Martin's suggestion for winter fuel allowance

MattMattMattUK

Scot_39 said:

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.

Come on, you know that cherry picking percentages like that is misleading, if not outright dishonest. You also know that none of that makes a valid argument for a blanket payment of the WFA. 

Scot_39

MattMattMattUK said:

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. 

Which is why I added scrap wfp and raise base PC a better option.  On that is the mistaken (IMO - given nearly 880,000 still do not desite past awareness campaigns) presumption in No 11 that everyone entitled will claim.

And in another posts have warned of the problems of the multitude of specials - rather than core benefits adequacy to cover todays costs.

Temporary things - not that wfp was meant to be- but more recent things like furlough 80%, UC £20 top up, the HSF that in part replaced it - just extended to next spring etc,  cost of living specials etc (remember the £1500 in end - £300 per quarter or PCoL £300 bolted on to WFP last year) just a mess.

Once given - difficult to remove.

Always a loud voice - charities - few caring MPs etc - now consumer champion celebs like ML etc - opposing the change - get headlines.

 

debitcardmayhem

Chickereeeee said:

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. 

come off it, there are other factors other than fuel to take into account, oh inflation is falling , yes but it is still inflation. The measures of inflation are not tailored to everyone just a “basket” of items in an average person’s spending. The rate of inflation, being prices or wages, is acted on a six month after the event. e.g. lets say the pensioner gets 8% next April based on inflation on the previous Sept rate impying what they bought last sept costs 108 rather than the 100 the previous sept. Now lets say that the same item goes up by 4% in April it will cost them 112+change , hardly increased their buying power has it.

Baldeagle095

Personally I thought that Martin should have concentrated his fire on the regressive iniquitous Standing Charge.

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

Scot_39

Baldeagle095 said:

Personally I thought that Martin should have concentrated his fire on the regressive iniquitous Standing Charge.

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

Read the Ofgem domestic options report.

Table A7 ex 

Biggest losers not always the income rich or larger households.

Biggest savers not always the poor - those with solar battery etc.

There is no simple one size fits all.


There are multiple distinct threads on SC.

The arguments done to death over months / years.


You still have just over a week iirc to respond to their initial response..

 

BarelySentientAI

Baldeagle095 said:

Personally I thought that Martin should have concentrated his fire on the regressive iniquitous Standing Charge.

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

Here you go.

https://consult.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-supply/standing-charges-domestic-retail-options/consultation/

Have your say if you wish.

Scot_39

MattMattMattUK said:

Scot_39 said:

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.

Come on, you know that cherry picking percentages like that is misleading, if not outright dishonest. You also know that none of that makes a valid argument for a blanket payment of the WFA. 

Not once have I said it needs to be blanket.

I have seen face to face 2 elderly neighbours  - of 5 of state age  in a small close of 13 - in a nice area - not poor council estate etc - anxious to turn heating on - through fear in recent years. 
Media headlines - e.g. the publicised ML combined £500 worse off - risks repeating.

But scrapping it in a rush - to the detriment of 100,000s - DWP own estimated 880,000 or Age uks 2 million including the just aboves - before sensible mitigations in place - before reportedly any impact assessment in some sources - is not acceptable to me either.

If the solution is enrolment to PC - delay a year to give it a chance to happen - one mse user reported its unofficially already taking 3-4 months to process an application.

I have even made suggestions as to how some cash could be partially recouped from rich quickly - as is the state pension itself - via taxation and longer term even more. 

WFP is tiny compared to other state handouts and tax breaks. 

It's the method and messaging  - that I object to.

Grumpy_chap

Scot_39 said:

I have seen face to face 2 elderly neighbours  - of 5 of state age  in a small close of 13 - in a nice area - not poor council estate etc - anxious to turn heating on - through fear in recent years. 

I think this whole thing around pensioners not understanding when they are in a financially acceptable position is probably more if anu issue than gets recognised.

My MiL was speaking about the end of the WFA and how it would affect her, so she had spoken to an Advisor (I am not quite sure where) about PC and was advised that her SP is £2 per week above the threshold for PC, so she is not eligible and not able to qualify for WFA either.  She thinks she is hard done by.
Except, her next sentence was "of course, I've got my private pension on top of my SP plus savings".

HillStreetBlues

Baldeagle095 said:

Personally I thought that Martin should have concentrated his fire on the regressive iniquitous Standing Charge.

