Martin's suggestion for winter fuel allowance

BarelySentientAI

Scot_39 said:

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. 

Which I would have no issue with, and actually fundamentally support.

If they are entitled to that benefit, they should get it, regardless of whether that increases the overall cost to the government or not.

Scot_39 said:

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.

"We gave people free money when they didn't need it" isn't a good argument for still giving them free money when they don't need it.

Scot_39

BarelySentientAI said:

Scot_39 said:

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. 

Which I would have no issue with, and actually fundamentally support.

If they are entitled to that benefit, they should get it, regardless of whether that increases the overall cost to the government or not.

Scot_39 said:

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.

"We gave people free money when they didn't need it" isn't a good argument for still giving them free money when they don't need it.

You twist what I have said.

I am not arguing the richest should get it.  Nor am I arguing against those claiming. 

Just pointing out the mechanism is too harsh,  savings and suggested remedy to counter have a cost - potentially a far higher direct and indirect cost. 

It was the govt who made the savings an issue. Reeves 1.4bn - Powell and her run on £ (scare mongering IMO) defence.

I clearly do think many above the 11.3k (17.4 couples) PC top up do need more help, as well as the ongoing or residual of the 880,000 who wont claim this year (or any other unless grossly simplified - dare I say even automated).


As the £700 cap rise compounded now by a £200-£300 cut in wfp compared to just 4 years ago - a £900-£1000 net added cost at tdcv in 4 years -  shows the energy crisis isn't over - for the poorer - more so - pensioners in society.


The media hype around crisis - despite in end for some the aid matching or even saving past bill costs - led many elderly not to heat properly.
But a similar fear - might well again for low income pensioners who will lose WFP. The ML and others costs going up £500 claims in early days - widely reported - arguably an example.

If was old enough to get even the £200 WFP and a low user say only paying £1000pa - strip out £200-350 SC - and your asking people to find that elsewhere - or cut usage by upto 30%. 


I believe the comparisons against crisis highs are invalid reason to justify its removal now for all those reasons. To those in genuine need - including those maybe a £100pm or even more (to cover other still above inflation rises) - above the new PC qualification threshold.

Or perhaps a better way - is to scrap WFP completely and just raise the PC thresholds.

So benefit mins from Apr rises cover realistic 2024/5 living costs.   Rather than lagging - reflecting just last years inflation.

BarelySentientAI

Scot_39 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Scot_39 said:

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. 

Which I would have no issue with, and actually fundamentally support.

If they are entitled to that benefit, they should get it, regardless of whether that increases the overall cost to the government or not.

Scot_39 said:

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.

"We gave people free money when they didn't need it" isn't a good argument for still giving them free money when they don't need it.

You twist what I have said.

I am not arguing the richest should get it.  Nor am I arguing against those claiming.  Just pointing out the savings and suggested remedy to counter have a cost - potentially a far high cost. 

But I think many above the 11.3k (17.4 couples) PC top up do need more help, as well as the ongoing or residual 880,000 who wont claim this year (or any other unless grossly simplified - dare I say even automated).

As the £700 cap rise compounded now by a £200-£300 cut in wfp compared to just 4 years ago - a £900-£1000 net added cost at tdcv in 4 years -  shows the energy crisis isn't over - for the poorer pensioners in society.

At peak of crisis ebss and epg 34p and 17p electric discounts as a low income so low user - saved me money - rightly or wrongly.  My net cost actually went up this year.

It would have in all probability have done for some low use poor state pensioners.

I believe the comparisons against crisis highs are invalid reason to justify its removal now for both those reasons - to those in need - including those above PC qualification threshold.

So what is a valid reason?  When energy costs go back to 2016 levels?  2010? 1997?  1972?

If the justification for spraying free cash around is "some stuff is a little more expensive than it was at some point in the past", then it's not even worth having a discussion.

MattMattMattUK

Scot_39 said:

I believe the comparisons against crisis highs are invalid reason to justify its removal now for both those reasons - to those in genuine need - including those above PC qualification threshold.

The main argument is that it should never have existed in the first place and as a policy it would not be introduced now, therefore it is time to abolish it. Keeping a bad policy in place because it already exists is just about the worst reason to have a policy continue. 

Qyburn

Scot_39 said:

 
As the £700 cap rise compounded now by a £200-£300 cut in wfp compared to just 4 years ago - a £900-£1000 net added cost at tdcv in 4 years -  shows the energy crisis isn't over - for the poorer - more so - pensioners in society.

If we're comparing figure from four years ago, don't forget to factor in the £2,300/year increase in Pension Credit and slightly bigger increase in New State Pension.

Brian3357

A little more empathy in discussion would be helpful. Regardless of the stance that WFA is an undifferentiated payment, many old people are worried about the sudden axing of the wfa, keeping in mind that are oldest are particularly vulnerable to fuel poverty and require more hours of heating that others

GingerTim

Brian3357 said:

A little more empathy in discussion would be helpful. Regardless of the stance that WFA is an undifferentiated payment, many old people are worried about the sudden axing of the wfa, keeping in mind that are oldest are particularly vulnerable to fuel poverty and require more hours of heating that others

I don't think the worried elderly are helped by people talking in doom-laden terms about an 'energy crisis' and rapidly rising prices, when we are in a better position than at any point in the last couple of years.

MattMattMattUK

Brian3357 said:

A little more empathy in discussion would be helpful. 

The kind of "empathy" you desire is blanket agreement without question, that is not empathy in any real sense of the word.

Brian3357 said:

Regardless of the stance that WFA is an undifferentiated payment, many old people are worried about the sudden axing of the wfa,

They may be, they may not, but on that basis education rather than keeping throwing money at them would be a better course of action, as would stopping irrational posts, media scaremongering etc. 

Brian3357 said:

keeping in mind that are oldest are particularly vulnerable to fuel poverty and require more hours of heating that others

Which is why the funding is being targeted at those in need, rather than a blanket approach which means that it goes to millions who do not need it. 

Scot_39

11300/9000 if that £2300 the single PC change - just a 25.6% increase.

It has to cover all costs not just the one.

It's far removed from the 70% plus rise on energy at TDCV.

Or the still higher much higher than 25% on some staple foods over same period.

To name just two main essential outgoings.

BarelySentientAI

Brian3357 said:

A little more empathy in discussion would be helpful. Regardless of the stance that WFA is an undifferentiated payment, many old people are worried about the sudden axing of the wfa, keeping in mind that are oldest are particularly vulnerable to fuel poverty and require more hours of heating that others

Many (old?) people are worried because of unsubstantiated, inaccurate, and purely clickbait stories in the media.

Millions of comfortably-off people will not suddenly drop dead because they don't get a couple of hundred quid of free cash, despite what they might have heard in the pub.

You are even doing it - "sudden axing of the WFA".  It hasn't been "axed".  It still exists.  Apply your request for empathy towards your own exaggerations that could unnecessarily distress people.

Was it in this thread where "means testing of WFA" became "government is taking away your pension"?  I've certainly seen that assertion around somewhere recently.