Martin's suggestion for winter fuel allowance

oldernonethewiser

Vitruvius1 said:

oldernonethewiser said:

Vitruvius1 said:

sammyjammy said:

Brian3357 said:

The suggestion that council tax bands are used to determine who should receive the winter fuel allowance is ludicrous. There is little correlation between council tax band and ability to pay for energy. Many pensioners in band e or f are asset rich but cash poor

If they are asset rich and so cash poor that they can't manage without £300 once a year then maybe they should seriously consider downsizing.  I know its something some people won't consider  but it is a choice they make.

I am guessing from your comment that you are working during the day, if not I apologise. If you are then that is something like 38 hours a week you are being kept warm at someone else's expense which ultimately is funded in whole or in part through council tax or corporation tax relief and to which many pensioners contribute. Perhaps if you were taxed on this benefit then that would be more equitable. Downsizing isn't a realistic choice for many and can result in other costs which outweigh any savings.

Are you assuming that all these people in work are actually at a workplace and not working from home?

If you are working from home, as I do, then you can deduct a proportion of your heating cost (as well as other expenses) from your tax liability, whether personal or corporate. You are still receiving a form of subsidy.

At whos expense are your costs being covered?

MP1995

Once everyone has stopped taking chunks out of each other from their own position and view let's all remember wherever we live to keep an eye out for the elderly nearby this winter (and every winter) 

I feel like many here (please excuse me for those over 80) have not felt as much hardship as those involved in wars and the years after so they deserve everything they get imo. I am happy to pay for them to see out their life with a few luxuries and burden that cost.

How quickly we forget.

The system will never be perfect from every view point and that's where we use our voting power when the time comes.

molerat

My daughter and son in law loved the previous bungs based on council tax band.  Just them and their 2 dogs happily living in their band B house with a joint income in excess of £80K.

TheBanker

molerat said:

My daughter and son in law loved the previous bungs based on council tax band.  Just them and their 2 dogs happily living in their band B house with a joint income in excess of £80K.

Same as me - I received the payment because I live in an eligible property. I am single so I don't need a bigger house, and earned more than enough to cope with the increased cost of living. I know why the government did it that way, but it was poorly targetted and the money could have been better used by someone else. 

Having said that, since I started part time work at the age of 17, this is the only cash benefit payment I've ever received from the government. So I guess for over 25 years of paying income tax, National Insurance, fuel duty, VAT, etc, it was nice to get £150 back. 

Brian3357

I suppose, once energy prices settle down the government could simply assess pensioner needs as they do with universal credit and adjust state pension accordingly. The problem at present is how to support with surges in prices. The one off wfa is untargetted but cheap to administer 

GingerTim

Brian3357 said:

I suppose, once energy prices settle down the government could simply assess pensioner needs as they do with universal credit and adjust state pension accordingly. The problem at present is how to support with surges in prices. The one off wfa is untargetted but cheap to administer 

Energy prices have settled down - what we're paying now isn't going to change massively any time soon (major world events notwithstanding).

Qyburn

GingerTim said:

Brian3357 said:

I suppose, once energy prices settle down the government could simply assess pensioner needs as they do with universal credit and adjust state pension accordingly. The problem at present is how to support with surges in prices. The one off wfa is untargetted but cheap to administer 

Energy prices have settled down - what we're paying now isn't going to change massively any time soon (major world events notwithstanding).

Energy prices have settled down, lower than last year and a lot lower than the year before. I'll bet it's the October price change that's triggering all the "prices going through the roof" hysteria. Maybe if we hadn't had the prior price reductions people would have been happier.

BarelySentientAI

Brian3357 said:

I suppose, once energy prices settle down the government could simply assess pensioner needs as they do with universal credit and adjust state pension accordingly. The problem at present is how to support with surges in prices. The one off wfa is untargetted but cheap to administer 

A sensible point - welfare support should be targeted and based on assessment of needs (not everyone needs it) - until you slipped and started talking about surges in prices, which are now a huge amount lower than they were at their peak.

Moving from 34.2% of peak price to 35.6% of peak price does not seem, to me at least, to be an appropriate trigger for gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes.

I sometimes wish the government hadn't chucked so much money at it at the peak, maybe that would stop some of the panicked nonsense now.

Chickereeeee

Scot_39 said:

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.

What? It isn't (or shouldn't be) a 'they get more than me' discussion either. The simple fact is that triple lock has substantially increased the real buying power of the state pension, compared to when the WTP was introduced in 1994(?) so it has done it's  job. The 2024-25 increase will increase the real buying power of the SP by MORE than the WFP.

So those that 'just about managed' WITH the WFP last year will more easily mange this (or at worst next) year. 

Scot_39

The issue is as prices have dropped so has crisis aid.

Crisis and normal bill aid came in at least four forms for many impacted by WFP cut.

Epg per unit was in many respects different I how it protected finances - high users saved on more units, electric saved mors in p per unit etc.  - compared to other absolute aid (ebss £400, wfp for 11.x m pensioners, the £150 by CT band etc)

For low users like me - and as all electric worse - the loss of EBSS saw my net bill go up dramatically last winter despite lower prices.  My initial July est was going to be £300 net worse off.  But prices moved around.

And for some the loss of wfp this winter (was scheduled to be £200 or £300 afaik ) again will dwarf the iirc £117 saving at DD duel fuel cap level comparing this Oct (1717) to last Oct figures (1834) at current TDCV.  Even more so for lower users.

Throw in the PCofL £300 paid with WFP last year the optics look even worse  - as energy groups and iirc Martin L did - to derive the £500 cut..

And the selective choice of your 1 or 2 year window - ignores the true pre-crisis normal benchmark.

As the WFP itself wasn't a crisis special - its been a long running benefit - paid every year since introduced by Brown et al in 1997.

And in all the fuss it's far too easy to forget one of its major impacts - health - and ultimately been credited with reduced deaths from cold.

The £1717 may be settled re crisis peak - but by your own admission isnt going anywhere.

And it's still a lot higher than say 3 years ago, when the cap was £1277, and that itself up nearly a 1/4  on Oct 2020 of £1042. 
And as those at old 2900/12000 tdcv  - say nearly 5% cost wise - arguably basis for comparison c£1215 and c£990. 

And yet all pensioners still got wfp at the prevailing levels to cover winter bills at those far lower levels, 3,4 or n years ago.

So if compare with pre crisis rather than crisis peaks - I make that roughly £500 over 3 years - or c40% - or over £700 -  70%+ over 4 years at current median cap TDCVs..

Do you really believe core benefits and state pension have kept track of that 70% over 4 years.

And even worse for those now facing the loss of WFP - paid in 2020 at a c£1000 cap - not paid for c10m in 2024 at £1717 cap.

There are far better ways to cut wfp benefit to the rich.

Easily by making it taxable like state pension would claw back upto 45%.
More complex but using an existing model - tapered like HICBC - at old rate (not Apr halved rate) could claim back 100% by minimum wage type level (upto £12570 - £100pm above PC top up threshold still get full, £22570 100% reclaimed via tax) etc.

And Reeves solution - may even cost more - if the dwp own estimates of 880,000 due PC claim and get the current again DWP figure £3900 (£75pw) ave benefit - £3.4bn. 
And if they don't how many might end up costing £1000s pw in nhs costs - flu, stroke, heart attack etc. 

And that still leaves age uk million plus "just aboves" suffering.