Winter Fuel Allowance under discussion by Martin.

Exodi

whattochoose said:

Suggestion here that the Christmas bonus should increase from £10 to £200.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/should-10-dwp-christmas-bonus-33652160

Given that the petition was made before the WFA announcement, I think Edward Leigh was right in the Commons on Tuesday by saying "Pensioners will eventually bankrupt the country".

hugheskevi

Exodi said:

whattochoose said:

Suggestion here that the Christmas bonus should increase from £10 to £200.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/should-10-dwp-christmas-bonus-33652160

Given that the petition was made before the WFA announcement, I think Edward Leigh was right in the Commons on Tuesday by saying "Pensioners will eventually bankrupt the country".

The Office for Budgetary Responsibility published new long-term forecasts today. They do not make for pleasant reading. About the only positive I could take from them is that the present time is about as good as it will get over compared to future years.



The much-vaunted 'unsustainable' public service pension schemes are eminently sustainable compared to the soaring health costs (around 40% of NHS expenditure is on over 65s) and State Pension costs. Half of the increase in State Pension costs comes from the Triple Lock (compared to if State Pension were linked to earnings growth).

The increase in debt will need to be tackled, so that means either spending cuts or tax increases.

It would be possible to do nothing of significance for the next 10 years, and not much would change. Arguably it would be better to plan for when things will really get tough in the mid 2040s and start the adjustment process as soon as possible though rather than kicking the can down the road and leaving it to younger generations to somehow manage.

Mind you, it would have been better to have done that in the 1980s given the demographic position has been known about for a long time, eg, sovereign wealth funds, carefully managed immigration strategies, etc.

zagfles

hugheskevi said:

Exodi said:

whattochoose said:

Suggestion here that the Christmas bonus should increase from £10 to £200.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/should-10-dwp-christmas-bonus-33652160

Given that the petition was made before the WFA announcement, I think Edward Leigh was right in the Commons on Tuesday by saying "Pensioners will eventually bankrupt the country".

The Office for Budgetary Responsibility published new long-term forecasts today. They do not make for pleasant reading. About the only positive I could take from them is that the present time is about as good as it will get over compared to future years.



The much-vaunted 'unsustainable' public service pension schemes are eminently sustainable compared to the soaring health costs (around 40% of NHS expenditure is on over 65s) and State Pension costs. Half of the increase in State Pension costs comes from the Triple Lock (compared to if State Pension were linked to earnings growth).

The increase in debt will need to be tackled, so that means either spending cuts or tax increases.

It would be possible to do nothing of significance for the next 10 years, and not much would change. Arguably it would be better to plan for when things will really get tough in the mid 2040s and start the adjustment process as soon as possible though rather than kicking the can down the road and leaving it to younger generations to somehow manage.

Mind you, it would have been better to have done that in the 1980s given the demographic position has been known about for a long time, eg, sovereign wealth funds, carefully managed immigration strategies, etc.

Wonder how accurate forecasts of current govt spending made 40-50 years ago were?  

sheramber

Surely all the extra claimants for pension credit the Government are pushing will cost more than the WFS did. 

The increase  in the state pension they claim will  make up for losing WFA this year will not be paid until after April so will not be available for this winter’s heating bills. 

luvchocolate

Plus everything goes up in April including rent with housing association..depending upon any cap. 
Also council tax dread to think how much these struggling councils will charge if not capped 

Exodi

sheramber said:

Surely all the extra claimants for pension credit the Government are pushing will cost more than the WFS did.

This argument has been made to death.

The government clearly thinks it will not, and I'm sure even the most cynical among us will agree that it's unlikely to be anywhere near 100% uptake from the ~880,000 potential PC claimants.

Even if it was cash neutral, it would still be hard to argue that it's a bad thing to change the skew of benefit recipients towards the lower income end.

zagfles

Exodi said:

sheramber said:

Surely all the extra claimants for pension credit the Government are pushing will cost more than the WFS did.

This argument has been made to death.

The government clearly thinks it will not, and I'm sure even the most cynical among us will agree that it's unlikely to be anywhere near 100% uptake from the ~880,000 potential PC claimants.

Even if it was cash neutral, it would still be hard to argue that it's a bad thing to change the skew of benefit recipients towards the lower income end.

It easy to argue. The more means testing you have the less incentive you have for people to save for their old age. Means testing creates poverty traps. It increases the effective marginal tax rates on the poorest. 

Altior

zagfles said:

Grumpy_chap said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

Spending less on kids and more on pensioners doesn’t seem right to me. 

Pensioners vote.
Kids can't vote.
Kids' parents, in many cases, don't vote.  Those that do are probably pleased that there is state care provision looking after their elderly parents.

Plus we have a general societal attitude that children are the financial responsibility of their parents but pensioners are not the financial responsibility of their children. Unless that attitude changes it's obvious that state spending on pensioners will be significantly more than spending on children. 

Maybe working age adults should be obliged to support their pensioner parents financially, in the same way as they're obliged to support their children. And for those that refuse, the PSA (pensioner support agency) can chase them and make them pay 

We have a general societal attitude that everyone else is responsible for supporting us, apart from ourselves. 

Getting old is not a shock. Funnily enough we have decades to prepare for that inevitability (should we be fortunate enough to make it that far).

If the 'government' feels that providing financial support to older people is a societal benefit, it shouldn't matter a jot what your bank balance is, or the value of your home. We should be encouraging people to be self sufficient, not manipulating their own affairs in such a way as to line themselves up to be handed other peoples' money. 

whattochoose

Altior said:

zagfles said:

Grumpy_chap said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

Spending less on kids and more on pensioners doesn’t seem right to me. 

Pensioners vote.
Kids can't vote.
Kids' parents, in many cases, don't vote.  Those that do are probably pleased that there is state care provision looking after their elderly parents.

Plus we have a general societal attitude that children are the financial responsibility of their parents but pensioners are not the financial responsibility of their children. Unless that attitude changes it's obvious that state spending on pensioners will be significantly more than spending on children. 

Maybe working age adults should be obliged to support their pensioner parents financially, in the same way as they're obliged to support their children. And for those that refuse, the PSA (pensioner support agency) can chase them and make them pay 

We have a general societal attitude that everyone else is responsible for supporting us, apart from ourselves. 

Getting old is not a shock. Funnily enough we have decades to prepare for that inevitability (should we be fortunate enough to make it that far).

If the 'government' feels that providing financial support to older people is a societal benefit, it shouldn't matter a jot what your bank balance is, or the value of your home. We should be encouraging people to be self sufficient, not manipulating their own affairs in such a way as to line themselves up to be handed other peoples' money. 

Bob Dylan once said that "tomorrow is never what it's supposed to be".
Given that life can often be unpredictable and random, and the vagaries and vicissitudes of just being alive can afflict many in various forms - mental/physical health problems, job loss/insecurity, relationship breakups, expenses that suddenly arise causing financial difficulty, etc. I suppose, really, the list is endless of things that can unexpectedly harm one's long-term financial plans and stability
The above comment acknowledges none of this and simplistically and reductively accuses wholesale those who need help in later life of manipulating the system.

Baldeagle095

Much more equitable would be to concentrate on abolishing the iniquitous Standing Charge and increase the Unit Rate to compensate for the Standing Charge.
Martin should aim his fire at this.