Martin's suggestion for winter fuel allowance

TheAble

Your point is perfectly valid Gerry but so are the previous posters' I'd argue. I can't understand the logic behind sitting in a cold house while simultaneously having savings you could use for heating. Surely one of the points of savings is to bridge periodic deficits between outgoings and income.

Brian3357

wrf12345 said:

He did say it was just an opening suggestion but it would have to be handled by the councils, anyway, and they would not deliver it before this winter and should not be let near govn databases, anyway. The govn does not want to give money to asset rich and income poor pensioners, and it does not want to give money to people with savings in ISA's (which would not be reflected in income in their databases) so it can not direct money to people based on the IR databases, other than where the individual has shown they are able to claim benefits. You have several different IT systems not really talking to each other and no access to the council tax bands, either. You could give it to people with overall incomes under say 16k (ignoring ISA income) but that would mean some people who get a good income from their ISA's would also receive it - the exact opposite to what the govn wants to promote. The Conservative gave various handouts to everyone because they could not narrow it down using existing IT sources (which probably cost five to ten times as much as the private sector without actually working properly).

Personally, as Martin is not an elected mp, he should avoud making such specific controversial suggestions. The previous governments blanket winter allowance was in response to an energy emergency - which is still exerting pressure. What concerns me is this attack on pensioners coukd develop. After all pensioners are a soft target and cannot strike-if they could Stammer woukd settle with an above inflation wage agreement... which is costing a fortune and creating the black hole

MattMattMattUK

Brian3357 said:

wrf12345 said:

He did say it was just an opening suggestion but it would have to be handled by the councils, anyway, and they would not deliver it before this winter and should not be let near govn databases, anyway. The govn does not want to give money to asset rich and income poor pensioners, and it does not want to give money to people with savings in ISA's (which would not be reflected in income in their databases) so it can not direct money to people based on the IR databases, other than where the individual has shown they are able to claim benefits. You have several different IT systems not really talking to each other and no access to the council tax bands, either. You could give it to people with overall incomes under say 16k (ignoring ISA income) but that would mean some people who get a good income from their ISA's would also receive it - the exact opposite to what the govn wants to promote. The Conservative gave various handouts to everyone because they could not narrow it down using existing IT sources (which probably cost five to ten times as much as the private sector without actually working properly).

Personally, as Martin is not an elected mp, he should avoud making such specific controversial suggestions. The previous governments blanket winter allowance was in response to an energy emergency - which is still exerting pressure. 

The previous government was over generous with the Covid handouts and over generous with the energy handouts, that is partially why the County is in such a financial mess.

Brian3357 said:
What concerns me is this attack on pensioners coukd develop. 

There is no attack on pensioners. 

Brian3357 said:
After all pensioners are a soft target and cannot strike-if they could Stammer woukd settle with an above inflation wage agreement... which is costing a fortune and creating the black hole

Whilst I am no fan of unions, the doctors for example might have just had an above inflation pay rise, but their pay is still 35% lower in real terms that it was in 2010. The train drivers, whilst they are overpaid and underworked were costing more in strikes in a fortnight than the pay rises will cost in a year, short term pragmatism until we can replace them with driverless trains.

What is costing a fortune is the 55% of households that receive more in cash benefits than they pay in tax (with benefits in kind on top costing even more), or the low taxes we have in the UK (by European standards), or the fact that somewhere around 80% of people arrive at state pension age never having made a net contribution and then cost the state a huge amount for the next decade or more. 

Grumpy_chap

sammyjammy said:

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.

In our area, downsizing does not release equity or result in a lower CT band.  There are family homes a-plenty, a few  flats & maisonettes (mostly acquired by first-time-buyers rather than senior citizens) and even fewer bungalows (more desirable for senior citizens) which are often worth just as much (and the same CT band) as a family home.

Vitruvius1 said:

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. 

In order to avail of that 38 hours per week of "free" heating and hot water, and assuming those that are working are in an office and not WFH, those individuals have to incur some cost of travel which quite likely costs more than whatever saving is made on heating the home space.  Also, the individual having 38 hours a week in the office / education setting is needing to rise while it is dark for much of the year, so incurring a heating / lighting expense that might be avoided by those with more flexibility on their daily schedule.

