To think that with over 1million pensioners in poverty, removing the WFA makes Labour the nasty party, who tell blatant lies?

[TealTraybake]

And hypocritical lies at that. Just a few months ago Labour ‘vowed to be the party for pensioners’

‘Nearly 1 million people aged over 66 in the UK are living in deprivation, according to government statistics, the highest number since comparable records began.
Labour, which analysed figures from Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) records, has vowed to be the party for pensioners, with plans to insulate millions of homes and reduce energy bills. It has also “committed to retaining” the triple lock which guarantees annual rises to the state pension’

I understand the WFA should be means tested - but the current threshold is far too low. Food prices have gone up. Energy prices have gone up. Some pensioners need that WFA 🥺.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/16/nearly-1m-uk-pensioners-deprivation-official-figures

I have respect for the older generation, but as they are both the wealthiest part of society AND have higher disposable income than the working-age population, it seems crazy to argue that they all need a £300 cash payout to be spent on whatever they fancy.

I don’t know massive amounts about benefits so there will doubtless be some additional complexities but I did the below calculations on entitled to and all I changed was the age:

In my area with £500/month rent for a 1 bed flat in council tax band A

Single working age adult could claim £222 a week in total including help with council tax/housing.

A single pensioner with the new state pension of £221.20/week could claim an additional £134 in council tax/housing benefit.

So the pensioner would have getting on to 7K more coming in gross income than the non working single person.

If you are suggesting that no additional payment should be made for households with children (which I suspect is where you are going with the comment) then do you really believe that’s the right approach or do you think that children should also be entitled to some state funding for their housing/basic needs if their parents are currently unable or unwilling to provide it.

*factually correct to say that pensioners have similar bills to everyone else

I think you have mis-spelled factual as farcical😂

Of all the things you have listed, free prescriptions, at most, saves £115 as that's cost of an annual 'pass' or certificate They don't get free TV licences any more, and free bus travel is only of any use if you live somewhere with a bus service frequent enought o p[laces you need to go.

Their other household bills will be the same, except heating will be higher as they are more liley to be at home all day. They are also more likely to need glasses, hearing aids, dentists and mobilty aids, all of which cost money,. They are more likely to need to pay for help with some houehold tasks, all of which also cost money.

Is it true that most are just above the threshold?
Have you got a link to back that up?
This is one thing I haven't been able to find out. Some are saying millions will be in poverty because of this, others saying most pensioners are on cruises.
I think more than a million will keep getting the payment and there are more than 10 million pensioners, I wonder how many who really need the payment won't be getting it (and if anything can be done to help them).

Not one person has argued that the WFA shouldn’t be means - tested 🙄

The issue, that’s been stated several times, is the threshold at which it would be means tested, and the implications of this.

I see that people literally do read headlines and go no further. This is why the low brow media do so well.

14 years of “sucks to be you but we need to tighten our belts”. Putting many disabled people through hell to access benefits or cutting them entirely. Cutting child benefit for three+ children entirely. Closing libraries.

Underfunding schools.

Spending on each schoolchild’s education in England has suffered an unprecedented 14-year-freeze since the Conservatives came to power, according to Britain’s leading economics thinktank. Funding per pupil is now at 2010 levels in real terms, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said in its latest analysis of school spending, while teacher pay was at about the same real-terms level as in 2001.Investment in England’s ageing school buildings, many of which have been affected by the Raac – or crumbling concrete – crisis, is 25% lower in real terms than in the mid 2000s, the IFS analysis says.

Underfunding the NHS:

Although the NHS was spared from this first round of cuts, its funding nevertheless fell significantly. The health service received just 0.1% real-terms increases to its funding each year until 2015 – far short of the 4% real-terms rises it had averaged annually since it was established and the 6% it averaged under the previous Labour government. At the time, the King’s Trust health think tank said the NHS was facing the “biggest financial challenge in its history” and warned that the 0.1% settlement would “not be enough to meet increasing cost pressures or cope with increasing demand for services from an ageing population”.From 2016 onwards, the Conservative government increased the NHS budget by 1.6% a year. In 2018, then prime minister Theresa May announced that the NHS would receive an average 3.4% increase in its budget each year until 2023, as a “birthday present” to mark the 70th birthday of the NHS. But by then, the gap between the health service’s budget and what it would have had if the average 4% increase had been maintained since 2010, had grown to £42.2bn, according to analysis by the British Medical Association.

And yet with 2 months of Labour getting in the Tory voters are suddenly “Won’t somebody think of the comfortably off pensioners!?”. Laughable.

Totally agree. The pension increase doesn't come in until next April, the bills are going up now.

Surely if thickos think that we shouldn't have universal benefits then they'll agree the same should apply to child benefit and free childcare - aren't they universal benefits too?

It also looks like they'll be allowing Councils to get rid of single person discount - that's going to have a massive effect across all age groups.

Personally I can't wait for the first by election to happen - Labour are toast after what they've done.

I honestly think the root of all of this is that we are woefully unprepared (as a nation and as individuals) for old age. The pension contributions through your working life are far, far too low and I think everyone should start their working lives with a minimum of 10% put into a private pension (and FWIW I think employers need to put in that as a min also). There might need to be ways to opt out of it, but that should be the default.

