Winter fuel allowance for pensioners re-instated 🤗

silverwhistle

eltisley98 said:

Does anyone realistically believe that the government cannot do better than this?

Not unless you want more extensive and expensive bureaucracy which a different set of people will moan about.

It's more generous than I was expecting so I'll probably keep half to go towards some more insulation and give half to my local foodbank around Christmas time.

eltisley98

silverwhistle said:

eltisley98 said:

Does anyone realistically believe that the government cannot do better than this?

Not unless you want more extensive and expensive bureaucracy which a different set of people will moan about.

It's more generous than I was expecting so I'll probably keep half to go towards some more insulation and give half to my local foodbank around Christmas time.

I consider having to fill a tax return just so that the government can claw back £200 to be "extensive and expensive bureaucracy". Having to answer one more question on the tax return, e.g., your total household income? Not much. 

Dazed_and_C0nfused

eltisley98 said:

silverwhistle said:

eltisley98 said:

Does anyone realistically believe that the government cannot do better than this?

Not unless you want more extensive and expensive bureaucracy which a different set of people will moan about.

It's more generous than I was expecting so I'll probably keep half to go towards some more insulation and give half to my local foodbank around Christmas time.

I consider having to fill a tax return just so that the government can claw back £200 to be "extensive and expensive bureaucracy". Having to answer one more question on the tax return, e.g., your total household income? Not much. 

Good job they didn't go with that option then 😉

Albermarle

eltisley98 said:

silverwhistle said:

eltisley98 said:

Does anyone realistically believe that the government cannot do better than this?

Not unless you want more extensive and expensive bureaucracy which a different set of people will moan about.

It's more generous than I was expecting so I'll probably keep half to go towards some more insulation and give half to my local foodbank around Christmas time.

I consider having to fill a tax return just so that the government can claw back £200 to be "extensive and expensive bureaucracy". Having to answer one more question on the tax return, e.g., your total household income? Not much. 

If you do not fill in a self assessment tax return already, there will be no need to do one due to this change.
These kind of issues are difficult to find a balance,  and I am sure the Govt have considered all the available options.
Also you will be able to just opt out from receiving the payment in the first place.

slinger2

So non-ISA interest from savings accounts will be included in the £35k limit, but ISA interest won't? Might be an incentive for those near the £35k mark to have their savings in an ISA, even if they're under the limit where they'd pay tax on that interest (£1k for many of us).

Aretnap

eltisley98 said:

What Paul Johnson described as "messy" today is exactly the same as in the scenario where a single-income family earning more than £60,000 loses child benefit while another family with two incomes each of £50,000 gets to keep it. It would be interesting to see what pensioners say to that scenario now. 

Does anyone realistically believe that the government cannot do better than this?

"Better" by what metric?

I mean, yes they could set up a full means test which took into account not only your overall household income, but also your savings and the value of your house and other assets. It would be much better from the protective of being fairer. But it would be worse from the perspective of being much more complicated, expensive to administer, and requiring pensioner's to fill in myriad forms and provide large amounts of personal information to apply for winter fuel payments. 

Or they could just restore WFP to everyone, which would be better from the perspective of being simpler, but worse from the perspective of cost and providing payments to very rich people who definitely don't need them. 

I'm sure there are a dozen other options - all of which would be better by some metrics but worse by others.

Dazed_and_C0nfused

slinger2 said:

So non-ISA interest from savings accounts will be included in the £35k limit, but ISA interest won't? Might be an incentive for those near the £35k mark to have their savings in an ISA, even if they're under the limit where they'd pay tax on that interest (£1k for many of us).

The announcement specifically mentions taxable income.  So interest from an ISA shouldn't be a factor.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nine-million-pensioners-to-receive-winter-fuel-payments-this-winter

Grumpy_chap

Dazed_and_C0nfused said:

Using adjusted net income, not taxable income, as the decisive factor.

I suspect that for the majority of pensioners that are not still working, the difference between ANI and taxable income becomes quite small.  The obvious big opportunities for people with earned income (salary sacrifice, pension contributions) are not really there for pensioners.  

RockPools

Aretnap said:

eltisley98 said:

What Paul Johnson described as "messy" today is exactly the same as in the scenario where a single-income family earning more than £60,000 loses child benefit while another family with two incomes each of £50,000 gets to keep it. It would be interesting to see what pensioners say to that scenario now. 

Does anyone realistically believe that the government cannot do better than this?

"Better" by what metric?

I mean, yes they could set up a full means test which took into account not only your overall household income, but also your savings and the value of your house and other assets. It would be much better from the protective of being fairer. But it would be worse from the perspective of being much more complicated, expensive to administer, and requiring pensioner's to fill in myriad forms and provide large amounts of personal information to apply for winter fuel payments. 

Or they could just restore WFP to everyone, which would be better from the perspective of being simpler, but worse from the perspective of cost and providing payments to very rich people who definitely don't need them. 

I'm sure there are a dozen other options - all of which would be better by some metrics but worse by others.

I agree and think it’s a reasonable (albeit over generous) compromise that avoids complaints from struggling pensioners. Anybody earning £35k pa (or thereabouts) may not exactly be rolling in dough, but neither are they in need of this handout.

eltisley98

Aretnap said:

eltisley98 said:

What Paul Johnson described as "messy" today is exactly the same as in the scenario where a single-income family earning more than £60,000 loses child benefit while another family with two incomes each of £50,000 gets to keep it. It would be interesting to see what pensioners say to that scenario now. 

Does anyone realistically believe that the government cannot do better than this?

"Better" by what metric?

I mean, yes they could set up a full means test which took into account not only your overall household income, but also your savings and the value of your house and other assets. It would be much better from the protective of being fairer. But it would be worse from the perspective of being much more complicated, expensive to administer, and requiring pensioner's to fill in myriad forms and provide large amounts of personal information to apply for winter fuel payments. 

Or they could just restore WFP to everyone, which would be better from the perspective of being simpler, but worse from the perspective of cost and providing payments to very rich people who definitely don't need them. 

I'm sure there are a dozen other options - all of which would be better by some metrics but worse by others.

Better in the sense of eliminating, or if that is impossible as very likely to be the case, reducing the unfairness described in my first paragraph. Why should single-income families be penalised? Ask Martin.