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

Martin has, along with lots more other changes to different policies, suggest enough you have to be right at some point.

MattMattMattUK

Scot_39 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

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. 

Which is why I added scrap wfp and raise base PC a better option.  On that is the mistaken (IMO - given nearly 880,000 still do not desite past awareness campaigns) presumption in No 11 that everyone entitled will claim.

And in another posts have warned of the problems of the multitude of specials - rather than core benefits adequacy to cover todays costs.

Temporary things - not that wfp was meant to be- but more recent things like furlough 80%, UC £20 top up, the HSF that in part replaced it - just extended to next spring etc,  cost of living specials etc (remember the £1500 in end - £300 per quarter or PCoL £300 bolted on to WFP last year) just a mess.

Once given - difficult to remove.

I agree with that, it is why things should only be introduced after very careful consideration otherwise people have tantrums when they are removed, even when removing them is entirely rational. Personally I would scrape the WFA entirely and increase the baseline, I would also remove the pension credit cliff edge, the benefit of being just below the threshold can be thousands a year, where those who receive only a few pounds more get nothing. 

Scot_39 said:

Always a loud voice - charities - few caring MPs etc - now consumer champion celebs like ML etc - opposing the change - get headlines.

Loud voices should be ignored, rational ones should be listened to. 

Scot_39 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Scot_39 said:

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.

Come on, you know that cherry picking percentages like that is misleading, if not outright dishonest. You also know that none of that makes a valid argument for a blanket payment of the WFA. 

Not once have I said it needs to be blanket.

I have seen face to face 2 elderly neighbours  - of 5 of state age  in a small close of 13 - in a nice area - not poor council estate etc - anxious to turn heating on - through fear in recent years. 
Media headlines - e.g. the publicised ML combined £500 worse off - risks repeating.

I agree that the media is hugely to blame, particularly the likes of the DM and red tops. There seemed to be a genuine fear in some older people that turning the heating on for half an hour was going to cost them huge amounts, instead they sat shivering but with more than enough money in the bank to keep warm. 

Scot_39 said:

But scrapping it in a rush - to the detriment of 100,000s - DWP own estimated 880,000 or Age uks 2 million including the just aboves - before sensible mitigations in place - before reportedly any impact assessment in some sources - is not acceptable to me either.

I do not think it was scrapped in a rush, nor is it to the detriment of hundreds of thousands. It is a policy that no one would currently introduce now, it is a policy that did not make sense when it was introduced and appeared largely to be an electoral bribe. It is a policy that should not exist. 

Scot_39 said:

If the solution is enrolment to PC - delay a year to give it a chance to happen - one mse user reported its unofficially already taking 3-4 months to process an application.

Or deal with the delays. Pension credit does need full reform, though the best thing would be a full reform of the whole pension scheme, greater lifetime contributions, greater compulsory private saving, a baseline that exists for all with no pension credit system and the ability to have a higher state pension based on levels paid in, similar to the French system.

Scot_39 said:

I have even made suggestions as to how some cash could be partially recouped from rich quickly - as is the state pension itself - via taxation and longer term even more. 

The easiest way would be to combine Income Tax and National Insurance into a single Income tax, but in reality we also need to abolish the personal allowance and raise the tax rates in all band, such is the state of our national finances, and that is on top of dealing with tax evasion. 

Scot_39 said:

WFP is tiny compared to other state handouts 

That is not reason to retain it.

Scot_39 said:
and tax breaks. 

Some tax breaks make sense, they encourage investment, they generate far more than they cost, others do not. Even though it would negatively affect me I think it is long past time that we phase out the personal allowance, which is in effect a tax break for anyone on less than £120k. It would also make sense to abolish taxes paid on dividends by individuals, but charge the tax at the point that the dividend is issued at a flat rate, that means that individuals cannot evade the tax and also that dividends paid to entities abroad are sensibly taxed, there could be a rebate system for things like pension and investment funds (where the income and/or gain is taxed separately), it is also long past time that fuel duty was increased, tax on flights, particularly domestic flights and I would also look at a way to tax outgoing foreign remittances that are not for goods to services that attract a tax on import. 

Scot_39 said:

It's the method and messaging  - that I object to.

The method is abolishing it, the messaging is that it is not needed and we cannot rationally continue the expenditure, both of which are correct.