Martin's suggestion for winter fuel allowance

BarelySentientAI

cannugec5 said:

wrf12345 said:

If you have the full state pension then you can't claim pension tax credit which you need to do to get WFA, if you have savings and just the state pension you can't claim any other benefits, which you may need to do to get WFA. No sane person would hand over their savings to the energy companies or, indeed, for council tax, so available funds for heating are going to be limited, this dependence on WFA thus means the difference between heating and no heating, it would at least allow the gas to run for a few hours a day for the coldest months of year.

I beg to differ. I think the absolutely sane thing to do is to use your savings to supplement your heating bills if necessary. 

What are you saving the money for? It’s no good to you once you’ve died from the cold. 

I remember having arguments with my grandparents many years ago trying to persuade them to spend their savings on an extra bag of coal when they were freezing cold. It’s not so different. 

I agree.  What a strange statement - "no sane person would pay an unexpectedly high bill out of savings"??  Rather have some savings but get the bailiffs sent round for failing to pay council tax?

Qyburn

Martyn_H said:

I would consider keeping the WFA for pensioners relying on just the state pension.

That would be sensible, but also limit to people living in the UK. I would guess that anyone who clocked up significant SERPS additions would have been in a well paid job and have other retirement income.

Ildhund

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Ildhund said:

The 'OAPs dying of cold next winter' are a small proportion of those who have income higher than the state pension as topped up by Pension Credit. How many are there, I wonder?

No, the full new State Pension is a few pounds above the Pension Credit threshold.

OK, sorry again. I still think we're quibbling about peanuts here.

As you point out, youngsters getting only the full new State Pension are already £160 £158.60 p.a. better off than us old fossils on Pension Credit. The change in WFA for them means they dip out on £40 £41.40 a year that they would have got extra had the change not been made.
 
No-one is going to starve or freeze to death because Robber Reeves deprived them of 79.6p a week - less than the cost of a pint of milk.

Spoonie_Turtle

Ildhund said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Ildhund said:

The 'OAPs dying of cold next winter' are a small proportion of those who have income higher than the state pension as topped up by Pension Credit. How many are there, I wonder?

No, the full new State Pension is a few pounds above the Pension Credit threshold.

OK, sorry again. I still think we're quibbling about peanuts here.

As you point out, youngsters getting only the full new State Pension are already £160 p.a. better off than us old fossils on Pension Credit. 

It was for accuracy.  Which is important when discussing topics like this.

The poster to whom I was replying was under the impression that people relying on solely the state pension wouldn't be affected, which is not the case.

And in terms of 'better off', you can't truly compare by taking into account the minimum income levels but ignoring passported benefits.

Ildhund

Passported benefits? I just checked the helpful PC leaflet to see what I'm missing out on. There are extras for the disabled (I'm not) and the pregnant (I'm not!). Things like NHS costs (I got £40 towards a new pair of glasses last year) are also available to those on low incomes who are not eligible for PC.

We're back to the £40 a year differential, and it's still not worth the fuss being made about it.

Vitruvius1

A point I never hear made is that pensioners and those who are at home all day by being unable to work pay more for their fuel bills than working families, and are being discriminated against. Those at work or at school or university will be typically for 38 hours a week in an environment heated by their employer or education body, so that is 38 hours per week for much of the year that they are not paying for keeping warm or using water. Schools and those in public service will have this facility provided through council tax or taxation whilst for those in the private sector their employers can offset the cost of heating against corporation tax, so in effect those in work are receiving a benefit through council tax or taxation payments which isn’t means tested and to which many pensioners also contribute.

I really hope Martin is able to make this point when he has the opportunity.

BarelySentientAI

Vitruvius1 said:

pensioners and those who are at home all day by being unable to work pay more for their fuel bills than working families, and are being discriminated against. 

The first part of that statement is plausible, but a massive generalisation, and the second part is clearly untrue.

Vitruvius1 said:

so in effect those in work are receiving a benefit through council tax or taxation payments which isn’t means tested and to which many pensioners also contribute.

They really aren't.  Or if you're going to use that as an argument, then every single person in the country is receiving some benefit that some others do not, which is kind of how society works.

Vitruvius1

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.

oldernonethewiser

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?

Gerry1

cannugec5 said:

wrf12345 said:

If you have the full state pension then you can't claim pension tax credit which you need to do to get WFA, if you have savings and just the state pension you can't claim any other benefits, which you may need to do to get WFA. No sane person would hand over their savings to the energy companies or, indeed, for council tax, so available funds for heating are going to be limited, this dependence on WFA thus means the difference between heating and no heating, it would at least allow the gas to run for a few hours a day for the coldest months of year.

What are you saving the money for? It’s no good to you once you’ve died from the cold.

For unexpected events?

A few years before Covid I was diagnosed with skin cancer. Long story cut short, I steeled myself for the result being 'Unfortunately, the news is not good'.  It was an uncannily accurate premonition: those were he exact words he said, early one December.

He explained that it needed a fairly big operation but NHS was chock-a-block so it wouldn't be until January, or even early February.  Although I no longer had health insurance, I asked whether private treatment might be possible.

I was simultaneously delighted and horrified when he said 'I can do you next Wednesday, sir'.  And he did, very successfully.

Delighted that I was fortunate enough to afford to pay, but horrified to think what might have happened if I hadn't had that ability.

So that's one reason why many people prefer to be prudent and hold on to their savings.  And that's before the potential nightmare of needing to pay £2k or whatever per week for a care home, or double for a couple...

When things go bump in the night, what seems a tidy sum can be depleted remarkably quickly.