Winter. Usually the answer is "I can't afford to". THIS is the reason they are given the money. To stop them getting hypothermia in the Winter so why put it in their hands to spend on other things ?

The sooner ( I hope) the Government pays it onto the Energy accounts then it will finally get used correctly. This would also mean people out of the country living with heat would not be entitled to it.

Paulgonnabedebtfree

<sarcasm>Personally I think the best way would be to kick old people out of their houses as the winter starts - especially if they are council tenants who have a place larger than they now need.
Only allow people under 70 into libraries in case older people are using them to keep warm.
Abolish all pension credits and only allow people enough pension to be comparable with what they have paid into the system.
For those who still have a home, their fuel supplies should be cut off - whether or not they can afford to pay for them.
That should finish off quite a few wrinklies and stop them being a drain on the rest of us who have to work for a living.
In fact, why mess about. The world is already overpopulated.
Let's have compulsory euthenasia at the age of 70 so that there are more resources to go around for everyone else.</sarcasm>
Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% mortality rate.

ceridwen

But then - british people who have retired overseas - still often need that money for heating. Reason - houses in some other European countries get pretty darn cold in winter too.

Personally - I think its a total "red herring" anyway for people to be going on about whether the WFA is spent on heating or something else. ALL income ANYONE gets goes straight into their purse or bank account anyway and ALL spending then comes straight back out of that purse or bank account. NO-one has those little divided tins anymore that I recall my mother having - whereby one put money for this into this section and money for that into that section, etc.

These days that IS what people do - all of our money goes into one place and all of our expenses come out of that place.

One would have to be very mean indeed in fuel usage to spend less than £250 on extra heating/lighting/cooking in the winter and theres very very few people who won't spend at least that extra on their fuel bill as a whole over the cold period of the year. For the odd few - very odd few - that spend less than that on fuel - well...they will be suffering by going cold won't they? (ie because they've chosen to spend a bit more on other things - but since we dont live in a dictatorship then its not up to us to say "You MUST spend all the money you need to on necessities" - so, if it makes them feel a bit better about life to be freezing cold but spend money on presents for grandchildren then that IS their choice/their right to make that choice.

The WFA is, after all, a bit of the State Pension - it just gets called the title "Winter Fuel Allowance" - but it is actually State Pension under another heading. Whats in a name after all? <puzzled smilie>

Paulgonnabedebtfree

ceridwen wrote: »

But then - british people who have retired overseas - still often need that money for heating. Reason - houses in some other European countries get pretty darn cold in winter too.

Personally - I think its a total "red herring" anyway for people to be going on about whether the WFA is spent on heating or something else. ALL income ANYONE gets goes straight into their purse or bank account anyway and ALL spending then comes straight back out of that purse or bank account. NO-one has those little divided tins anymore that I recall my mother having - whereby one put money for this into this section and money for that into that section, etc.

These days that IS what people do - all of our money goes into one place and all of our expenses come out of that place.

One would have to be very mean indeed in fuel usage to spend less than £250 on extra heating/lighting/cooking in the winter and theres very very few people who won't spend at least that extra on their fuel bill as a whole over the cold period of the year. For the odd few - very odd few - that spend less than that on fuel - well...they will be suffering by going cold won't they? (ie because they've chosen to spend a bit more on other things - but since we dont live in a dictatorship then its not up to us to say "You MUST spend all the money you need to on necessities" - so, if it makes them feel a bit better about life to be freezing cold but spend money on presents for grandchildren then that IS their choice/their right to make that choice.

The WFA is, after all, a bit of the State Pension - it just gets called the title "Winter Fuel Allowance" - but it is actually State Pension under another heading. Whats in a name after all? <puzzled smilie>

Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned too but I feel that one of the things by which a society can measure its worth is by how it treats its most vulnerable members.

FATBALLZ

ceridwen wrote: »

One would have to be very mean indeed in fuel usage to spend less than £250 on extra heating/lighting/cooking in the winter and theres very very few people who won't spend at least that extra on their fuel bill as a whole over the cold period of the year. For the odd few - very odd few - that spend less than that on fuel - well...they will be suffering by going cold won't they?

I don't spend anything like £250 extra in the winter and I in no way attempt to be frugal with power usage and my flat is never less than 20 degrees inside. In fact it's been 10-12 degrees outside for the past week and I've had to put the fan on every day to keep it cool inside. There is plenty of cheap, well insulated accomodation available but some selfish people seem to think it's their god given right to live in a drafty old house and be funded to do so.

Paulgonnabedebtfree wrote: »

Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned too but I feel that one of the things by which a society can measure its worth is by how it treats its most vulnerable members.

It's offensive to class everyone over 60 as 'vulnerable'. And many of those who could legitimately be classed as vulnerable are in that position from expecting somebody else to plan for their future rather than take any responsibility for themselves.

Paulgonnabedebtfree

FATBALLZ wrote: »

It's offensive to class everyone over 60 as 'vulnerable'. And many of those who could legitimately be classed as vulnerable are in that position from expecting somebody else to plan for their future rather than take any responsibility for themselves.

It wasn't intended to mean anyone over 60. That's merely the interpretation that you've put on it. Not an unreasonable one in view of the subject of the thread but my comment was intended to incorporate a fairly wide spectrum of people and was not ageist.
Apart from that, it's not that long before I will hit 60 myself .

harz99

Why not simply put the WFA into taxable income status like the State Pension proper, which would claw back from those that don't need it and leave those that do unaffected? No means test required.

davidgmmafan

Hmm as always lively and interesting debate. It is a very difficlt issue this, because means testing, quite apart from the cost and the moral argument, also means lots of people won't get what they are entitled to. What is the most recent estimate for unclaimed benefits? £17 billion I believe is what was quoted. I imagine this would dwarf benefit fruad and the like.

There again there is an issue with people living the good life in the Costa Del weherever getting the Winter Fuel allowance. Clearly they aren't exactly struggling and I imagine most people would concede this is not what the payment was meant for.

There are people who there is no pleasing, I recall one lady who had obviously the Winter fuel payment, brand new heating system through warm front £100 discount for DD AND £125 per fuel because of the social tariff. She was STILL saying it was too expensive and she was going to change suppliers.

On the whole it would be a bad thing if they messed around with this significantly. It will further support the view that all politicians will say ANYTHING and do the opposite. Call me Dave said we'll keep those things when referring to this and other things. What is the meaning of that statement if it is taken to mean we'll keep it sort of but totally change it from what it is now. Its a bit like me saying I'm going to keep my car as it is then removing the engine, wheels, and anything else essential to its operation.

On the whole I'd say keep it, there are surely other things that are more urgent to tackle and much more important in the public's eyes.