Winter Fuel Allowance under discussion by Martin.

molerat

Baldeagle095 said:

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.

Done to death on the correct thread on the subject.

MeteredOut

molerat said:

Baldeagle095 said:

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.

Done to death on the correct thread on the subject.

Done to death, resurrected a few times, killed off a few more times, come back to haunt most threads that mention the standing charge, killed again, and yet it still lives on... 

Altior

whattochoose said:

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.

Of course, anything can happen to anyone at any time. That's life and not really the point. This forum is not a perfect reflection of real life, but it is somewhat of a window to it. Look in many many parts of the forum and you'll see hundreds of threads which amount to exactly that. Requesting advice or advising on how to manipulate their affairs in such a way to reduce their tax liabilities to a minimum and/or increase their handouts. For example, spending money so that their capital drops below £16K, or SS to ensure they don't pay the cb charge, or workaround the LTA. 

My point here is that there was that there are very few benefits where people don't need to manipulate their affairs to get a handout. It judges people who have dodged working their whole life exactly the same as people who tried to support themselves throughout. It was rather nice, imv that everyone who was the same age got treated exactly the same.

It's also my view that 'we' should encourage people to be self sufficient. Withdrawing universal benefits, and enforcing means testing instead achieves the opposite. 

LHW99

Baldeagle095 said:

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.

Except that it's not iniquitous for everyone. We once lived in the wilds, with only electricity, no gas, too far from a road for oil / LPG.

The fact that we could choose to pay a standing charge, and have cheaper units meant we could have the heaters on as needed.

Now all governments are planning to phase out gas / oil, we are all going to use far more (probably costly) "units" than hitherto. Once there are no more standing charge-type tariffs, we will probably all regret it in the end.

JoeCrystal

I would LOVE to see standing charges abolished considering it would mean my gas bills get reduced by two thirds! 

westv

MeteredOut said:

molerat said:

Baldeagle095 said:

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.

Done to death on the correct thread on the subject.

Done to death, resurrected a few times, killed off a few more times, come back to haunt most threads that mention the standing charge, killed again, and yet it still lives on... 

You used to be able to get rates without a SC but I can't remember why they were all removed.

zagfles

westv said:

MeteredOut said:

molerat said:

Baldeagle095 said:

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.

Done to death on the correct thread on the subject.

Done to death, resurrected a few times, killed off a few more times, come back to haunt most threads that mention the standing charge, killed again, and yet it still lives on... 

You used to be able to get rates without a SC but I can't remember why they were all removed.

I think they were deemed too confusing when comparing tariffs. But AIRI most no SC tariffs had a high unit rate for the first x units then the standard rate, and the x was a low number of units which virtually everyone would use, so the end result was exactly the same for nearly everyone except very low users. 

MeteredOut

westv said:

MeteredOut said:

molerat said:

Baldeagle095 said:

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.

Done to death on the correct thread on the subject.

Done to death, resurrected a few times, killed off a few more times, come back to haunt most threads that mention the standing charge, killed again, and yet it still lives on... 

You used to be able to get rates without a SC but I can't remember why they were all removed.

You could ask on one of the many threads about the SC, rather than one about the winter allowance becoming means tested

twopenny

Is it right that MP's get a huge alowance for utility bills while they force those barely managing to be frightened of the winter and have to seek out warm places away from home to spend their days?

I know this is dated a couple of years back but don't have time to search for current numbers. I can't believe it would go down.

https://fullfact.org/online/MPs-no-upper-limit-heating-expenses/

To me the government made the hole by their (mis)managing of the ecconomy and have done nothing to stop the prices rising other than to claw back yet more money from the vulnerable.

Qyburn

Baldeagle095 said:

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.

A lot of the worse off would suffer from that. Have you actually read the Ofgem analysis?