To not understand the uproar over winter fuel allowance being cut?

[virgocatlover]

It's not being cut. The poorest pensioners on pension credit will still get it. It's only being changed so it's no longer a universal payment anymore.

The energy price cap was £1834 October 2023. This October it's £1717. So it's £117 cheaper than it was last winter for average use.

In April 2024 the state pension rose by 8.5% - a rise of around £900 for those on full state pension. It's expected to rise another £400 next April.

Many energy companies still have schemes for those in genuine need. Plus the warm home discount exists for those on a low income.

I understand pensions who receive just state pension and no other income may be annoyed but there has to be a cut somewhere. But pensioners are unlikely to have the expense of rent/ mortgages in retirement which is the biggest expense to those of working age.

However most of the moans I've heard and seen seem to be from the well off pensioners who are cross about losing something. I know a woman who rents out three houses and spends the winter in the Caribbean who is spitting feathers about losing the payment. Another who spent the money on their Christmas booze.

There is so much uproar about this which didn't happen when there were so many other cuts affecting young people/workers/families. All other benefits are means tested, so should WFA.

People still see pensioners as those who fought in the war and counting pennies at the till to pay for their bread and milk. But that's just not the case these days.

I will, but my late DH had been a crofter in Scotland for some part of his life - this seems to have affected his pension.

About three-quarters of old-age pensioners are home-owners. That leaves a hell of a lot of old people paying rent.

But don’t worry, those on the lowest incomes tend to be the same people who have the poorest health and the least access to treatment, so they’ll die off faster and won’t be a burden on you.

Absolutely THIS! I volunteered for CA for 10 years and saw so much of this with clients, always under the DWP's ethos of "we have to protect the public purse". Fair enough, yet that purse never seems to be protected from people who already have more than enough. (I wonder how the recovery of monies defrauded during the pandemic is going?) It's always the most vulnerable who are pursued - easy targets with no friends in high places. 🤬

A flat in my road wouldn't get you much change from a million. But maybe I should tell my neighbour who's dealing with Alzheimer's that she needs to get her flat on the market and move herself to a cheaper part of London where she has no friends, no support and wouldn't even be able to find her way back to her front door.

I think there are many reasons for the "uproar" including:

Not mentioned in the manifesto, but clearly planned
Done in the same week as huge public sector pay rises.
Justified by the fantasy "black hole"
Stinks of malicious intent to punish older voters.

I fear Starmer, has been used to get Labour elected, but the "old guard", are really running the show. Time will tell, but I won't be surprised if he's thrown under the bus in the next 12 months...

The black hole isn’t a fantasy.

That got discussed earlier on the thread. It's not always cost effective and it's not actually that easy to downsize in some areas of the country. Unless you're suggesting all the pensioners live in one corner of the country where a one bed bungalow costs exactly £100,000, as opposed to, say, SW London where they may have lived all their life and have family support, but their 2 bed flat happens to be worth £1m?

Most of the comments here are in favour of means testing, particularly as there are so many non-pensioners in need (housing crisis being the main example that affects children and young people acutely). This is heartening. It also goes to show how out of touch mainstream media and policians are with the general population.

Whichever way you swing it, it is not a good thing to take taxes off a family living in squalid, damp and cramped conditions so as to give handouts to wealthy pensioners to heat their under-occupied homes (or spend on holidays and christmas presents).

Wants and needs are different things. A family who is made homeless will have to accept B&B accommodation well away from school, work and their own network of support. State support is about helping those most in need and surely shouldn’t be used to keep pensioners in the manner in which they’re accustomed?

I'm not saying that the WFA shouldn't be means tested. But does that means test need to include the value of their home?

And by "manner in which they're accustomed" do you mean not freezing? I have a 2 bed bungalow, I'm not in London but the area we live in, it's worth a fair amount. It heats up quick, doesn't cost masses to heat it. But just because we have that asset (and we aren't pensioners, nor are we mortgage free, just using my own home as an example) if we only received a state pension otherwise, would the choice be freeze or sell up? And where would we then go? Privately rent the same amount of space? Or into state funded accommodation?

