To resent the U-turn on winter fuel allowance?

[BlueEyedStarling]

Perhaps I'm existing in a bubble, but all of the pensioners I know, are pretty well off, or comfortable, at least. I live and have older family in the South East, but my dad and his elderly partner, live in the North. Literally, all of them say they dont need the WFA, but happily accept it regardless and shouted from the rooftops when it was taken away from them. Just how long can the working age population keep paying for this increasing, triple-lock section of society who are, as a whole, the wealthiest amongst us? Personally, we fell through the gaps of being able to receive any child benefit (only just!), but have always been willing to accept that we didn't need it and therefore shouldn't have it. Is it that our middle-aged generation just dont shout as loudly about things that affect us? I do want to add that I am very aware that there are many pensioners who should be in receipt of the WFA and that the cut off was too low. Also, that our pensioners fair pretty badly in comparison to much of Europe. It seems criminal that it can't be means tested to benefit those who really do need it.

It's not more expensive to means test it. This may have been true years ago, but as technology evolves and more government departments are synced, this is no longer the case.

And if it were true...why are we means testing any benefits?!

@blossomtoes I couldn't base my analysis on your family specifically. I looked at the overall national data instead. That's the only sensible way to discuss this.

When you say it's bollocks, which data are you are referring to?

It will if you are able to make 40 years of contributions, which many of today's pensioners (particularly women) were not.

Yes, you get tax relief on contributions, but I'm missing what that has to do with means-testing.

My family isn’t an outlier, it’s pretty representative of two generations. I can’t comment on the veracity of your data as you didn’t supply any links to it.

They pay much more tax in Europe. How about we up the basic rate of tax from 20% to 30%? I’m up for it as I want better public services. So many people don’t want to pay money for better services / welfare state. They just want a magic money tree.

I have POA for my elderly mum (who is in a care home due to dementia and other ailments) and sort her finances. Until it was stopped even she received the WFA whilst in the care home!

Also all DMs private pensions are PAYE, and her state pension is know by the HMRC so as to give her the correct tax code. So her income is known, and there’s a digital record of it, everyone’s income is know (pensioners more than the working age population) so i can’t see why it’s difficult to means test any benefit.

Nail on the head. But the "boomers" don't let facts get in the way of a rant.

Nail on the head. HMRC have the data, so would be able to use it if a sensible system was put into place. I.e. pay all state pensioners the WFA, but take it back via the PAYE code for people who have taxable incomes over £x. Just as they do to take away the tax free personal allowance for people whose incomes are over £100k. It's really not rocket science.

Which generation are you, and which data are you looking at when you say you subsidised the generation above?

The easiest way to grasp this, big picture, is to look at trends in national debt. When debt goes up, costs are being passed to future generations. When it goes down, it's the reverse. Which bit of the graph is your bit?

The Boomer generation was an unusually large one. We should therefore expect to see debt decreasing a lot (money being put aside, basically) as it hits its prime earning age around the 1980s. That money will be needed later, because that large cohort will age out, and become expensive like we all do.

Instead, as soon as we get to the 1980s that line plateaus. Nothing's being saved. That's extraordinary for a period with a large bulge in the working-age part of the population. Then as the Boomers age out, debt rockets, in large part because of old-age costs (the state pension is the single biggest state cost, and NHS costs are age-skewed too).

There is nothing new or surprising about old people costing more than they did in their youth. What's unprecedented in the 20th century is for a generation that is costing so much to have, collectively, put so little in the kitty to cover it.

That's fine as long as you remove employee NICs. So that everyone pays the same level of income tax on their incomes, regardless of the source of income. Someone earning £50k from wages should pay the same as someone with £50k of pensions or property letting etc.

Read my last post.

WW2 debt paid off 2006
WW1 debt paid off 2015.

As a Boomer I paid off 2 wars not of making for 37 years.

So the tax burden was still high.

The YK state pension is not ‘scandalously low’ compared to EU state pensions. It’s about average if you properly look into the different ways pensions work in different countries.

In the UK we have the state pension and workplace pensions. The UK government incentivises people to save into these workplace pensions with a number of tax breaks. In most EU countries your employer pays your workplace pension into a state pension scheme, hence you should always take your workplace pension AND your state pension AND tax breaks given by the government when saving for a pension into account when comparing what you get with another European retiree.

The reason why the state pension is so small is that you were expected to make alternative provisions to run alongside it.

You did comment on the veracity of my claim. You called it bollocks. I'm just asking on what basis.

The 1980s covered the Thatcher years which were catastrophic in many ways. It was largely our parents’ generation that voted for a low tax government that decided paying down debt could take a back seat. The subsequent rise was due to two global events - the 2008 crash and the pandemic. Obviously austerity was supposed to rectify the results of the former but was an abject failure.

I called your claim bollocks. You didn’t present any data initially.

It was expected to create a basic standard of living. People weren’t expected to add more.

The war loan debt was actually pretty small compared to the debt built up in the 80s, 90s and 00s.

Yup absolutely.

While we’re thinking of tax policies that will actually grow the economy rather than those that will personally benefit us can we ditch the ludicrous marginal tax rates? And replace stamp duty and council tax with a land tax. THEN we might be in a situation to increase the number of people getting a WFA.

Ah for a sensibly run government!

It was designed to provide a basic living standard for a couple of years. Not 20 years +

It’s a pointless argument -we need to work out where money can be saved. The Gov have gone after the farmers and WFA - but this totals very little. How can they find more money but without the wealthy moving abroad .

They’ve also gone after pension savings. Doing away with the 2 child cap will cost billions we don’t have.

So where is it going to come from - people have money in their homes but I think care homes can take money from the sale of their property after the resident has died. You can’t force people out of their homes and make them sell.

They can hardly reduce pensions as it’s low compared to other countries already. Increase VAT?
Capital gains tax is about 20%, seems quite high.
Increasing tax but 40% is already quite high -they’d need to increase it across the board I think.
Benefit cuts seems the only way to go.

Yes, I think that's an interesting question too, i.e. why did that one generation end up being so relatively advantaged.

I agree Thatcherism was a part of it, which rolled back a lot of state provision. That can't be "blamed" on the Baby Boomer generation as the electors were, as always, older people.

Austerity and Covid responses favoured the Baby Boomer generation, because by this time, the Baby Boomer generation was the voting generation (and a very large one). We saw that in the Triple Lock and the shutdown decisions. Not reasonable to blame any generation for voting, but the outcome was clear in the spending patterns.

I think 10 per cent death duty on all amounts above 10k. To be deferred for those married until death of spouse.
10 per cent for everyone on pretty much everything is fine.

Neither state pension nor the NHS was created to fund people living 25 years plus after retirement into old age.

Income taxes on actual work are already too high and disincentive at the higher levels. At most, they can limit pension contributions to a 20 per cent tax saving there.

Yes, I think that's an interesting question too, i.e. why did that one generation end up being so relatively advantaged.…..

Because we had coal, steel, factories, traded, everyone bought our cars, Lorrie’s, made everything, sold everything Which meant we were rich. London was the busiest port in Europe until the dock strikes of the ?70s. Strong unions then.

Austerity and Covid responses favoured the Baby Boomer generation

How? Austerity favoured nobody, we’re all suffering from its effects on our public services. The Covid response particularly favoured working age people by paying 80% of their wages.

Like I said before WFA is between £100 and £300 per year. CB is minimum of nearly £1000 a year. Say means testing cost £400 per person/family there would be no saving on WFA but hundreds on Cb