Every household?????

[Trainfromredhill]

So, the chancellor is going to give every household £400 for heating. Surely there should be a cut off of household income? The Beckhams, Elton John, james Dyson, Harry styles…….they all get the money too? . I say this as someone in the fortunate position of not needing the £400- I’d much rather it went to someone who does need it.Just seems a huge waste of public money to give it to everyone

@Badgirlgonegood you haven’t answered the question and clearly don’t understand economics…if everyone lived in the same cheap area of the country it wouldn’t be cheap anymore…and not everyone can pack up and move 100 miles away due to their personal circumstances (children from previous relationships, elderly and vulnerable relatives to care for, job may not exist in other parts of the country…) I am sick to my back teeth of people assuming that people can live a life of luxury on a certain income when it is just not possible in some parts of the country.

Desperate to buy themselves some of our favour now that they are undoubtedly the most corrupt government there is.

You don't really have a choice but to spend min £1500 on rent and min £2000 on childcare, min £400 bills, min £400 food and so on. It's not big luxury houses or nannies or M&S delivery etc.

People will say "move to a cheaper part of the country" and all of that but if your support network, job, non resident parent etc. is in london you can't simply move.

I don't think I am pathetic for being grateful. Would you rather I stomp and complain I am poor, say it isn't enough and its not fair?

I have never and will never vote Tory. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't be grateful for whatever help I might get. It feels bad enough to really need help without being labelled pathetic for being grateful

It's expensive to means test properly, and proxies are invariably flawed

I'd rather see a fund set up for people to return the money if they do not need it.

A bit like Age Concern has had for years for winter fuel payments, but with more oomph

My parents feel the same about the winter fuel bill. They donate it back to a charity that helps people who are struggling with fuel bills.

I couldn't agree more but if the cost of means testing means that people who need the money get less then I would rather it this way. I am in the fortunate position of not needing the £400 - it is difficult to know what to do, the only thing I can think of is spending that money in a supermarket for the food back - or donating directly to the food bank (I do both of these anyhow, but would up the amounts).

I completely agree. This isn’t anything that’s remotely helpful in a sustainable way.

Imho we need reductions in VAT (the treasury is profiting from higher prices so they wouldn’t see any massive change to their bottom line - 20% of 200 is more than 20% of 100) which would equally benefit businesses and food prices, caps on energy companies standing charges so peoples usage actually makes a real difference to their outgoings and a review of temporary changes to the green tax to be reviewed on an ongoing basis till fuel and energy prices stabilise.

Giving my energy company £400 to ‘credit my account’ is bs. I want help to budget this over the next couple of years, preferably with measures that have a positive ripple effect on other prices.

This cabinet have basically handed £15 billion to the energy companies and pretended it’s going to help out household budgets. This is the exact opposite of good fiscal management. From tories who like to crow about how good they are with the economy yet make baffling economic decisions.

Rishi has basically just spunked £15bn of our money up the wall and achieved precisely fuck all but a sound bite.

That's a good idea. Although I think there will still be loads of people who don't need the money that will take it anyway.

Yep surely there should be a limit say those over 100k not eligible seems ridiculous that the government is lining the pockets of the rich.

What a burden having lots of money is

It isn’t a burden if you’re constantly taxed to the hilt on absolutely everything, because you don’t have it to keep it, it’s used for taxes. You know, to make payments to those lower earners who receive benefits. You also made choices - a choice to do a lower paid job / not train / have children earlier, and presumably you also have a choice whether to accept the benefits that higher tax payers top up.

Not really nice criticism either way is it?

"I think it's usually because the admin costs of working out who is entitled and figuring out a cut off that is fair to everyone is more than the money they save"

Maybe I am being thick here. But what have I missed from the following albeit blunt instrument alternative?

Everyone whose house is valued on zoopla above X / everyone who pays council tax Y or above in their local area is still entitled to the £400 but they have to actively apply for it via some government administered form online or by postoffice hard copy return form.
Immediately filters out those who (i) are so wealthy they do not need it (ii) are wealthy enough that they cannot be bothered with the hassle (iii) could be bothered but not for £400 which is not a significant enough amount to make it worth the admin.

Everyone else in the country who falls below/outside the above gets the payment automatically.
I really cannot see how the admin costs of something like the above is going to be more than the amount which would be saved by the number of well off people who would by default fall into (i), (ii) or (iii) above.

What is wrong with that?

£100k to house and feed a family in the south east is not rich.

We have a £400k mortgage on a very normal sized house. Our bills alone come to £4K a month and that’s without the support we send DS at Uni. We both work all the hours under the sun to earn our money, we have no savings and no spare cash. No foreign holidays, our car is 10yrs old. The occasional takeaway as a treat is about as luxury as our lives get.

