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

harz99

Cardew wrote: »

Surely the discussion is about giving an untaxed payment to all households with someone aged 60 or over.(who are not necessarily pensioners), regardless of their financial circumstances. In any case for most people the £250/£400 is simply part of the household income; not put aside for heating.

Means testing, we are told, would cost more to administer than it would save.

Like I said before; put WFA in the taxable bracket like the State Pension which will claw back from those that don't need it and cost no more to administer as no means testing over and above your tax return is needed.

Scrapping WFA would make little difference to those not in need and a huge difference to those at the poverty level end of life; and would simply not be a fair solution.

Ken68

Reduce it by £50 to help the nation, and move it to the State Pension to cut admin costs.
And in exchange for this loss, Parliament should pass a Bill to simplify the energy tariffs, and/or put the OAP's on the cheapest for their area/circumstances.
But with the very alert Energy Providers and a poor regulator, can't see that happening.
Chances are that even now British Gas and all are lobbying for the WFA to be routed through them.

Mobeer

Scrap these payments, and use the money saved to properly insulate houses so that heating bills are much lower in the first place.

shegar

Mobeer wrote: »

Scrap these payments, and use the money saved to properly insulate houses so that heating bills are much lower in the first place.

Perhaps it would be better to pay the WFA at January/February time when its probaly the coldest time of winter by then , and the money as got more of a chance to get used for what it is originally given for ...... instead of buying christmas presents .

I believe that it should not go to people who spend winters in other countries, fuel allowance should be used to keep you warm in this country, if anyone can afford to go away for 3 month at winter at a time "to get away from the english weather" surely they dont really need the allowance in the first place . ?

Cardew

shegar wrote: »

I believe that it should not go to people who spend winters in other countries, fuel allowance should be used to keep you warm in this country, if anyone can afford to go away for 3 month at winter at a time "to get away from the english weather" surely they dont really need the allowance in the first place . ?

There are many examples where the WFA is 'not needed'. For example an elderly relative not paying any gas/electricity bills as they living with their(rich!) children.

Many aged 60 are still in full time employment and in any case many pensioners having paid off mortgage, with children off their hands are relatively well off - equally many are not. There have been many surveys that show that pensioners have more disposable income than any other group.

It has been established that it would cost more to administer a means test than it would save in fewer payments; and many who need the payment would simply not apply - £billions of pensioners entitlements are unclaimed.

The issue is not if a payment is needed, but should these 'blanket' type payments be made at all.

brewerdave

As someone who stood to get the WFA for the first time this Winter I have to (reluctantly) agree with the abolition lobby. I could really use it as my "salary" via my pension is considerably less than I was earning before my 3 redundancies in my late forties and fifties.
Obvious easy answer (to me anyway!!) is to abolish WFA completely but to increase the basic state pension - no means testing or complicated claim forms and the better off will be taxed on the extra payments at their marginal rate of tax.Also won't need to pay it until 65 (or whatever the sliding age for women) so there would be an immediate saving.

davidgmmafan

I agree with a voucher system or a direct payment to the energy account the money goes directly to the company, but then presumably the pensioner households would've been going to pay the money to the company anywany (unless things are worse then I thought). The main concern here is if government action would just unneccesarily inflate bills. I'm thinking of a bizarre advert I saw in the paper asking for tenants in reciept of housing benefit saying they would get cashback. I thought payments went direct to tenants? And if the owner is giving cashback then they are setting the rent too high because of government money. Same could happen here, its a difficult subject with no easy answers.

The thing that clinches it for me is these people have at least contributed to the system, most for a long time. Therefore they should be last in line for any cuts, only looked at once the real !!!! takers have been sorted once and for all.

shegar

Cardew wrote: »

There are many examples where the WFA is 'not needed'. For example an elderly relative not paying any gas/electricity bills as they living with their(rich!) children.

Many aged 60 are still in full time employment and in any case many pensioners having paid off mortgage, with children off their hands are relatively well off - equally many are not. There have been many surveys that show that pensioners have more disposable income than any other group.

It has been established that it would cost more to administer a means test than it would save in fewer payments; and many who need the payment would simply not apply - £billions of pensioners entitlements are unclaimed.

The issue is not if a payment is needed, but should these 'blanket' type payments be made at all.

Well shouldnt the goverment be sending out simple forms for OAPs to fill in to see what their living arrangements are to see if they should qualify for WFP , the savings would be great if they stopped paying pensioners that are living with family, living in a residential home, in hospital, living abroad for the winter...and have savings over a certain limit.

That way the pensioners that really do need help with their fuel costs would qualify......my friend cleans for a couple in their seventies who have a 6 bedroom house 2 newish cars , with a 2 acre garden in a coastal position worth well over 1 million , and they get the WFP , they dont need it, and have their heating on a timer when it only comes on 6 hours per day and the house is freezing.....!!!!!!!

This system definately needs looking at.....

Cardew

shegar wrote: »

Well shouldnt the goverment be sending out simple forms for OAPs to fill in to see what their living arrangements are to see if they should qualify for WFP , the savings would be great if they stopped paying pensioners that are living with family, living in a residential home, in hospital, living abroad for the winter...and have savings over a certain limit.

That way the pensioners that really do need help with their fuel costs would qualify......my friend cleans for a couple in their seventies who have a 6 bedroom house 2 newish cars , with a 2 acre garden in a coastal position worth well over 1 million , and they get the WFP , they dont need it, and have their heating on a timer when it only comes on 6 hours per day and the house is freezing.....!!!!!!!

This system definately needs looking at.....

1. It has been explained many times that to means test, will cost more than it will save.

2. It is not just pensioners that get WFA - any household with anyone aged 60 gets it as well.

3. You think the criteria for entitlement be 'if they need it'? How should that criteria be determined? A household with an income of, say, £10k a year could be better off than another household with an income of £20k a year.

4. You suggest someone with savings over a certain limit should not get WFA - so don't save for your retirement - spend spend spend?

5. Loads of people don't 'need' their State retirement pension - shall we stop that also?

Paulgonnabedebtfree

Cardew wrote: »

1. It has been explained many times that to means test, will cost more than it will save.

2. It is not just pensioners that get WFA - any household with anyone aged 60 gets it as well.

3. You think the criteria for entitlement be 'if they need it'? How should that criteria be determined? A household with an income of, say, £10k a year could be better off than another household with an income of £20k a year.

4. You suggest someone with savings over a certain limit should not get WFA - so don't save for your retirement - spend spend spend?

5. Loads of people don't 'need' their State retirement pension - shall we stop that also?

Not sure about this but don't some recipients of DLA get WFA as well? That might cause a problem with building it into the tax system as DLA is generally ring fenced. Or have I got this wrong. The system has grown so complex it's hard to keep up at times.