Martin's suggestion for winter fuel allowance

Exodi

Just goes to show why baby boomers have had it so good - they are serial complainers. Spoiled by being able to mould policy in their favour their entire lives due to the size of their generation. Totally unphased that it comes off the backs of their children and grandchildren who will likely never own a house unless it is inherited or will likely not receive a state pension until their 70's.

I didn't vote for Labour, but had I known they would have done this (or more generally, take unpopular decisions), I would have.

I was sick to the back teeth of pensioners on here bragging every winter about what bottles they were going to add to their collection, or what holiday it would go towards. While pensioners are always keen to focus on the very specific example of a destitute pensioner 1p over the pension credit threshold, to the majority of pensioners the WFA was a joke that was made every year to their children and grandchildren, of whom paid it, who had to grit their teeth and force a laugh.

Brian3357 said:

As pension is calculated on national insurance contributions, it is an earned right to receive state pension not a handout paid by others.

Sorry, except for being a subjective opinion, as an example please remember you generate NI credits while in receipt of various benefits. Herein lies the problem that you skillfully keep ignoring other posters make - most people take more out than they ever put in. To highlight this, I can buy a full missing NI year for £824, which adds £328 per year to my state pension. Over a 20 year retirement, I would have paid a one off £824, but received £6,560 in state pension - this is just from purchasing one NI year. You can see how generous the state pension can be, I could spend my entire life on Job Seekers Allowance and still be eligible for the full state pension. It doesn't quite fit with your definition that it is an 'earned right'.

And it objectively is a handout paid by others?

Brian3357

I appreciate that the government has to balance the books and any government would have to look at this balance. It is rather naive to liken government spending and revenue as if it were a household or business budget. It's not.

It isn't inevitable that we should enter into austerity and thus dampen growth

The government is already making decisions that make balacing books difficult. For example, massive above inflation wage settlements have created a big black hole-not conservative spending. 

All Im saying is that such deliberately chosen outlay should not be funded by targeting pensioners, who have had a lifetime of contributions and are still potentially a group at risk. Unlike junior doctors and train drivers!! 

Worth mentioning that fiscal austerity is a relative notion. Governments could still borrow to support massive wage settlements 

Exodi

casjen said:

Targeting the elderly is cowardly and abhorrent. Putting many millions of pensioners mental health in jeopardy in order to score political points is pathetic. Much of this so called 22 billion was already in the public domain and speaks volumes of the chancellors lack in doing her job in opposition.. If all the so called 800000 pensioners suddenly claimed credit then the cost with all the extras they will get will far outweigh the WFA cost.. The agenda against the elderly is very sad.

No it won't, and even if it did (which it won't) then would you be against the mix of benefit recipients skewing towards lower income?

Exodi

Brian3357 said:

The government is already making decisions that make balacing books difficult. For example, massive above inflation wage settlements have created a big black hole-not conservative spending. 

All Im saying is that such deliberately chosen outlay should not be funded by targeting pensioners, who have had a lifetime of contributions and are still potentially a group at risk. Unlike junior doctors and train drivers!! 

Worth mentioning that fiscal austerity is a relative notion. Governments could still borrow to support massive wage settlements 

There's always a delightful irony on this take every time it gets regurgitated from social media (the annoyance by pensioners that junior doctors got a 22% pay award over two years)... I don't know how else to say it, pensioners are by far the biggest consumers of NHS services... having appointments, operations, etc cancelled by strikes affects you guys more than it affects anyone else... being against it doesn't make sense.

"Governments could still borrow to support massive wage settlements" - oh lovely, do you have kids out of interest?

MattMattMattUK

Brian3357 said:

Many unsubstantiated statements are being made about tax burdens.

Yes, I did notice you made those, such as your "highest tax burden ever", and then when I pointed out you were wrong you ignored the fact that you were wrong.

Brian3357 said:

Ridiculous comparison to gdp and ww2.,where extreme economic forces were at work.

I was not comparing it to WWII, I was using it to disprove your "highest tax burden ever" claim, a claim which was factually wrong. The twenty years after WWII had a higher tax burden than we currently have.

Brian3357 said:

As a previous higher earner, ive paid significantly into the system. 

IF you were a high earner then you should have a substantial private pension, as such the WFA being removed will not impact you. Those who do not have private pensions will still be supported, support will be targeted at those in need, rather than handed out as a blanket bribe.

Brian3357 said:

As pension is calculated on national insurance contributions,

It is not, it is calculated on qualifying years, one does not get more for higher contributions.

Brian3357 said:

it is an earned right to receive state pension not a handout paid by others.

It is paid for by others as the money is not saved up for when someone retires. Less than 5% of people contribute enough so that they make a net lifetime contribution, once pensions are accounted for. It is almost always paid for b others, those others being high earners and businesses. 

Brian3357 said:

Unfortunately many never reach an age to claim and it's not inherited by spouses 

Some, not many. 