All very strong points. I didn’t object to the announcement when it was made and you’ve persuaded me that I was right to think it was a very sensible, indeed obviously overdue, welfare cut.

So why did Labour vehemently oppose it nine months ago? Is Labour just a collection of hypocrites, fibbers and chancers? Surely not!

@IpsyUpsyDaisyDoos What state funded accommodation? Social housing? You would have deliberately made yourself homeless. If a care home - you would be paying. You have funds. So best stay put. However your heating costs cannot be reduced by much if you already have a smaller home. Your only way to get more cash is to move to a cheaper area.

Thanks to the miracle of modern medicine, people are living longer now, but the extra months and years are not in good health, they are after surviving a heart attack or stroke or cancer that a generation ago would have killed you outright. Now you get the privilege of surviving but being weak and dependent. I’m not sure it’s progress.

It's unfortunate that human bodies have not yet evolved enough to catch up with the increase in life expectancy. So many older folk now suffering from dementia and cancer who would in the past would already have peacefully passed away.

There is no history of dementia or cancer in my immediate family, but my grandparents were all dead by 76 due to cardiovascular disease. My parents have lived much healthier lives - and have outlived their own parents - but are now suffering from other conditions the previous generation avoided by dying sooner.

Does owning your own home magically prevent the temperature dropping within it or something?

No, owning your own home means that you are sitting on a considerable asset and don't have to pay rent.

I would downsize rather than freeze to death.

You do realise don’t you that downsizing to suitable accommodation such as a bungalow generally costs more? And that not every pensioner is sitting on £1 million pile in London.

But that's my point. If an elderly person or couple has to move to a cheaper area away from their family support, they may then need other support, such as carers etc.

It's not as simple to "downsize" as it sounds, because often it only means "move to a cheaper property". Which might give you more liquid cash but then more things you need to spend it on, then it's gone and you need state support anyway.

My MIL and FIL for example have a small house but it's worth half a million. If they moved to a cheaper area they'd be moving miles away from their three sons and their families, who at present drop in and help out a lot because we're all physically close by. The "cheaper area" would be probably an hour or two away from us. So we couldn't do that around our small children and jobs. Other people would need to do it. Increased costs for them and then when the money runs out, the state.

It's no win.

Some people, like my DM, had already downsized! This idea that the elderly are living on sizeable family homes is rubbish. Many do not. They might have valuable pensions and the asset of a house that comes to £1 million in London and SE but they are not rich. Many do move to cheaper areas but many prefer to stay near support networks. DM was in a 1 bed bungalow. How do you downsize from that?

There are grants and schemes to make homes more energy efficient. Some of these have been scams, but some are genuine. Insulation is a good long term answer to cutting costs for everyone.

The problem is that there is a shortage of bungalows in the UK, and a huge reluctance to build on greenbelt. Bungalows require larger plots by their nature compared with a two storey house with the same floorspace.

The British are going have to choose between a) accept that a ton of greenbelt land needs to be concreted over, or b) do what other densely-populated countries do and accept that people who want stair-free one-storey living need to live in flats with elevators rather than bungalows (which will mean that issues like leasehold will needto be reformed, with the rules being made fairer and more transparent).

(Flats are much, much easier to heat than houses as a rule. And you can tuck a whole bunch of flats into almost any neighborhood because they are dense and you can stack flats up on top of each other, meaning that you can build them in currently occupied residential neighborhoods and people can move there while staying in their current neighborhoods with friends and family around. But there are cultural issues - the British have never really liked flats very much compared to other countries)

What would your suggestion be to a homeowner who had no money to pay bills?

My suggestion would be to become Director of Public Prosecutions, get super-duper tax relief on your pension via special Regulations that even have your name on them, and then laugh all the way to the bank - while giggling at the impoverished OAPs.

👍

Quite

You're a card.

Thank you.