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

I've been working all day so ended up dipping out of this thread. It's taken an interesting turn...Lots of muddling up between household incomes and individual salaries. I can see why an individual on £100k might be considered 'rich'. But a household income of £100k is NOT rich! Particularly if you have preschool aged children. Clearly this household is not poverty stricken, but let's not pretend £400 makes no difference to such families.

I have a question about the admin for this, how it’s being done. Is the above poster correct about how the rebate is going to be distributed?

If so, what about tenanted properties where the tenant does NOT pay the bill directly, either because bills are included - I could see landlords putting up the cost and pocketing the rebate - or because the property is on a meter with the landlord acting as a middleman? Where the landlord pays the bills, but has a meter installed so they can up the price? Are these situations not legal any more, and are they still happening anyway?

I am guessing that people in government don’t know and don’t care to know about all eventualities, and there will be circumstances where rich unscrupulous landlords gain and poor tenants lose out. (I can’t think where I get the cynical idea that government policies haven’t been fully planned out, but there we are.)

Wasn’t it Thatcher who said something like the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of money ?
I do worry about the country’s borrowing debt. It will have to be repaid.

But I understand we’re in unprecedented times. And it’s better to help people now rather than let people run into massive debt where they would cost the tax payer even more money.

Typical Boris government. They say they won’t do something ( in this case tax the fuel companies) and then weeks later they go ahead with it.

I also feel this is a diversion tactic, from party gate. I’m sure Boris was on the phone to Rishi telling him to go ahead with the increased payments just as Boris was about to land in even more hot water.

The quote was, I think, that you always run out of other people’s money.

If Mr Sunak’s family liquidated their wealth they could afford to give nearly half the UK population £25 each.

I think he should do that. That Rees Mogg Cat fella can chip in too and round it up to £50.

High income households already pay shit loads of tax and NI, why shouldn't they get something back from this.

My MP has seven houses...

Ours is all going to the local food bank.

From the government’s perspective it’s probably too complicated to means test the payments. So easier to give it to everyone.
Higher earners pay lots in income tax anyway, effectively going back into the coffers.

It is cheaper to give it to everyone than means test it.

As said, that doesn't seem to apply to Child Benefit.... or a host of other benefits.

Would be better to give £400 extra to the poor than £400 to everyone.

Just been listening to another maternity scandal (Nottingham) interim report puts the number one reason as lack of staff, training and 10 years of cuts... if there is spare money hanging around, lets use it to recruit midwives... not give it to folk who don't need it.

I know right

the bracket that just misses out is those who earn just over the threshold for UC. Not those on 100k. I'll bet if those struggling on 100k posted a breakdown, there would be savings to be made that most of us would spot.

The cost-benefit (no pun intended) calculation would be different for something like child benefit though as it's a regular payment, not a one-off. Though as I understand it, they've put most of the admin burden of the child benefit stuff on those claiming it as you have to do tax returns now if you're over the threshold. (That's my understanding, I am not in a position to have personal experience!)

I'm not sure why I'm defending this, as I think it's a stupid policy overall, but this one aspect of it is probably not as much of a waste of money as you'd think.

Why do I keep seeing this stuff? Nobody is getting the 400 quid in cash. It's going straight to your energy supplier to knock it off your bill.

@Alexandra2001 Child benefit is notoriously unfair though as a one person working household starts to lose it at 50k, a two person working household can earn up to 99ishk before that happens. I am grateful that this is for every one, we are ok on paper but have obligations and yes we will and have made cut backs but this will really help at the moment. Perhaps it should just be possible to opt out if you know you don't need it.

@110APiccadilly Yes the admin is put onto the claimant but thats because its a taper payment.
This £400 is in two payments & is likely to have to be paid for many years to come as energy is only going to go one way, no one will be dealing with Russia however the war goes.

I was down at our local yesterday, many wealthier people were incredulous about this payment (i'm talking about people on say 40 or 50k p.a) they don't need it and for those that do but aren't on UC, £400 is no where near enough to help.

the Govt is also means testing much of the other help they are giving on energy....we aren't all getting £1250 are we? so the "its too expensive...." argument seems a bit off.

There's of course a huge difference between a household with two earners on £50K each and one with one earner on £100K. (Or two earners with a much less even split.) One of those households gets much more take-home pay, and is still eligible for child benefit. That's probably why it's easier to talk about individual salaries.

But I'm afraid I do find it hard to agree that a household on £100K, even in the situation that's worst for them in terms of tax, etc, is all that hard up. Admittedly we live in a lower cost of living area, but we have a household income less than half of that (gross, and one of us out-earns the other fairly significantly, so the tax system is not our friend). We don't feel badly off. We do cut our coat according to our cloth, but DD has swimming classes, we have the odd takeaway, we donate monthly to the foodbank, we can deal with unexpected needs to fix things, we can cope with me (I'm the higher earner) going on maternity for a year (admittedly on good Ts and C's) etc.

In contrast, I know people who really struggle if, for instance, a washing machine breaks. Because they just don't have the money to replace it, even with a cheap one.

Probably costs more to figure out who needs it and who doesn’t do they’ve just decided to give it to everyone. It’s money from the gas companies anyway so basically giving them it back.

I have to say, I was assuming it was a one-off. It really would be crazy to keep giving it to people who don't need it. I hope you're wrong on that.

I think the means testing for the other parts is very much a blunt instrument - you get it if you get certain qualifying benefits. That's probably not too expensive to administer, but it does mean it risks the cliff edge effect for those who earn just too much.

Crazy idea.
Just like handing out millions to wealthy pensioners year after year with the winter fuel allowance.
How come child benefit isn't given out similarly? They seem able to 'means test' that easily enough?

What about those with oil fired heating? That's a far far bigger expense than our electric.

Why would he possibly do that? If you want more money why not do something about it yourself?

Sense of humour fail @SlightlyGeordieJohn? It’s called being ironic. I earn quite enough thanks but well done for being another aggressive oblivious MN poster who thinks if everyone just worked a bit harder they’d get everything they desire in life.

Ah, straight to the insults when someone disagrees with you. How novel.

Are these people whose kids have grown up and they’ve paid off their mortgages?? They are just showing off and know full well there is nothing to stop them donating the money if it doesn’t make a difference to them. Most young families without a 40-50k household income with 3-4 children who have bought their house recently (without a huge deposit) would say this £400 very much makes a difference to them and feel grateful they’ve actually been considered