Genuine question re pensioner fuel payment cut

It will be money the government has in it's pocket to pay off our debts or more to spend on essentials or even to go towards tax cuts.

What about this as a scenario: Shops allow a certain amount for "shrinkage" i.e.goods that get stolen. Now if your local Sainsbury's allows for 10% and only 9% gets stolen is it OK if you go in and help yourself to the other 1%? I mean Sainsbury's aren't losing anything by your logic as it was in their budget to lose 10%.

You’re not going to be given your share of the underspend back, are you? It has zero effect on the amount of tax we pay.

I do think this is bizarre. What do you think happens to the unclaimed money if fraudsters don't get it? a. It gets ripped up or b. It goes back into the government coffers?

I don't know the answer to this and you might not either but perhaps someone will. Do bus passes cost anything (other than printing them) if they aren't used?

Do you think as a citizen you have a duty to either report the fraud or whistle blow on your organisation?

Of course it is a cost to the tax payer, who do you think is providing the money for benefits. Just because it is within budget doesn't mean it is cost free.

It's all based on estimates. Govt doesn't know the financial affairs of everyone. Lots of data won't be known, either to HMRC, such as interest/dividends on tax free ISA accounts or in fact dividends from any investments as dividends are not automatically notified to HMRC by companies! They can't possibly check everyone's affairs and work out total income, etc., even though a lot of data is actually already held within HMRC, i.e. pensions, wages, bank interest, etc. hence why they demand that several million people fill in annual self assessment tax returns. We're years/decades away from automating it all and having some "super" computer that puts it all together. So the "gap" between claimants and theoretical claimants is basically an educated guess!

No, the benefits budget assumes a certain level of people not claiming, just as the tax income budget assumes a certain level of tax evasion. The "budget" figures are their best estimates of actual income and expenditure. There is no "pot of money" sat there waiting for someone to claim it. If more people claimed, then the debt/borrowing would increase to pay for it. Just as if more people paid the "right" amount of tax, the debt/borrowing would reduce.

The benefits budget is underspent by virtue of unclaimed entitlements. Ergo money that’s been allocated hasn’t been used and there is no cost to the taxpayer. It’s not rocket science.

Well who is paying for it then, because the money for fraudulent claims has to come from somewhere. Labour's magic money tree!

How do the powers that be in the DWP and HMRC know this. How do they know that 800k people should be on pension credit when i suspect they do not know all the details of their situation.
If they are so sure these people are out there - automatically invite them by putting them automatically on the pension credit tariff. I suspect that this figure is at best an estimate,
I must admit I was heartened by someone's suggestion elsewhere that every pensioner should apply for PC just on the off-chance that they are eligible. Not with false figures of course but just to highlight whether that figure is correct or not.

The Tories were vilified on here for the last 14 years, or is government bashing ok as long as it's not Labour?

They've only been in a month and already they have targeted a vulnerable group.

I’m not saying that at all. It most definitely would be a bizarre way to think. I was pointing out that there’s zero cost to the taxpayer. If people didn’t commit fraud non fraudulent claimants wouldn’t get more money, they’re not getting more because lots of people who are entitled don’t claim, are they?

So you're saying it's ok for people to commit fraud because it's balanced out by those who don't make claims when they could? What a bizarre way to think.

If people didn't commit fraud there would be even more money for those who genuinely needed it.

Also doctors and staff in hospitals. This government bashing is ill thought out. No matter what they do to sort the economic mess this country is in the Telegraph, Mail, etc etc etc will be digging for headlines that destroy any hope we need to have in any new initiatives. They also manufacture fears that then become realities in the eyes of those who are only too willing to believe them.

Management will not allow us to report fraud, only to explain to the client that giving false information is fraudulent, and if for example we find out that someone is commiting benefit fraud eg they have undeclared savings or have someone living with them and are claiming as single then we just have to inform them in writing that it is advisable to come clean !! Some are unwittingly doing things and then it has kind of gone on too long for them to put it right and we offer to support them to ring DWP. I am not scared of losing my job because at times it becomes difficult to go on like this. I am by no means saying this is an everyday occurrence, the vast majority are genuine people who need help.

We’re not paying for it. The amount of unclaimed benefits exceeds those claimed fraudulently by quite a large margin. Pension credits aren’t being claimed by around 800k people who are entitled to them.

The company I worked for (takeaway food establishment) was closed down and the staff furloughed. No need for sneery comments about sunbathing while others worked. We had no choice. I would rather have worked. My employer paid back all of the furlough money back to the governmet

Again some of the posters are missing the point,

The WFA is ONLY £200 (£300 if over 80) once a year,
It is only payable per household

So guess who are the biggest losers of this petty move by labour -
Women pensioners mostly who live on their own and have all the household costs, one pension and one personal allowance
Older pensioners who are on the much lower basic state pension and paid into a small private pension that takes them above the pension credit level. Many of these pensioners are in their 80s and 90s - they deserve better
Many of them are susceptable to the cold and are mostly at home during the day and night

The evilness of the labour chancelor is made worse by announcing this now when those pensioners who rely on this for the winter months have little time to make up the shortfall

I think those on here saying well pensioners are boomers which = rich - should really think through whether that is actually true.

Couldn't agree more. Ignoring fraud that we are all paying for is disgraceful and I'm not sure if it is illegal, sounds like whatever organisation this is it is conspiring to defraud the tax payer.

Please can you explain what you mean when you say you’re not allowed to report fraud? Is this a management decision? Are your management crooked? Is it not so much that you’re not allowed but that you’re scared of losing your job if you call it out? Because if it’s investigated you currently stand the risk of being prosecuted as complicit.

If illegal proceedings are going on at your employer they need to be investigated.

I wondered about the tax angle, I'm sure there must be a simple way of sorting that out. I mean they have all sorts of categories, you can give some of your tax allowance to a partner, blind persons allowance, you can have allowances for WFH, people who split their code over two jobs. It can't be rocket science to work out something for WFA based on taxable income and age, I'm assuming for younger people eligibility would continue as it is.

This is the the root of the issue, yes.

In Norway their oil and gas profits go straight to the public purse.

Better public services for all, cheap fuel for all.

Citizens in a more cohesive society , not scrapping over who gets £200 a year to pay their bills and shrugging smugly when some pensioners die of cold.

Of course, I was just making the point that she’s far from skint, but still gets the WFA whereas pensioners on a basic state pension will be receiving a lot less than her, and they won’t get it.