To resent the U-turn on winter fuel allowance?

I’d prefer that taxpayer funds do not subsidise fossil fuel profits like this.

Energy companies should offer lower tariffs which people on lower incomes should be able to apply for regardless of whether they’re retired or not. It would work like applying for credit, and once qualified could be reviewed every couple of years.

Ofgem would oblige energy companies to provide this service at their own cost, and regulate the required discount.

We need to tackle ALL such cliff edges throughout the tax/benefits systems as they cause a lot of adverse decision making that is detrimental for the country as a whole. Likewise we need to tackle stupidly high marginal tax rates and the rate at which other benefits are reduced/lost as income increases. I've said many times, we should have a cast iron limit of 50% of "lost" benefits or "higher" tax when circumstances change. If you go over a threshold by a pound, the worse you should be worse off by is 50p. Get a £1 wage rise, you get to keep 50p of it and don't lose more than 50p whether in tax and/or benefits. That way it encourages people to work and save - and we need people to work and save. All these disincentives are dragging the country down where people won't work an extra shift because they lose most (or all) of extra wage, or won't save because they'll lose benefits if their savings (or interest) go over a particular threshold. It all needs to change.

Those admin fees won't be more than the amount of WFA sent out to people who don't need it but choose to keep it.

Not to mention the difference to the recipients. The feeling of having to rely on a foodbank to feed your children is very different to the feeling of using vouchers that are given to families of children upto X age as standard.

There are poor pensioners, but as a group, they are the wealthiest demographic not just in society but in history.

It's ridiculous to target a universal benefit at the wealthiest part of society.

It was one of the very few Labour policies I've agreed with. I had to hold my nose to vote for Kier Starmer as it was, but he's been worse than I expected.

It is if you reinstate it to all pensioners purely because of their age.

If you means test it, then it isn't a generational issue, but an income one (the same as CB)

well she may resent her PIL, but that doesnt have anything to do with WFA does it

And the point I am making is that she clearly does resent them. Both things can be true.

I’m on the border of Gen x.

I think 6 months later and l would be Gen X. As it is I’m a Boomer or a Gen Jones.

Gen Jones are very different from Boomers. We are the tail end of the baby boom who’s coming of age was marked by Thatcher/Reagan.

They took it away from anyone with an annual income of more than £!1,500. You apparently have an income of £60,000+. Would you like to live on £11,501? Because that is who just lost an extra £200 a year in help to pay to keep their house a little warmer.

It’s not inter generational unfairness.

Old people are indoors more and more likely to need heating and can often move less. And are lot are on a fixed income.

It’s like saying child benefit is inter generational unfairness.

My parents are your typical "I am alright Jack, pull the ladder up" boomers. Made £££££ on property, loads in savings, final salary pensions, the works. Mother was FUMING when they lost the WFA. Freely admitted that they dont need it, but said that they deserved it as they had "paid in" all their lives.

I also agree that the cut off was too low, so people that really did rely on it were up shit creek. It needs to be sorted so that the cut off is higher but its still means tested.

Apologies. Clearly I’ve maligned you.

I agree OP and my pensioner parents and their friends are livid. They've said all along they don't need the money and they were perfectly fine with it stopping, they think there are plenty of young families need the money more right now.

A few loud voices and they've caved :-( so disappointed that they didn't have more backbone.

@Greenartywitch

I never understand why so many people in this country want a race to the bottom when it comes to supporting elderly and vulnerable or sick people.

But one of those things in your list is not like the others. Supporting the vulnerable or sick, yes. The poor too.

But calls to tax or borrow more to give to old people just because of their age involve questions of intergenerational fairness.

This generation of old people have paid far less in taxes than they will cost, and will stick those that come after with the bill.

BowlandBillow I watched the same programme.I think there were a lot of issues not discussed.The WFA was introduced back in the 90s by Gordon Brown .It is unreasonable for RR and this govt to take it away in one stroke.I do not like Nigel Farage ,but his point that WFA ,is a similar cost as the migrants coming here illegally is the elephant in the room.Also that KS is running scared that his party would be usurped by them if not retintroduced. Also there is 3 billion given to Ukraine . Billions more on Nuclear weapons .Pensioners are largely despised by KS ,even though they are more likely to vote.PIP payments to disabled people will also be cut.Many pensioners have started work when 14 or 15 and missed out on Uni ,worked hard and built up a savings and pension pot.

I think you misunderstood the post. Boomers were born 1945 to 1964.

Agreed. Nobody wins a race to the bottom.

I agree with you.

But boomers are 60-78. You are Gen X.

Indeed!

And the point is no one should be in poverty young or old. Not playing it off against each other but all generations should be suppprted. They seem to manage it in Europe.

Agreed- they need to ditch the triple lock too.

The ones in poverty will be entitled to WFA

And 30% of children in the UK live in poverty...

Nope, not my work at all. But I see the after-effects of what has been done by solicitors and financial advisers once they've died, via the trusts, wills, probate, etc., or when a property has been sold and the beneficiaries/children find they've capital gains tax pay on their "share" when the parental property was put into joint names to help avoid care home fees, but no longer eligible for main residence relief for CGT.

My work is tax planning advice, not care home fee avoidance advice and when clients want that, I direct them to their solicitor or IFA, through gritted teeth (along with warnings as to the consequences of things not working out as they think they may, i.e. the person dying before going into a care home making the whole thing pointless and more expensive!). Luckily it's outside the scope of what I'm allowed to do under the terms of my professional indemnity insurance and my accountancy body's practising certificate and I'll never start such a conversation or pre-empt it, in fact it's in my terms of business as one of several specific services I don't undertake! I'm busy enough with tax planning to get involved with benefits etc.

The point shes making is that they arent short of money s they have money to lend out, but are bemoaning the removal of WFA.

So the loaning of the money is perfectly relevant

I know pensioners in a mixture of financial circumstances. DM was on pension credit and lived like a church-mouse; WFA was crucial to her. Our minted neighbours not so much.
I keep hearing that means testing will cost too much to administer, but really? We've managed very well with CB. Lots of benefits and allowances (DLA / PiP, Attendance Allowance, Carer's Allowance etc) are on an application basis, maybe WFA could be too?