MattMattMattUK

Brian3357 said:

I appreciate that the government has to balance the books and any government would have to look at this balance. It is rather naive to liken government spending and revenue as if it were a household or business budget. It's not.

Very few people are saying it is, and no one on this thread is. The issue is that we have a very large national debt and the cost of servicing that debt is having a substantial impact on our ability to adequately fund the economy, our infrastructure has been neglected for fifty years and we have paid taxes that are far too low for decades. You seem to desire a further increased budget deficit and/or "someone else" paying more, so that you can have greater handouts from the state. 

Brian3357 said:

It isn't inevitable that we should enter into austerity and thus dampen growth

We have never really had austerity as that would result in balancing the budget, which apart from a two year period from '97-'99 we have not done for many decades. Badly implemented cuts can dampen growth, equally the long term effects of the huge national debt and substantial deficit are already dampening growth. Cutting things like the WFA for those that do not need it makes absolute sense, those most in need still get support, those who do not need the support, but would just like more free money do not get it.

Brian3357 said:

All Im saying is that such deliberately chosen outlay should not be funded by targeting pensioners, who have had a lifetime of contributions and are still potentially a group at risk. 

Again, pensioners are not being targeted. There was a short term measure implemented by a previous government, it was untargeted and used as a blanket bribe regardless of need. That blanket handout is now being removed and a targeted approach is being taken, so that those in need will be helped and those not in need will not. Pensioners still get the triple lock which is hugely over generous. Again, to point out, the vast majority have been a cost and almost all will remain a lifetime net cost. 

Brian3357 said:

Unlike junior doctors and train drivers!! 

Junior doctors have seen their pay decline 35% in real terms since 2010 even accounting for the latest rise, the Basic State Pension has risen 18% in real terms in the same period and if one accounts for the New State Pension the rise is around 30%. Train drivers whilst not worth what they are being paid is a pragmatic decision, the economic cost of the ongoing strikes is greater in one week than the cost of the pay rises over the whole year. 

Brian3357 said:

Worth mentioning that fiscal austerity is a relative notion. Governments could still borrow to support massive wage settlements 

They could, they could borrow to give everyone a million pounds, they could abolish tax, lots of things they could do, that does not make those things sensible. Balancing the nations books, paying down the national debt to reduce the burden on our children and grandchildren, those are sensible things, blanket bribes to one specific demographic group are not sensible, no matter how much you want that handout. 

matt_drummer

A quote from another unrelated discussion

Re. the quote above, my WFP of £500 has already been spent, on a holiday to Egypt where I enjoyed scuba diving and snorkelling. I am so comfortable wearing as many clothes as needed for a given temperature, there's no way I could gain from spending the WFP or any other £500 on heating. If I heated just one room, for example, I know it's far less convenient. I'd freeze - it could even be dangerous - whenever I leave the heated room, as I found when I tried it 15 or 20 years ago.

I have nothing against the person who posted this or their lifestyle.

They are not alone, just handing out money whether it is needed or not has to be looked at when governments need to save money.

Vitruvius1

My comment about home working was for self-employed and small businesses, not necessarily for employees doing so out of choice. My point though stands, that those in work are at an advantage over those no longer doing so when it comes to subsidised heating.

Exodi

matt_drummer said:

A quote from another unrelated discussion

Re. the quote above, my WFP of £500 has already been spent, on a holiday to Egypt where I enjoyed scuba diving and snorkelling. I am so comfortable wearing as many clothes as needed for a given temperature, there's no way I could gain from spending the WFP or any other £500 on heating. If I heated just one room, for example, I know it's far less convenient. I'd freeze - it could even be dangerous - whenever I leave the heated room, as I found when I tried it 15 or 20 years ago.

I have nothing against the person who posted this or their lifestyle.

They are not alone, just handing out money whether it is needed or not has to be looked at when governments need to save money.

Certainly not alone, jokes about what the money would go towards proliferate this forum every winter.

My stepfather cracks jokes about being relieved it arrived every year as it was desperately needed, the knee-slapping gag being that he sits on around £100k in cash savings.

I'm really not sure how people can genuinely defend taxpayers being forced to fund the winter fuel allowance for well off pensioners. In the past, the government encouraged well off pensioners who don't need the WFA to return the money and what do you think happened? Yeah of course, basically no-one did: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31963099

The money isn't coming from thin air, it's coming from the pockets of working families. Do pensioners just not care?

Vitruvius1

TheAble said:

Your point is perfectly valid Gerry but so are the previous posters' I'd argue. I can't understand the logic behind sitting in a cold house while simultaneously having savings you could use for heating. Surely one of the points of savings is to bridge periodic deficits between outgoings and income.

For many the savings are invested in ISAs or whatever to provide an essential income top-up to one of the worst pension provisions in the developed world. Raiding savings for short term benefit will for those lead to loss of income and a worsening situation in the future.