Appealing - Cost of Living payment

calcotti

molerat said:  The only government that is likely to get elected is one that promises to give more, not one that will make the system fairer.

It seems that neither of those is likely. For 12 years government has been elected to give less, takeaway more and make things less fair as well as run down public services.

sheramber

there have always been winners and losers.

Many years ago my MIL complained that because my FIL's  income was £1 over the limit they did not any what was then rates relief.

A colleague at work qualified for  state pension and a small £36 pm occupational pension which put her just over the limit for pension credit. She had to pay full rent and council tax , apart from single occupier discount.

Her sister never worked but got pension credit and all the extras that went it so was actually much better off than my colleague.

Alice_Holt

sheramber said:

A colleague at work qualified for  state pension and a small £36 pm occupational pension which put her just over the limit for pension credit. She had to pay full rent and council tax , apart from single occupier discount.

      Your colleague could still have applied for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit / Support for help with rent and council tax. It is most likely (unless she had savings over £16k) she would not have to had paid " full rent and council tax", if she were "just over the limit for pension credit".

   https://www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/money-legal/benefits-entitlements/housing-benefit/


   The difference is that anyone in receipt of Pension Credit gets automatically passported to HB and CTs, those on a low retirement income just above PC levels have to actively apply for HB and CTr themselves. Unfortunately many people don't (as indeed many people entitled to PC fail to apply for the benefit). 

Newly_retired

Local authorities do indeed have funds they can allocate, but each is doing it in their own way, which could again lead to perceived unfairness. 
My County is identifying those in need through their paid staff eg Housing Officers, Social Workers etc, whilst my nearest City is using various local advice agencies to identify financially vulnerable claimants.

As was said earlier, these arrangements are a quick response to a crisis situation, and there is never going to be complete fairness.

OhWow

molerat said:

OhWow said:

It would be very easy for HMRC to do a data run, to give the names of:those on a UK state pension, who are:-

those of an cetain age (say 75 and over) AND who have at least 35 NIC qualifying years (*with X plus years as NIC contributions rather than NIC credits), to give these people £650.

It's the elderly who have contributed to the country for decades and who now live on a fixed income, that we should be helping with the high cost of living we have suddenly got. It's likely it will be harder for this group to increase their income by working.

* The sick/disabled already get money given extra money and additional money given through this scheme. Those Brits working abroad/who worked in another country, who could buy low cost NICs to get a UK state pension as well as a pension from the country they are/were working in, should be excluded.

If they had a computer system that was actually set up to pick out all those parameters maybe they could and then you went on to add even  more parameters. You also mentioned women that stayed at home with the children should be receiving it but then excluded them with the NI credits parameter.  Can you now see how unworkable it would be. 

I haven't missed them out of the data run. Those pensioners of age 75 plus, will have mainly NIC contribnuitions but some NIC Credits via Child Benefit.

Those "in need" on Universal Credit and Child Tax Credits, as said, could work extra hours if they are in need, as they are of working age. These woudl find it eaier to get additonal hours/a job, than those age 75 plus on a fixed income.

OhWow

calcotti said:

molerat said:  The only government that is likely to get elected is one that promises to give more, not one that will make the system fairer.

It seems that neither of those is likely. For 12 years government has been elected to give less, takeaway more and make things less fair as well as run down public services.

And Labour for years before that: raiding the private pensions for yet another loony scheme, so that those pensioners now receive less pension on retirement; raising the state pension age; making children start paying taxes on  the shares they recieved via their childrens savings accounts even though they did not earn enough to pay taxes.

My biggest beef, Labour's  refusal to help the children of the poor whose parents could not afford the money for their vision problems, meaning those children never got ther help they deserved and never reached their full financail working potential: while those of us who could pay for children found the children had their lives changed for the better.Were they worried these children would then vote conservative? Thankfully that help is there now for free, for every child.

sheramber

OhWow said:

molerat said:

OhWow said:

It would be very easy for HMRC to do a data run, to give the names of:those on a UK state pension, who are:-

those of an cetain age (say 75 and over) AND who have at least 35 NIC qualifying years (*with X plus years as NIC contributions rather than NIC credits), to give these people £650.

It's the elderly who have contributed to the country for decades and who now live on a fixed income, that we should be helping with the high cost of living we have suddenly got. It's likely it will be harder for this group to increase their income by working.

* The sick/disabled already get money given extra money and additional money given through this scheme. Those Brits working abroad/who worked in another country, who could buy low cost NICs to get a UK state pension as well as a pension from the country they are/were working in, should be excluded.

