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

Yes I agree. I never said household income of 100k is hard up. I said the opposite...they are not poverty stricken.

But £400 will make some difference to these households..even if its just boosting disposable income..which is good as that will stimulate spending elsewhere in the economy. As I said before upthread the middle need to not be too tightly squeezed - the middle need to be able to spend to keep those in industries like beauty and hospitality in work. If they are spending then jobs will go

*if they are NOT spending then jobs will go I meant!

its about time people who earn more get a little something back for sure!im sick of being told I "earn to much".

Use the £400 to reduce your electricity bill, which is where it will land, and ask the company for a two month payment holiday, use the retained money for the oil.

More of a worry for people off grid, because they won't get it at all.

Alan Sugar got a Winter Fuel payment on account of him being a pensioner. Initially he did a "Do you know who I am? '' statement and asked for it to go to someone who, you know, couldn't afford their heating bills, but the powers that be insisted he take it. He ended up taking it but gave it to charity.

Why on earth do these people need to make a song and dance about being given this help, one reason only .. to tell everyone they are above charity and to tell everyone they are insulted even of the mere taint of them receiving it. Even though they know this is administratively the most efficient and cheapest way of ensuring everyone gets the help needed. They know full well they could just quietly donate it to charity. They’ll happily minimise their tax bill though and ensure they’re paying a minuscule proportion compared to those middle earners for whom this £400 will make a difference

That’s not what not qualifying for various benefits is though, you’re actually being told ‘you’ve got enough’. Subtle difference.

Whether the threshold for ‘enough’ is right is debatable but in a country where some people have very little and no way to increase that, if you’re just managing you objectively have enough.

The criteria are a very crude threshold though, you can own a 600k house and have a fantastic pension but still be eligible for universal credit or could be a young family with 4 children on 32k and a high mortgage or even renting and trying to save up for a deposit on a house and not entitled to anything. I’ve been in the benefits and just getting by boats and the animosity I see on here towards people on UC saddens me but assuming that anyone not on UC is well off or isn’t true either and I can understand their view that for all the extra effort they often really aren't that much better off then people on benefits and nice they are considered once in a while. Personally I feel the balance of help is about right and taking the £400 off the just getting by families to give £1600 rather than ‘just’ £1200 to those on benefits would cause a lot of understandable resentment

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.

Alright Molly-Mae 🙄

"We will give everyone £200 that they will repay over four years"

Response "but what about the poor? Sad for them"

"OK, we will double it and not ask for it back"

Response "but what about the super rich? They don't deserve it"

Can't do fucking nowt right.

@Cornettoninja i don't need the £400 at all but I have more than enough. I will take the £400 out of my savings and put it into my babies saving pot as it was money we didn't have so will put it away for him for the future. Nice to have it tho😁

Exactly, the response of some people to this is ridiculous. A very small minority do people are that rich that it wouldn’t make a difference to them. What I can’t understand is that it’s apparently so wrong we now have enough for our dc to do swimming lessons because of this £400 but shouldn’t get it as not starving, however it was fine all our taxes went on funding all that furlough at 80% so people could maintain their lifestyles?

I also think it's hugely unfair for example that a 19 year old just out of school looking for work, claiming UC living with parents will get £650 handed to them wheras others on low pay apprenticeships who don't qualify for UC and probably have travel costs etc won't get anything. My ds gets low pay for his apprenticeship, puts in a 40 hour week and has to travel 60 odd miles to another city a couple of times a week wheras another 20 year old on UC will get this £650 !!

Yes that crossed my mind. In the same way the same group get a generous “work allowance” as a reward of sorts for not having rent to pay(something aimed at home owners). It’s almost lik the people who wrote the policy don’t understand the different client groups.

@Babyroobs unless your hypothetical 19 year old living at home pays the energy bill; no he will not get “handed” the money.
the money doesn’t go in your bank account, it’s credited to your energy account.

He will get £650 handed to him if he has a UC claim due to being out of work.

@Babyroobs anyone claiming UC needs £650 support!
the energy payments are going onto energy accounts. It’s not a cash payment.
if you feel so strongly then give your son £650.

An out of work 19 year old would not get a work allowance unless they had a child on their claim or had the Limited capability for work element on their claim because they are limited in their ability to work by illness or disability.

That's the £400. The £650 goes to your bank account

Yes I know.

But for example, a rent paying adult with LCWRA will get a lower work allowance than the young adult with LCWRA living with their parents rent free. Always seemed one of the design glitches to me @Babyroobs

Yes exactly.

As someone on a fair salary I'd say it needs to be proportionate. We don't want to cut off the middle earners, that isn't going to be fair or effective for another election. Also just because someone earns say £40k, doesn't mean that they can absorb the bills when they spent much of that on the mortgage. My house, for example, is going to cost considerably more to heat etc than many council properties.

I would say cap it at £80,000 a year (individually not combined). Any more than that they can absorb the bill.

Once you start making these sorts of proclamations, you get into difficulties.

I earn £75k. But I put loads into my pension, taking my actual salary down to around £48k, below the higher rate threshold.

I have no mortgage, no kids, no debts. I take home over £3k and I have a second income of c£10k of which I usually put £6k into the pension and take £2-4k as dividends. £2k of that is untaxed.

I don't meet your threshold but I also don't "need" the £400. My combined utility bill is currently £168, fixed to next April. My other bills are pretty low too.

We can argue forever about what is a 'fair' cut off. The answer is that there never is one and that people will always disagree. It is pretty obvious that an income of say £50K will go a very long way for one person with a fully paid off mortgage and no dependents and not far at all for two working parents, paying for full time childcare and supporting two children, renting and unable to afford to purchase a house. Incomes in isolation mean nothing.

Surely the main point is whether or not throwing more and money around at the whole populace is a bright idea and why this self proclaimed low tax, fiscally responsible chancellor keeps saying one thing and doing the exact opposite.

It's yet another knee jerk, after months of dithering, coincidentally timed (obviously) just as Sue Gray's report was released.
How is this to be paid for apart from the 5 billion which he expects to get from the windfall tax? Do higher earners (or even lower rate tax payers) see their taxes going down in order to pay for this (they have already increased considerably)? Will there be yet more borrowing after Rishi announced how he wanted to be responsible about debt? More QE? Why is he stoking inflation further at a time when it is so high? How will that help those struggling with the cost of living? What happens if energy prices don't recede (there is no evidence that they will as the war in Ukraine continues and Europe announces that it wants to wean itself off Russian gas)? Is he planning handouts every year? What do people think will happen to interest rates on their mortgage, loan or credit card?

Why is he not suspending VAT or green levies on fuel bills? Why is he not targeting help carefully? Why did he raise NI and freeze tax bands just to now throw yet more money around?

It's all very well thinking I need/deserve an extra £400 or whatever but a bit more critical thinking about where it will come from and what the potential consequences might be would be preferable.