AIBU to think that winter fuel payments should be means tested?

[PandaSpaniel]

Winter fuel payments (not to be confused with cold weather payments) are payments that are not means tested to anyone born before 1951. Am I missing something here???

If a person has a child under 5 living with them they have to be on a benefit and it has to be very very cold before a payment is given to them.

The Government keeps harping on about cutting benefits, well here is a good idea Slash the funding for keeping oldies warm unless they are on a low income. Why are we paying for people who are more than likely abroad in the winter months????

Oh wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the majority of Tory voters are older would it?

Agree with ethelb - instead of a winter fuel allowance pay them a basic pension which means then have enough to heat their homes. DPs grandad was living in sheltered housing, getting lots of benefits which meant he paid pittance rent which included his heating. He used to give away his winter fuel allowance...

Or nationalise the energy companies because the only people profiting at the moment are the shareholders.

ohhhh this is unusual for me im not normally anti anything benefit related.

scrap it compleatly for anybody who is not on a low income make it an automatic payment to those on pension credit.

people pay tax ect to contribute towards many things and i dont see why a person who has the option to use the services that have been contributed to at the time or in the same tax year should automaticly be entitled to something they dont really need just because they got old.(note i said the ones who dont need it,i have no issues with those who do).

its a benefit the same as every other benefit and if you find claiming them embarrising tough shit- loads of people do its an indignity you have to suffer if you wish to take handouts just the same as anybody else has to.

I am also loony lefty and yes they should nationalise the energy company's & while they are at it do the banks also!!

As others have said - pensioners vote.

All parties look out for pensioners because they know they will get off their arses and put a cross in the box come election day.

just to say some folks (like disabled) need income support to qualify for winter fuel payments so it kind of is means tested in that respect

I like that the winter fuel payment is universal. For some people, it's the only thing they get back from this government, and I don't see why they should be penalised for providing for themselves.

A start would be to restrict it to those claiming a pension. My parents received five years of payments whilst both still working full time in reasonably well paid jobs. It can't be that costly to work out who is claiming a pension.

because thats the cold weather payments, its different.

outraged bollocks, everybody has the option of using most of the services that tax pays for. thats what you get in return for paying it

If they are giving it to people who are still in full time jobs, then that's just silly. And I don't see why they couldn't raise the age at which it's paid. But I fully support it being a universal benefit. I think universal benefits help the stigma of receiving benefits not be as bad as it could be, and I think everyone deserves a little something back from the government if they have spent a lifetime paying in. The government isn't just there to provide for poor people.

YANBU

My mum lives in a little Surrey village surrounded by very, very wealthy pensioners, who DO NOT NEED THIS MONEY.

The sort of people who go on three cruises a year, buy a new car every two years, and fund grandchildren to go through private schools.

I had a big argument about this with my SIL who insisted that 'they'd earned it', unlike all the immigrants/feckless single mothers/big families who are, as far as she's concerned should be left to starve in preference to cutting any benefits to the wealthy.

will it change next year with everything else?

"I think everyone deserves a little something back from the government if they have spent a lifetime paying in. The government isn't just there to provide for poor people."

No. To each according to need.

Otherwise how will we pay to have a a world class education system, decent public housing and a great NHS? These things benefit EVERYONE.

I reckon that where my mum lives, most of the winter fuel payment ends up in the pockets of Lakeland, Marks and Spencer, and Hotter shoes.

'I think everyone deserves a little something back from the government if they have spent a lifetime paying in. The government isn't just there to provide for poor people.'

So a peaceful society with good infrastructure that allows people to mostly go about their business isn't enough?

And the government pays out a pension to people who qualify, hardly just for poor people.

'will it change next year with everything else?'

No. Same way pensioners aren't affected by the under-occupying rules applying to social housing even though they are the largest sector of under-occupiers.

Free bus passes for everyone over 60 is hte reason why the rest of us working folk get to pay more for our public travel by bus; they cost the councils a fortune.

YANBU sooooo agree with sovery,shagmund et al.Inlaws just back from their latest cruise.Sorry if you can means test CB you can do the same with WFA.We all know why they won't but I don't understand why this isn't being challenged more.

The CB axing for families is a farce and completely unfair when families earning double get to keep it but those earning much less don't.Then you get the unfairness with WFA.Why is this allowed to happen?

I wonder how many of these people who have "earned it" (by paying NI and tax during their working lives and continue to pay tax during their retirement or being married to someone who did) would want it if they had to go and queue for it down at the Job Centre and make an application like every other benefit claimant? I doubt many would.

And the "I don't see why they shouldn't get something having paid into the system for years" angle is valid. They weren't paying into a savings scheme and they already get generous additional tax breaks compared to the rest of us.

If we all have to tighten our belts then payments to those not in need have to go. No excuses. Need trumps the hallowed rights of the voting pensioner every time.

Thing is though Celine, they haven't 'earned it'.

Most of the people I know who are claiming these payments had well paying public sector jobs. Doctors. Managers. Head teachers. Engineers.

Many of whom retired early and will go on to claim their good pension for 20 years or more. And this is the generation who benefited from growth in house prices and free higher education.

There is no way these people have paid in what they continue and will continue to take out.

And in any case, that's not how a welfare state is supposed to work is it?

It's not about what you pay in, it's about what you NEED from the state. Otherwise those people who have never been able to work due to illness or disability would be considered less entitled than the healthy and successful.

In my opinion benefits should go to those who don't have a sufficient income to guarantee a reasonable diet, a safe home, and the ability to participate at a basic level in society.

I don't think pensioners who can afford to buy a new car every two years, send their grandchildren to private school won't exactly miss the fuel allowance. But if they have that much money I expect they will pay a fair bit of tax.

Erm, that's my point Shagmund. Hence the inverted commas.

I was going to add something about how we are all earning it too - paying tax and NI, VAT, ooodles of stamp duty and tax on any savings and investments (all of which except income based taxes are, frankly, luxuries) - but I decided the other two paragraphs where I make the points you have made were enough.

Sorry I realise when i edited my second paragraph I forget to add in an I don't see why of my own. On the front. It should have read And I don't see why the "I don't see why they shouldn't get something having paid into the system for years" angle is valid. They weren't paying into a savings scheme and they already get generous additional tax breaks compared to the rest of us.

How about this, if the benefit was scrapped and the money plowed back into education for the young, then more young people would have more money in better paid jobs to pay tax for the pensions that the older generation expect / need!

Obviously more jobs need to be created but having a better educated work force cannot be a bad thing, looking at how health improves with education levels etc. Less strain on the NHS in years to come :)

There are ways of means testing this benefit without increasing costs, as another poster said, link it to pension tax credits.

I still stick by my original argument and feel that as a (fairly young) person who will be paying into the "pot" for the majority of my working years this is an unfair benefit. There is going to be f**k all left when I retire, so how come the pensioners of today have "earned" it?

I agree with the OP.

However, the silver/grey vote is the one that the political parties can pretty much guarantee on and so they will always be the last to be targeted.

And all the rhetoric around tax and NI contributions won't change the fact that that ^^ is the real reason.