If they had a computer system that was actually set up to pick out all those parameters maybe they could and then you went on to add even  more parameters. You also mentioned women that stayed at home with the children should be receiving it but then excluded them with the NI credits parameter.  Can you now see how unworkable it would be. 

I haven't missed them out of the data run. Those pensioners of age 75 plus, will have mainly NIC contribnuitions but some NIC Credits via Child Benefit.

Those "in need" on Universal Credit and Child Tax Credits, as said, could work extra hours if they are in need, as they are of working age. These woudl find it eaier to get additonal hours/a job, than those age 75 plus on a fixed income.

I haven't missed them out of the data run. Those pensioners of age 75 plus, will have mainly NIC contribnuitions but some NIC Credits via Child Benefit.

not necessarily, she could have had llarge family so spent manynyears relying on credits. 



 those of an cetain age (say 75 and over) AND who have at least 35 NIC qualifying years (*with X plus years as NIC contributions rather than NIC credits), to give these people £650.

How many years is 'x'?

Would those who had X-1 years not think it was unfair?

 

SingleSue

OhWow said:

calcotti said:

calcotti said:

OhWow said:.

The more I read about this,the more I reaslise that this has been very badly thought out by Sunak(?) I agree that it is unfair that people who have been paying all their working taxes to the UK for at least 35 years to get a full state pension (and therefor no pension credit), are not getting the £650, while those who have not, are given the £650. 

The big divide will be between those who have reached pension age since 2016. People on the old State Pension at the flat rate get Pension Credit because OSP is worth less than PC. People on the NSP at the flat rate do not get PC because OSP was set at a level to remove entitlement to PC and thereby reduce the need for means testing.

The CoL rules do introduce unfairness but nonetheless it is difficult to see how this can be avoided. Mean tested benefits themselves result in unfairness for those on marginal thresholds. CoL has been made very simple in order to make it quick to set up. It would not be practical to examine the circumstances of everybody and introduce a completely new means testing basis for CoL payments which would then require people to apply etc. That would take time and there’s isn’t the capacity to do it.

The big divide will be between those who have reached pension age since 2016. People on the old State Pension at the flat rate get Pension Credit because OSP is worth less than PC. People on the NSP at the flat rate do not get PC because OSP was set at a level to remove entitlement to PC and thereby reduce the need for means testing.

The CoL rules do introduce unfairness but nonetheless it is difficult to see how this can be avoided. Mean tested benefits themselves result in unfairness for those on marginal thresholds. CoL has been made very simple in order to make it quick to set up. It would not be practical to examine the circumstances of everybody and introduce a completely new means testing basis for CoL payments which would then require people to apply etc. That would take time and there’s isn’t the capacity to do it.

It would be very easy for HMRC to do a data run, to give the names of:those on a UK state pension, who are:-

those of an cetain age (say 75 and over) AND who have at least 35 NIC qualifying years (*with X plus years as NIC contributions rather than NIC credits), to give these people £650.

It's the elderly who have contributed to the country for decades and who now live on a fixed income, that we should be helping with the high cost of living we have suddenly got. It's likely it will be harder for this group to increase their income by working.

* The sick/disabled already get money given extra money and additional money given through this scheme. Those Brits working abroad/who worked in another country, who could buy low cost NICs to get a UK state pension as well as a pension from the country they are/were working in, should be excluded.

The disabled get extra money (PIP) to pay for things that their disabilities create an extra expense for, just like Attendance Allowance does for those of pension age who are disabled.

Not all disabled people got the cost of living payment, if they are not claiming UC but claiming another means tested benefit like Housing benefit or council tax benefit, they do not get it.

Disabled people also find it difficult/can't increase their hours either and those who do work, tend to work more limited hours and primarily at minimum wage and some of them, don't claim a UC top up because of weekly or variable pay and the incompatibility of it with UC but do claim other means tested benefits which were not included in the parameters of a cost of living payment.

jadex

OhWow said:

Those "in need" on Universal Credit and Child Tax Credits, as said, could work extra hours if they are in need, as they are of working age. These woudl find it eaier to get additonal hours/a job, than those age 75 plus on a fixed income.

working extra hours on benefits is not really worth that much due to taper rate: you put in another shift for say £100 gross and 55% taper rate reduce your benefits so you will found out yourself in not much better financial position especially when you need to commute to do that job

sheramber

And possibly  extra child care charges.