NI levels also need to be set at a level that covers the cost of the state pension and the social contract between NI conts and state pension needs to be locked in. The triple lock is daft and instead a measure needs to be agreed across which all benefits should rise each year to cover COL increases.

The aim should be that everyone knows what the state will provide when they retire - none of the curent fear/acceptance that the retirement age will change sometime throughout your life; it should be set in stone when you are 18. Or that the whole thing could be abolished by the time you get there. None of this shit about allowances that are there sometimes and not at others. Give people committed facts upon which to plan. Recognise that planning takes a lifetime so the facts you give them at 18 must stick.

Those paying in need to know they will see the outcome of NI but they also need to pay in at a % that covers it. And no one who has worked should ever be reliant on the state pension alone, because decent contibutions to a private pension are mandatory.

We have previously paid for pensions etc with population growth - earlier through babies and latterly through immigration - but if we want to control that then we cannot use the growth of tomorrow to pay for today and everyone needs to see they must now indirectly or directly fund their old age through NI and private pensions.

This is exactly how I feel. Disgusting indeed.

No political party has any credibility. They are all awful.

I think the threshold for receiving WFA is too low and should be raised to £15k. To save on means-testing every pensioner household those that don't qualify for PC and whose Household Income is under £15k (maybe £17.5k for 2 pensioner households should be able to easily apply for WFA instead.

I understand that since the WFA announcement there has been a sharp increase in PC applications, so there should only be very few who won't or can't apply.

Both labour and the tories have been coming after some of these other groups for years already. It seemed to start in 2008 for the sick and disabled when ESA was brought in, then it intensified under the tories with UC and PIP.
The tories also came after low income families with UC and the 2 child limit.

No neither of those benefits are universal…

So pretty ironic use of the slur “thickos” it seems.

They are not, but the earnings level at which they are withdrawn is many multiples of that at which the winter fuel allowance is now withdrawn. And that is the point that many (most?) are making. Of course it shouldn't go to everyone, but withfrawing at the level of pension credit entitlement is far too low a bar.

The government has done an impact assessmnet of this change showing how many more perople are rorced into fuel poverty as a result. But they won't publish it. Why is that I wonder?

Yes bring on the first by election!

Mostly this opinion is formed by listening to young adults bitching about how boomers have ruined it for them. What they are reading to get this idea …. Nothing. Opinions parroted from Tik Tok & “influencers” who just say shit to monetize. What they really want is some sort of luxury communism - take everyone else’s money so they can have all the stuff, work a few hours at a career they “love and gives them joy” and travel to festivals around the world taking selfies etc.
And Lucy, where do you get your news? How would you know that’s ALL DM goes on about … ?

One could argue we were more prepared for old age before the last labour governernment destroyed private sector pensions... Auto enrolment is a poor replacement, that started too late and, as you say, needs higher contributions from employer and employee.

However, on the state pension, an indexed linked £12k pension taken at 67 needs roughly £300k invested. The employer and employee NI contributions on an average salary (£35k) equal £6k a year, which invested over 50 years at a moerate rate of return, would generate a fund of roughly £600k... Of course, NI in theory pays for all sorts of other stuff as well...

Yes free prescriptions. Free TV licence no, free bus travel, ok if you can walk to the bus stop.

You have no idea, clearly.

How were the conservatives going to be any different? I understand some people are angry, because l do think the pension credit threshold is too low.If there are people, saying they don’t want benefits, the winter fuel allowance is a benefit, that should have been means tested years ago.

Also everyone in wales gets free prescriptions

I can understand what you are saying and it must be difficult in these situations.
However at the end of the day we will all hopefully be pensioners so it is something that affects everyone.

Labour couldn't care less.

When asked specifically for an impact assessment all they could do is cajole and jeer

It's about political points not the actual pensioners who will be suffering on just basic state pension

I'd say you should listen to MPs from all sides talk on this, just to get some idea of the reality.

Also the basic state pension is on the same, or is it even less with other support on top, than pensioners with pension credit

Is your argument they should be fine too? So no one gets the WFA

If one pensioner can cope on all that £12k why not the other on the same or more?

But also listen to people and understand the impact of the policy you are wanting

i agree, we are being told loads of pensioners are just above the pension credit threshold but we need to know how many. And how many have savings over 16k because no working age person would be entitled to benefits with such savings. So the same rule needs to apply.
I suspect the vast majority of pensioners needing help do qualify for pension credit and even those just above will have some degree of savings which unfortunately will need to be used to pay for bills and other things. The state cannot pay towards peoples heating bills if they have savings accruing 5% in an account somewhere. Sorry but that’s the fiscal reality of where our economy is at now.

Starmer has been asked to provide an impact report, it looks like he's skipping it

Someone on minimum wage who as worked all the years necessary isn't that likely to have accrued savings in a 5% account somewhere

This is a political decision given the high payment to public sector and if they can't get the economy growing as they are banking on then expect more tax and spending reductions