Better-off Pensioners 'encouraged' to give fuel allowance to charity

dtsazza

BertieUK wrote: »

Could someone please give me a logical reason why pensions do not at least, keep pace with inflation.

They can do, as with many other options when you buy an annuity, if you're willing to pay extra for it.

Yes, I'm talking about private Defined Contribution pensions, because there it's easier to see what the actual costs are, and you can't "cheat" as easily as with the state pension because everyone's pots are separate.

But the same principles are there, and the simple answer is "cost". If there is, say, £20m available to provide an annuity for so many people, then there's only so much that you can do. You can't magically provide those people with a pension that would cost £40m to supply. Well, rather you can, but only by borrowing - either explicitly via gilts, or sneakily from the contributions of future pensioners.

We've gone down the latter route for a few decades, and it has to some extent disguised whether state pension payments are inherently sustainable. But at some point, that option runs out. State pension levels could keep rising with inflation if they started from a lower level, but they're currently too high relative to total contributions for this to be feasible or sustainable.

Jennifer_Jane

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So long as it's affordable....which it clearly isn't.

You can't pay out more and more from less and less.

Well, obviously, so what would you do to avoid 27,000 old people dieing from cold every year?

You may already have posted this, and I missed it, so apologies if you have.

Incidentally, and just a personal anecdote - a friend's father was in hospital with a stroke over Christmas. They were given a pretty lovely Christmas lunch and anyone who was visiting at that time could join in. My friend happened to be there. There was so much food left over that the staff cheerfully wrapped up masses of turkey and sausages for my friend's dog as it was to be binned.

Such sad waste. (I'm from Africa, and cannot bear food waste).

PaulF81

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

I agree completely with you, but whenever I listen to Parliament Live and this kind of thing is discussed, the MPs always say that the people who most need the WFA are the types who cannot apply for it for one reason or another - too old, too proud, whatever.

Certainly younger pensioners now as they grow older will be less stoical, and would apply for it. But how you get around the fact that something like 27,000* old people currently die every year through the cold, I don't know.

*http://fullfact.org/factchecks/cold_deaths_nhs_cost_billion-28621

Get knitting granny. It may cost the NHS billions, it saves the DWP more in pensions I bet.

BertieUK

Due to unforseen circumstances, which happens to many families, we will have to downsize very soon because we are on the 'breadline' with our savings and certainly do not wish to join the 'benefit' claiments, so when the WFA comes through the letter-box we feel that this will go a long way to keeping a fire in the hearth, so to speak.

So if it was scrapped we then would have to find another way of overcoming the issue.

Thank you all for giving your valued opinions.

Graham_Devon

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Well, obviously, so what would you do to avoid 27,000 old people dieing from cold every year?

Well, this is where I start getting a little argumentitive, as it's something that really gripes me.

In the UK we are seemingly very good at looking at the solution. The solution usually involves a very simple, one size fits all approach. That approach is "throw money at it". Throwing money at things just keeps people where they are, it doesn't solve issues. Many people being thrown SMI simply stay where they are and don't downsize because they can. Many people with heating issues will be living in house larger than they need, and many will be able to freely downsize and so on.

Now, I don't want anyone to die of cold. It's appualing that it happens. But has throwing money at people actually solved it? No. That's why people die.

So would we not be better just spending a little more time and effort looking at the root cause of the problem?

Money does not solve everything. Some pensioners would prefer to spend any money they get on Gin, and keep the heating off. Some will be fleeced by their kids and hand it over. Some will use it for heating...and so on.

But, the overriding point is that this money does not solve the issue, it doesn't stop people from dying, and it's an arbituary figure plucked from thin air. If people are dying, push the money into support for looking at the cause...don't push the money at a one size fits all appraoch giving loads of people who don't need it, 250 quid.

Why do these people need £250? Why is there a need in the UK but other countries with the same type of weather patterns get by? Only once we have found the cuase will we truly be able to understand and rectify the problem.....and most of us know the cause, it's profits of the large companies rising year after year.

CLAPTON

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Well, obviously, so what would you do to avoid 27,000 old people dieing from cold every year?

You may already have posted this, and I missed it, so apologies if you have.

Incidentally, and just a personal anecdote - a friend's father was in hospital with a stroke over Christmas. They were given a pretty lovely Christmas lunch and anyone who was visiting at that time could join in. My friend happened to be there. There was so much food left over that the staff cheerfully wrapped up masses of turkey and sausages for my friend's dog as it was to be binned.

Such sad waste. (I'm from Africa, and cannot bear food waste).

One might question whether 27,000 die of cold due to lack of money for heating

but if it is true then the answer is probably not to give lots of money to 15 million people who mostly don't need it

grizzly1911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Couldn't we simply scrap it altogether?

If it's really needed:

A) look at why, and what other countries do...if anything?
implement it like a bus pass / disability badge...where you have to apply?

I understand how politically damning it would be to simply axe it, but couldn't they just state labour created this stupid system in the first place? Surely no one agrees with giving it to everyone regardless?

AIUI WFA does have to be applied for as do bus passes, at least initially.

It was put in place to assist the old whose income was being disproportionately impacted by energy increasing above recognised inflation levels.

Why not simply roll it into the pension and tax it if applicable that way you get 25% or 45 % back in tax.

We tend to ignore the fact that those don't actually need it will probably still spend it on some form VAT impacted consumption anyway.

GeorgeHowell

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Such sad waste. (I'm from Africa, and cannot bear food waste).

Nor can I (and I'm not from Africa as it happens). But it's not just the public sector that wastes large amounts of food. Many families and households throw away scandalous quantities. This is probably due to a combination of impulse buying, poor household management, greedy portion allocation, and a perverse notion that being able to afford to throw away food is somehow status-enhancing. It's a national disgrace.

diable

F*ck giving to charity I'm giving it to the gas board instead.......

Graham_Devon

grizzly1911 wrote: »

We tend to ignore the fact that those don't actually need it will probably still spend it on some form VAT impacted consumption anyway.

Well, yer, I would too if given money, as I'm sure the rest of the country would. That's not really the point though. It's not really OK just because we get 20% of it back through VAT.

Otherwise, we may aswell just give everyone £250 each winter. And why stop there? Giving £2,500 will net even bigger VAT returns in monetry terms.