Martin's suggestion for winter fuel allowance

FlorayG

Well yes, but at least they won't be able to say they were excluded by an unfair cutoff point

westv

Marcon said:

FlorayG said:

Thanks @Exodi
I think there's no way for it to be made 'fair', that's the reason it was given to all pensioners in the first place.
Maybe the fairest way would be to give it to any pensioner who applies for it - those who don't need it, some will apply but most won't

A recipe for admin chaos - and you can bet your life that those who need it most won't apply. Just look at the number of people eligible for pension credit who are missing out...

I've been told that applying for pension credit can be quite a faff - I have no idea how true that is though.

Exodi

FlorayG said:

Thanks @Exodi
I think there's no way for it to be made 'fair', that's the reason it was given to all pensioners in the first place.
Maybe the fairest way would be to give it to any pensioner who applies for it - those who don't need it, some will apply but most won't

Don't be defeatist, of course there's many ways for it to be much fairer, e.g. adjusting the starting point, having it reduce gradually instead of a cliff edge, etc.

The problem is that you'd need to create a new system to do this and creating systems is expensive. So the government was looking for a system that already exist which they could potentially piggyback off and... speak of the devil, they already had a database of poor pensioners through the Pension Credit system which they could use! It would be easy to just add extra money to all pension credit payments once a year, perfect. Well if you ignore the downsides that the threshold may be a bit low, and if someone is £1 over the threshold and thus not in receipt of pension credit, they do not appear on the list, so there would be a cliff edge. But it seemed like the cleanest option.

Martin Lewis countered this by pointing out that when they provided one off payments towards energy bills a few years ago to band A-D houses so there must have been a system in place there - suggesting they could use that which was fairer (in his opinion).

Of course, it's easy to suggest coming up with completely new systems that would be fairer, but the whole point is the government wants to save money not spend it.

"Maybe the fairest way would be to give it to any pensioner who applies for it - those who don't need it, some will apply but most won't"

That made me chuckle, personally I think that is very naive. It would also require a lot of admin work and risk measures, as you can expect a facility to 'apply for free money' might be taken advantage of by fraudsters.

You can opt out of the winter fuel allowance, here's an article from a few years ago about just how often that happened: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31963099

Along the lines of what @Macron was saying, I would expect an 'Opt In' system like you suggest would be heavily counterproductive - the richest would be the quickest to take advantage of it (as they're pretty notorious for taking advantage of any and all financial opportunities, which may be why they're rich in the first place) and the poorest are probably the least likely to take advantage of it (whether from lack of awareness, not having the capability or ability to apply, pride, etc).

Emmia

Part of the issue the government has, is that for a long time pensioners haven't had the same type of pain that working age people, and especially those under 40 face - fees for uni and student loans, house prices at a level that even two wages often aren't enough. 

The state pension is expensive, older people generally use the NHS and other services more - there was a great quote in the FT a few months ago which was essentially "the UK is eating it's children, to prop up grey haired wrinklies in £1million houses" and there's more than a grain of truth in that.

I appreciate that many pensioners have worked all their lives, and so have a rightful expectation of being ok financially, but unfortunately the costs of doing this probably cannot continue to fall on the working age population (which is shrinking, whilst the pensioner population is growing) - pensioners are going to have to accept some financial pain (less pension?) too.

With pension income being guaranteed there actually shouldn't really be a barrier to a pensioner getting a mortgage if they need one.

pseudodox

They take with one hand and give with the other!  Today's news is of an expected rise in SP next April of £400.  So I lose the WFA in December of £200 . . . . . then get double that from April 2025.  What's not to like?  @MikeJXE - shall we celebrate together?

Grumpy_chap

Kim_13 said:

la531983 said:

If anyone is living in the breadline in a huge house they cant afford to run, there is an easy solution. This is a general solution for anyone of any age.

One of our near neighbours was widowed early in the Summer. She lives in a Band E house. It was owned with her husband but as both of them had children from earlier relationships, his will left her a life interest in his half of the property, and his share itself to his children. She had it valued hoping that she could downsize to a bungalow, but the house isn’t worth enough to allow her to buy somewhere else on half of the value.

That type of life interest, if properly drafted by Solicitors, will usually include a provision for downsizing such that the relative portion of equity that will eventually become the children's is migrated to the new property. 

Even without such a provision, the children might be suitably flexible to allow the partial equity to migrate on the basis of replicating the life interest security.  That is a reasonable thing for the children to do as it reflects the apparent wish of the Father that the Wife can enjoy suitable accommodation for life without worry.

squirrelpie

Emmia said:

I appreciate that many pensioners have worked all their lives, and so have a rightful expectation of being ok financially, but unfortunately the costs of doing this probably cannot continue to fall on the working age population (which is shrinking, whilst the pensioner population is growing) - pensioners are going to have to accept some financial pain (less pension?) too.

I'm a pensioner and I worked all my life and yes I have an expectation of being OK financially. Part of my finance is a private pension, and part is a [funded!] public service pension, but an important part of that finance is my state pension. I have long lamented that the government chooses not to save my state pension contributions in a fund to pay for my pension, but chooses instead to spend the money when I contribute it so that people younger than me have to fund my state pension in turn. So I've fulfilled my part of the contract and contributed more than enough for my pension. I feel the government should live up to its part of the bargain, which is made in the manner of its choice - not mine - and pay me the state pension I earned.

The triple lock formula was adopted at a time when the state pension had fallen too far and was designed to gradually bring it back to a sensible level. Hence the 2.5% clause. But whoever designed it failed to account for the effect of the interaction between inflation and wage growth, which tends to ratchet the pension up even faster. The formula needs redesigning.

Another major problem is the lack of a working care system to match the NHS. At present it's a total lottery whether you'll have too much saved or nowhere near enough. It's yet another long-running scandal. No politician of any stripe has done anything.

booneruk

What state pension have you 'earned'? Is there a pounds and pence figure in your mind, and would that figure be the same for everyone? 

How's the government not living up to its part of the bargain?

I'm not sure you've got much to grumble about having read your post a few times. It seems to be your fundamental misunderstanding that 'pension contributions' (NI, I assume, or a part of it?) would ever go into a dedicated pot for your retirement. 

Regarding the triple lock, yes, it should be removed. I've always thought it should reflect a 5 year trailing average of earnings or something.

Brian3357

Absolutely, always something to celebrate 

Scot_39

pseudodox said:

They take with one hand and give with the other!  Today's news is of an expected rise in SP next April of £400.  So I lose the WFA in December of £200 . . . . . then get double that from April 2025.  What's not to like?  @MikeJXE - shall we celebrate together?

Whats not to like? 

[+ Shall we Celebrate ? - Cannot tell if thats sarcasm or spin.  Problem with text - no intonation.]

How about the simple fact that last winter pensioners would have got the wfp and the rise in Apr.

This isn't a £400 (no doubt for £221 max new ) vs £200-£300 discussion.

There is no £100-£200 net increase.

It's a £400 vs £600-£700 discussion.

There is only a £200-£300 loss for the 10m.