WTF? £600 winter fuel allowance for all pensioners!

[user1497207191]

No wonder the country has no money and the deficit/debt is getting bigger.

MIL just phoned up saying she'd got a letter telling her £600 was on the way to her and asking why, when she doesn't need it?

Just why??? She's not claiming means tested benefits. Her state and her husband's occupational pension are already far more than she needs to live on, meaning she saves a few hundred pounds a month into ISAs (which already stand at over £100k). Owns her own house, so no rent/mortgage.

Why the hell can't this money be directed at those who actually need it or more worthy causes? It's insane to keep throwing money at people who don't need it.

She doesn't need it, she doesn't want it. She wouldn't miss it if it wasn't paid to her.

If they can means test the child benefit and claw it back from those earning over £50k, why can't they come up with a way of ensuring winter fuel allowance is only paid to those who may need it? Why not only paid to those pensioners claiming pension credits, or rent allowance, or whatever?

Winter Fuel Payments were introduced in 1997 to help older people meet the costs of heating their homes in winter by the LABOUR Government. So look at Tony if you're looking to apportion "blame".

Or thank.

After reading threads about people saving child benefit to give to the child when they're 18 or buy them a car, I think that's another benefit that's run its course and should be stopped altogether as people obviously have no real need for it any more!

Interesting point and I don't remember anybody advocating stopping child benefits on that thread 🤔

What a ridiculous load of offensive twaddle.

There is a big differance between a WFA of (normally except for this year and last) £200 per household -per annum and £20 per child per week - amounting to £1000 per year per child.

Can you all not see that one is much more than the other.

I am glad this thread has reached the end

It has saddened me that so many posters fail to look at the reality of what the WFA means and how mean-spirited it is to suggest it is not needed or deserved because they KNOW people who do not need it.

Exactly. You'd save so much more money if you stopped child benefit. There must be more children than people over 80 too, getting all this money. And probably if you stopped the fuel benefit, more old people would die saving the NHS money and and saving money in pensions and fuel.benefit, win win!

I think many younger people want benefits/concessions cut, to save their taxes...but not if its their benefits...only other people's. Especially the elderly. 🙄

Where are they getting all these super cheap holidays from?

Quite. You can't go far on two hundred quid

One night in a holiday camp, communal dorm, bring your own towel, soap and loo roll. Hot water extra.

Actually many people DO need child benefit, my kids would have gone without a lot of things had I not had that money. It SHOULD be worked out per couple though if that applies, not per parent as no way should a family with £98,000 get full benefit but a family with only one working parent that earns £50, 001 have to pay some back! Same with these "everyone's entitled to them" benefits such as winter fuel payments, they absolutely should he means tested

She can simply cancel it, no drama. https://www.gov.uk/winter-fuel-payment/report-change-circumstances

Do you feel similarly for other non means-tested benefits, like PIP, or even state pension? Or do you think it should be the responsibility of the recipient to decide they don't need it? BTW, we stopped claiming CB when we jointly reached the income threshold, even though we were eligible to keep claiming it. I now feel like a mug to have missed 000s which we could have used for treats and holidays.

Even if means testing costs more than it saves?
Not everyone who can't afford heating is on pension credit, in fact those who are close to the cut-off are poorer than those on it. My mum was for one, I used to subsidise her and pay some bills.

Why is it parents who should pay to educate the tax payers of the future? This is provided by the state, everybody pays and everybody benefits in the future from having a highly skilled work force.

Who exactly are you labelling as 'deadbeat have-nots' here?

600 quid. Really? I don't think so.

Probably those who are saying horrible things about recipients of WFA.

Apparently MIL said she doesn't need it, so why not? Do you assume everyone is just greedy? (TBF, you're largely right, apparently I'm just a mug!).

I'm amazed your MIL even told you she was getting it, which isn't that amount anyway. Its none of your business.

Of course. Equally a parent of three children isn’t subsidising pensioners, their contribution isn’t even covering their family’s costs. You have read the post I was responding to I take it?

I read it, you implied parents should be ‘covering the cost’ of the children they have. Meaning school, medical etc. I am saying these children will pay their dues once they are tax payer. You were able to acces a free education as a child.

It doesn’t work like that.

I didn’t imply anything of the sort. RTFT. She said she was subsidising pensioners. I pointed out that she most certainly isn’t if she has three school age children. The shoe’s on the other foot.

What doesn't?

I’m saying having three school age children does not mean parents are not subsidising others or that others are subsidising you. Those children will repay what they have received when they are tax payers. It is not on parents to do it.