People are getting distracted. If someone on £100k says they’re struggling it’s a sign that something is really, really wrong.

squabbling amongst ourselves is doing a disservice only to ourselves.

a lot of previously comfortable households are going to find themselves living paycheque to paycheque and for all purposes will become ‘working poor’. Competitive poverty helps no one, acknowledgement that what’s actually happening is that the gap between rich and poor is widening and the poverty hole just got deeper and harder to climb out of is of more value.

@ShirleyPhallus

And the oft cited its not as simple as moving/choosing not to have high outgoings applies to 'choosing' a lower paid job.

Pp said if everyone chose to live in a cheap area it wouldn't be cheap.

If everyone chose to be a higher earner then you wouldn't be a higher earner.

And who would do the lower paid jobs?

grab it with both hands and don’t worry about it - it won’t be enough to plug any gap we face this winter.

ShirleyPhallus · Yesterday 22:38
Isn’t it nice that sometimes those paying the most tax get something back very occasionally?

I personally am very happy to pay tax, I think the country runs better when there is more in the general purse but it’s also frustrating to be constantly hit with the biggest rises in taxes, bills, hits to NI etc. It’s nice to have a little something back and doesn’t take anything away from anyone else.

Note - this almost never ever happens so I really don’t begrudge it happening as a one off“

this. Lots of people will donate to appropriate charities, too.

@Cornettoninja

I agree but it is hard not comment when those in more fortunate positions say that poorer people only have themselves to blame

Especially when they dont acknowledge their own choices in why they feel 'penny pinched' or the advantages they do have

Because it almost certainly will cost MORE to means test it. The administrative systems required to run any means test scheme are much higher than for a universal payment. When it’s an ad hoc payment, rather than an ongoing benefit, it simply is not cost effective to means test it.

You are focusing on ‘fair’ as being about who needs it, but another view of fairness also considers what is best for the tax payer and public finances generally. Is it fair to run a system that costs all taxpayers more simply so people can feel, on a surface level, that it was aimed at people who need or deserve it?

The knee jerk, angry reactions we see here are actually the exact left-wing equivalent of the right-wing idea of the deserving and undeserving poor. The idea of people
in need and not in need is the same kind of logic and is based in similar moralised ideas (albeit politically inflected in different ways).

But, actually, the decision to do it this way was probably mostly about the most cost efficient delivery mechanism.

The moralised debate about who needs help/a hand out (depending on intention and perspective) has the added effect of diverting attention from questions about what the actual intentions of the policy are. Who or what is it actually aiming to help? Is that the right thing for the economy and public finances more generally.

Instead people are repeatedly invoking the figure of the £100k earner (who must be greedy, profligate and unaware of how luxurious their lifestyle is) and responding emotionally to the idea of them getting money they don’t need (or deserve).

This is hilarious. Surely, being intelligent enough to earn £100k means that you should understand that pretty much everything you enjoy in life can be reduced in cost? I take it you don't live in an ex-council house in Blackpool. There's a huge saving for you there.

Isn’t the issue that it’s energy companies that are the system and they don’t have the capacity to match with zoopla or land registry etc

There is no mechanism within the energy companies to match our accounts with our earnings

Take SEISS for example which was income matched and the admin by HMRC to do that - and they hold all the information to do it. Plus that isn’t fool proof

Re pp I get it can be annoying that vastly wealthy people will receive the same but I can see why it’s hard to match up information.

Iirc 8m of lowest incomes will be receiving extra plus 8m pensioners (some who may be wealthy but many in need)

The total is staggering and I’ve always found it hard to see such huge spending, now and during pandemic, but I do think lowest incomes need it and it’s useful to do it.

Obviously it’s cheaper to give it to everyone so nobody is assessed.

anyone not needing it and wishing it could be put to better use: you can go and give it to a food bank, give it to a nearby school, donate it online to a charity or give it directly to the NHS - easily done online, plenty of hospitals have appeal funds. However you choose to donate it, the government does not have to employ anyone to administer it. Win win.

if you are cross with anyone you perceive “too rich” keeping it, then remind yourself that luckily we live in a free country!

It’s an absolute CRIME that so called higher earners are struggling.

We live in a house far smaller than either of our childhood homes, and none of our parents had high earning jobs (my dad was an electrical fitter and my mum worked part time as a school receptionist). Our incomes combined sound eye watering in comparison but the ridiculous cost of housing and food and energy and everything else is crippling.

I earn about £10 an hour for the hours I do at work. DH earns very well but also works 55hr weeks to achieve that (without overtime his income is nearly halved).

We SHOULD feel rich and the fact we’re not is out of our hands.

The ridiculous bashing of the ‘fabulous’ £100k income lifestyle is quite galling, actually.

100k a year and struggling....only because of the choices you've made. That's a huge income