Brian3357 said:

After all pensioners are a soft target and cannot strike-if they could Stammer woukd settle with an above inflation wage agreement... which is costing a fortune and creating the black hole

AIUI, State Pensioners have received an above inflation wage agreement through the Triple Lock.

pseudodox

As a pensioner who worked all their life and paid Tax and NI contributions, but always being in low paid jobs did not contribute a huge amount, I am more than grateful for the SP even though it is my only income.  The rises have been generous and with careful mangement I can get by without the WFA (although that was a nice little bonus).  As said above I don't have travel costs, office "wardrobe" costs, social pressures to go down the pub, the inevitable pressie collections in an office; I have more time to shop around for bargains at the supermarket, cook economical meals from scratch at my leisure.  As someone who still is fit and active I can go out for a walk when it is cold to avoid heating the house.  Or with my free bus pass I can ride around all day.  Help towards heating should be targetted to those who need it most for disability/medical reasons.

We "all" want more money in our pockets, more spent on services, lower bills for everything but we don't want to pay for it in the form of higher taxation.  There is no such thing as a "Magic Government Money Tree" - it is Collected Taxpayers Money, or borrowed money which has to be paid back, inevitably from Taxpayers Money.

I will downsize if I find myself struggling to manage, but as said above I would be lucky to find a retirement bungalow in my area that did not eat up all the sale proceeds of my current house and cost me the same if not more in Council Tax.  Apartments and small terraces are being gobbled up as BTLs at inflated prices.  To move into rented property would soon eat up the capital released from sale of current house as SP would not cover the rent of a small house in this area.  Someone like me with no family needs to keep the equity in their house against the future prospect of selling to pay care home fees

Vitruvius1

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.

wrf12345

The simple solution remains, get rid of the WFA completely and get rid of energy standing charges, with the energy companies absorbing some of the increased unit cost in recognition of the way the govn helped them through the energy crisis (if Labour had been in power it would probably have let them go bust and nationalized them for "free", which will probably happen with some of the water companies). This would give the govn a nice boost in the popularity stakes as well. 

MattMattMattUK

wrf12345 said:

The simple solution remains, get rid of the WFA completely and get rid of energy standing charges, with the energy companies absorbing some of the increased unit cost

If the suppliers were made to "absorb" the costs currently covered by the standing charge then domestic energy supply would become loss making. Abolishing the standing charge is an idiotic idea.

wrf12345 said:

in recognition of the way the govn helped them through the energy crisis

The government did not help the energy suppliers though the price rises, it forced them to sell below cost for nearly a year, many went bust, many took on commercial loans, there was no government help for the energy suppliers.

wrf12345 said:

(if Labour had been in power it would probably have let them go bust and nationalized them for "free",

Many did go bust, none were nationalised, because there was no point in nationalising them. Labour would not have nationalised loss making energy suppliers either, because that would have been idiotic.

wrf12345 said:

which will probably happen with some of the water companies). 

The water companies are different because they own the infrastructure rather than rent it, they have lots of physical assets.

wrf12345 said:

This would give the govn a nice boost in the popularity stakes as well. 

Only amongst those who do not understand economics and finance. Costs have to be paid, if they are not paid by the user and are instead subsidised from taxation that cost still gets paid, it just gets paid in a non-transparent way. If there is spare tax money floating around then it should be used for essentials such as healthcare, education, or paying down the huge national debt, not on subsidising energy. 

BarelySentientAI

wrf12345 said:

The simple solution remains, get rid of the WFA completely and get rid of energy standing charges, with the energy companies absorbing some of the increased unit cost in recognition of the way the govn helped them through the energy crisis (if Labour had been in power it would probably have let them go bust and nationalized them for "free", which will probably happen with some of the water companies). This would give the govn a nice boost in the popularity stakes as well. 

So, as usual, the "simple solution" is "get someone else to pay for it".

Grumpy_chap

Vitruvius1 said:

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.

The eligibility for claiming WFH tax relief have been massively narrowed in the last couple of years:
https://www.gov.uk/tax-relief-for-employees/working-at-home