We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Withdraw winter fuel payment to pay for elderly care
Comments
-
Indeed. Whilst no one wants to see pensioners starving or unable to afford heating, there should be more recognition for those who have scrimped and saved so they are not a burden on society.
At least government is now enforcing a mandatory pension scheme on all, which hopefully may address the issue in the fullness of time.
Trouble is things have changed rapidly...in the late 1970's millions of workers were joining UK final salary pension schemes.
Within a decade we had mass unemployment and UK companies looked overseas at better opportunities...as a result the workers were made redundant and companies raided the pension schemes to persuade people to retire early..
The long term pension plans were in tatters as contributions were drying up...schemes have simply closed down in many cases..
You'd think we'd have better long term planning but governments aren't that bothered if the economy is growing and the books are balanced..
Its funny how this idea for Care has come from one spokesman and not the cabinet....they're testing the water you could say.0 -
Its funny how this idea for Care has come from one spokesman and not the cabinet....they're testing the water you could say.
I think you are right on the testing theory.
The spokesman also said that Cameron had only ring fenced "benefits for all" for this parliament and the spokesman didn't want to see it lost (in general tax take) if the benefits were simply withdrawn.
He also painted a bleak picture of every one losing up to 80% of "their home" when they went into care rather than if they went into care.
He also made the point they his family had personally been down to their last £20k when a relative had been in care so a veste inteerst is at play perhaps.
The "rules" he was suggesting sounded abit complex too. No means testing for assets below £100K and a cap at £60K for care payments. For the former I would suggest it disregards the majority so are the savings going to be that high and for the latter it is nearly twice the Dimlott (?) recommendation so probably wouldn't save the majority much anyway."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
It's got nothing to do with being a pensioner. Anyone born before 5 July 1951 qualifies.This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0
-
grizzly1911 wrote: »Another phone in person to R5L today suggested that anyone in receipt of public sector pensions shouldn't get state pension on top_pale_
I won't get one BTW.
I guess they are not in receipt of a public sector pension? that is the way people seem to be stop all benefits except for what I get
'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
Those retiring from 2016 onwards will be entitled to a much higher basic state pension (to the tune of a couple of thousand pounds a year).
Surely the easiest thing to do is to withdraw the fuel allowance from all new pensioners at that time. It would save all of the administrative burden and cost of means testing it. The cost of continuing to provide it to current pensioners would then steadily decrease, again without wasting the money on a whole new costly bureaucratic system."When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson0 -
MacMickster wrote: »Those retiring from 2016 onwards will be entitled to a much higher basic state pension (to the tune of a couple of thousand pounds a year).
Surely the easiest thing to do is to withdraw the fuel allowance from all new pensioners at that time. It would save all of the administrative burden and cost of means testing it. The cost of continuing to provide it to current pensioners would then steadily decrease, again without wasting the money on a whole new costly bureaucratic system.
That is not exactly true, those who have contracted out will suffer 'clawback' and could receive less than the basic state pension as it stands now, others who currently expect to receive a 2nd state pension are concerned that they may receive less under new arrangements.
http://www.which.co.uk/news/2011/06/winners-and-losers-of-flat-rate-state-pension-257460/A Pensions Policy Institute (PPI) report on the current Green Paper, has suggested that the overall impact of introducing a flat-rate state pension in 2016 will be 'cost neutral', and benefit seven million pensioners, but could leave five million less well off than they would be under the present system.'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
Unfortunately Cameron was trapped into promising to retain the WFA by Labour at the time of the farcical round of TV debates. After the next election one would expect whoever gets in to means test it. Non-means tested monetary handouts other than state pension are almost always a nonsense, and usually instigated as a short term vote winning tactic, as this one clearly was.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
Wasn't really that short term though.GeorgeHowell wrote: »Unfortunately Cameron was trapped into promising to retain the WFA by Labour at the time of the farcical round of TV debates. After the next election one would expect whoever gets in to means test it. Non-means tested monetary handouts other than state pension are almost always a nonsense, and usually instigated as a short term vote winning tactic, as this one clearly was.
Introduced in 1997 and extended in 2000, it wasn't exactly handed over with the "it's all gone "note."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
MacMickster wrote: »Those retiring from 2016 onwards will be entitled to a much higher basic state pension (to the tune of a couple of thousand pounds a year).
Surely the easiest thing to do is to withdraw the fuel allowance from all new pensioners at that time. It would save all of the administrative burden and cost of means testing it. The cost of continuing to provide it to current pensioners would then steadily decrease, again without wasting the money on a whole new costly bureaucratic system.
No doubt those who are entiled to pension credit will simply be neutralised by any increase so of no benefit to them.
Simply taking away WFA is in effect reducing the effective benefit of the "new" guaranteed pension?
Add it into the pension and tax it or simply don't increase the foreign aid budget instead. Don't even have to cut that budget if they are so passionate about it.
They apparently want to sequestrate it for care cost capping so no budget saving anyway. Just taking from the many to benefit the few."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Wasn't really that short term though.
Introduced in 1997 and extended in 2000, it wasn't exactly handed over with the "it's all gone "note.
I suspect it was with the 2001 election in mind, as Labour shifted up through the gears in developing its client state.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards