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

Me.

As others have said I think it should be means tested. My dad certainly doesn't need it. I also know of a couple of pensioners who do need it but mainly because they have made stupid financial decisions over their lifetime and now expect the tax payer to help look after them. But then obviously there are those that through no fault of their own genuinely need help with heating bills. It's a real mixed bag

1.4 million pensioners get pension credit and retain their winter fuel allowance.

There probably is a need to look at what can be done for those who marginally miss out on pension credit, but the vast majority of those who will lose it really don't need it.

In an ideal world it would be means tested but that would cost a huge amount of tax payers money to set up and administrate. I think removing it is a ‘blunt tool’ to just get the job done quickly. Some shouldn’t have had it in the first place and some will struggle. Some will be ok. There are other changes that mean the effect won’t be as big as just taking it away (rises in pension) so it’s not a net loss of the WFA it’s more nuanced. There will be some who will be impacted more than others but it had to be done. My in laws have a super efficient house with solar panels etc and pay so little on heating. They live in a four bed house in a beautiful area surrounded by other pensioners in the same boat. They are all wealthy. None of them need that money in any way. It’s a massive waste of public funds.

What needs to happen now is an assessment to see which pensioners still need help and something put in place.

It is being means tested. Pensioners entitled to pension credit it will still get it.

Agree. I wonder if the answer is changing the pension credit threshold. My mum doesn’t get it and she could do with a bit extra (although she’s always warm and well fed - just not much spare for leisure which does help wellbeing and health and probably would have a positive impact on the public purse overall)

But how do you think that argument would go down for those younger who’s income solely comes from state benefits?
Well fed, warm house but limited money for leisure … do you think the popular opinion would be to give non working adults more state money for leisure?
The state pension is essentially the same. Yes it should allow people to live, heat their homes, have enough food and day to day basics but it shouldn’t be enough to pay for cruises and daily meals out.

I disagree.
In an ideal world, everyone (not just pensioners) would live in a well insulated, warm house that they could afford to heat, without any top up benefits. No means testing for the poorest because nobody should be so poor that they have to visit food banks.

I didn’t mean cruises - just things that help keep us well - the odd meal out, the odd day out. Good quality food. She can’t drive so relies on taxis. A bit of extra money would help her to have access to a better quality of life that would keep her well for longer so less strain on the NHS.

I’m not sure whether or not the pension credit threshold should or shouldn’t rise but it could be the answer to those who are genuinely in need that can’t afford the basics.

But that’s a very blunt tool. I guess I meant a sliding scale.

Almost a quarter of pensioners are millionaires and the boomer generation hold nearly 80% of the property wealth of the UK. Most pensioners have additional income other than the state pension and many will be aged 55. They are not all doddery, frail old people using zimmer frames.

The majority of pensioners will not be particularly affected by not getting £300 and most don’t even use it to pay for winter fuel. It’s just a nice little bonus to put in the grandkids savings account or to put towards their next holiday.

Those that are particularly poor can apply for pension credits which can be nearly 4k per year which is more than a young person gets in Universal Credit. The state pension is also due to rise by £450 next year.

In fact, there is more poverty in children and young people, in the UK, than there is for pensioners and young people do not get free bus travel and winter fuel payments.

Almost a quarter of pensioners are millionaires and the boomer generation hold nearly 80% of the property wealth of the UK. Most pensioners have additional income other than the state pension and many will be aged 55.

Can you provide some evidence for those assertions? I find the one about property particularly unlikely. Barely anyone aged 55 is a pensioner, they may be economically inactive but that’s not the same thing. Increasingly private pensions are becoming tied to state pension age with hefty penalties for early draw down.

Yes but that still doesn't alleviate the struggle for those at the cut off.

If you listen to some of their stories, or through their MPs you'll get a more realistic perspective of what they are facing

Here’s an article regarding the property wealth. https://www.standard.co.uk/homesandproperty/property-news/baby-boomers-property-wealth-uk-london-generation-property-gap-b1077686.html#:~:text=Baby%20Boomers%20now%20own%20more%20than%20three

And here’s some information regarding early retirement. Note that I didn’t mention a figure in my previous post. https://ifs.org.uk/news/decisions-retire-early-are-driving-growing-economic-inactivity-among-people-their-50s-and-60s#:~:text=The%20evidence%20suggests%20that%20many%20more

£12k a year for a single person with no housing costs is enough to heat your home.

It’s more than young out of work people receive and I don’t see anywhere near the level of outrage for how their pay their bills or heat their spaces.

Is it a huge amount of money for a lavish lifestyle? No, but it is enough to eat and heat your home? Of course it is.

Many single income parents don’t have much more than £1k a month left after they’ve paid their mortgage or rent and childcare and that’s to support more than one person!

Are people annoyed or angry because they’re used to having their bills subsided? Yes, does that mean those above the cut off don’t have enough to live on? No.

Well, an organisation I work with has done some work that projects that on top of that 1.4m that retain the allowance there will be a further 1 million pensioners pushed into fuel poverty as a result of this change, and that that assumes everyone who is entitled to pension credit claims it. The government has said that there are more than 1 million who are entitled but don't claim (because the process is too hard to engage with mainly), so that's over 2m pushed into fuel poverty, without it now transpires any impact assessment at all carried out by the government.

That's appalling - and one can only assume was either a deliberately vindictive move targeted at the elderly, or a desperate dash for cash to appease the unions demands for pay rises.

£12k a year for a single person with no housing costs is enough to heat your home. It’s more than young out of work people receive and I don’t see anywhere near the level of outrage for how their pay their bills or heat their spaces.

Maybe because a young person can change their situation by getting a job. And the older you are, the more you feel the cold.

Are people annoyed or angry because they’re used to having their bills subsided?

No they are not, they are fearful on how to manage, can you listen to a few people?

There is the Commons debate and various reports accessible

Someone claiming they can’t afford to run their heating with £1k a month for living expenses doesn’t make it true.

If you refuse to listen to anyone's experience outside those that support your own conclusions I don't think you are open to any insight

Well just as there are apparently all sorts of reasons none of these people could save there are also all sorts of reasons why some people can’t just get a job.

The reality is state funded benefits are for the basics, not excess leisure spending. The person I was replying to said their DM had enough to eat well and heat her home but not enough for leisure spending.

Feel free to include the information that backs up why it isn’t possible to have any heating with £1k a months for living expenses.

I have already posted a few times where you can hear it. The MPs covered it in the Commons debate giving information for the numbers in their constituencies

At least listen to something before rebutting other people's situations

Exactly!

That's also slightly disingenuous, as young out of work people tend to either live at home or are in receipt of housing/universal credit, which also opens the door to council tax benefit as well. There is no, or little outragae, because the system is deigned and needs them to be motivated to get a full time job. Those that can't get additional disability / in work benefits, so are not surviving on less than £12k

Analysis shows that an income of £299 or less is the level of absolute poverty; relative poverty (ie compared to the median income) is £347 a week. £299 a week after tax is around £15k a year - or £13ish k after council tax (an effective 10% tax on those in poverty)

By which I meant money for travel to get out of the house every now and then. Buy a cafe lunch once in a while. Join clubs, a gym, or a group etc. I wasn’t suggesting she should have cruises and eat out everyday as you wrongly assumed.

But, I think it makes good economic sense to ensure ALL people can afford decent nutritional food, a warm house and access to activities that support good physical and mental health. One of the biggest costs to the NHS is treating the growth of Type 2 diabetes and its associated issues.

There is an enormous amount of research that shows certain activities support health - continued learning, social time, exercise, access to nature, nutritional food to name a few - that can be difficult to achieve without some disposable income.

I absolutely support the rolling back of WFA though. Too many people getting it that didn’t need it.