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.

Six? Blimey, that’s going some!

They must be quietly cursing Gordon Brown. Easy to give, harder to take away.

Like tax credits which have now morphed into UC. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

The pensioners I know are wealthy too. Seems madness to just issue it to all. Some many of that generation have made considerable amounts on property etc yet still complain. Many did support Kier in stopping it, but he has waned under pressure

I definitely agree with you, totally think lower income pensioners should get it but rest no way. They are more comfortably off than a lot of young families living in poverty and those families don’t get a fuel allowance. Like other posters have also said our generation will be unlikely to get a state pension never mind a winter fuel allowance!

I have heard a lot of older people saying they don't need it. The means testing would cost a fortune apparently so why don't they set up some sort of fund, whereby those that don't need it can donate directly into it, and it can be used for those elderly people who are really struggling .

Because it’s still going to be means tested. The threshold is moving.

I'm gonna guess you haven't "taped a TV program" or saved anything to a floppy disk for the same amount of time.

Strange how phrases continue on beyond their strict definition, or items become "the save icon" on buttons when most people don't even understand the significance.

16 pages, and still nobody has said what they mean by 'needing it'.

Or....

They could have just increased the pension by that amount (or more), thereby making it taxable, ensuring those who have low incomes get every penny of it, and those on high incomes get about half of it.

Yes - you still have the issue of about £100/year going to people who don't need it - but that's a lot cheaper than doing the means-testing, and the appeals process, and all the other stuff that government does so expensively. And you can also retire the IT system that handles WF payments, saving another chunk of money.

OP you are definitely living in a bubble! Not all pensioners are comfortably off - do you know what the threshold for Pension Credit is? About £3 under the State Pension. There are pensioners out there who have to make the choice between heating and eating. Sweeping generalisations are pointless.

I doubt there’s an IT system. It’s probably a couple of lines of code.

Yanbu, all the pensioners I know really don’t need it either. I’m well aware that they do exist and I’m all for it for those who are actually struggling but whilst my in laws always donated theirs to charity, I’m sure many don’t and I really don’t think it’s a good use of public funds for comfortable and wealthy people.

How do you define 'struggling'?

Absolutely you are not living in a bubble. Take for instance my mother-in-law who is on a small pension and really needed the money. She didn't moan much when it was taken away, but her sister living in a large house and with a healthy pension and savings and a lot of global travel was really irate about it. It's time for women like her to grow up. I'd much rather see the money go to working families. They are the future. If it's still around when I am that age, I know who's getting mine.

The PP describes a situation where all the pensioners are well off and thinks that pensioners are the wealthiest group.

I’d say that is living in a bubble of the top 10% and pretending everyone lives to that standard.

The reality is that something like 10% or less of pensioners reach the higher rate tax bracket, most have incomes below the national living wage and a third live in fuel poverty (but less than half of those are eligible for pension credit).

Living in bubbles where identity assumptions are used for policy rather than economic facts is what leads to removal of needed support from low income pensioners. The problem for the chancellor is that the u-turn to taxing it or removing from 40% tax payers (as per child benefit) will not save any money and will cost to implement. Its a fact proven by governments of both complexions that small flat rate benefits are cheap to issue universally and expensive to means test. Its another example of why identity politics makes bad policy and a poor substitute for economic facts.

Yes, funny how so many many MNers are related to or friends with wealthy pensioners. The anecdotes always make for entertaining reading.i always find the worst are those slagging off their own parents.

Pensioners are the wealthiest demographic. WFA should be for any age group and related to income, and it should be paid for through fossil fuel profits.

Do you have the source for that graph with the underlying data because every time I’ve looked at one of these “pensioners are rich” graphs the underlying data includes the same set of inflated pension values rather than looking at actual income. It looks a lot like a product from the self appointed “intergenerational fairness” lobby group who have a nice little earner on this particular brand of identity politics.

Two things are true. All of us should be at our peak wealth at the point of retirement - that is the point at which we have 40+ years of pension contributions and if we are property owners we should only be paying for the upkeep rather than mortgage. That doesn’t automatically equate to income. There would be something seriously wrong with work and society if at 60 people had no more savings or assets than at 20.

Its also the case that in income terms, only about 10% of pensioners (slightly less last figures I saw) hit 40% tax rates and more than half are on less than the living wage, a third live in fuel poverty. Those are from the ONS and other reputable statistical agencies.

I’ve no problem with prioritising the lower half for WFA but means testing a small, flat rate benefit at this level will cost more than it saves (as Osborne found out when he restricted child benefit in that way). A simple fact which the treasury team have known if they looked at incomes and raw data on incomes groups, not lobby group claims about age groups.

I don't know why you'd find those the worst. Family members can be blissfully lacking in self awareness. And I'm close enough to my family members to know what they're saying rather than just reading someone elses opinion on the subject.

My grandma is 82, she has never done a paid days work in her life. My grandparents bought their council home in the 80s, at a 50% reduction. They also bought her parents home under the same scheme. They since sold both and she now lives in a 2 bedroom house, mortgage free, with £150k in the bank. She absolutely does not need WFA. She gets her state pension, attendance allowance and has a huge amount of savings. She was seething at the removal of it last year and feels a huge sense of entitlement to it, that I just can't understand. She is also the first to bemoan parents on UC who in her opinion "shouldn't have kids if they can't afford to feed them".

Hopefully people like her are few and far between, but they absolutely exist!

The £35k threshold is absolutely ludicrous. The majority of these people don’t have rent, mortgages to pay, plus no NI, student loans, commuting costs, childcare etc. and it doesn’t take savings or household income into account either. Most other benefits do!

Most working people won’t earn £35k, let alone have that after paying mortgages etc.

The threshold needed to be raised but it’s way too high.

I couldn’t agree more. This means I’m getting it again and I really don’t need it. Still I expect the foodbank will be pleased.

The source is clearly referenced at the bottom of the chart - it’s research commissioned by the ONS.

Really irritated with the 35k threshold. That's my public sector salary at present; breadwinner with a mortgage and all the expenses of running a modest and frugal household, and two teen DC. I've no problem paying our fuel bills or any other bills, so struggle to see why the threshold has been set so high.

The incompetent Rachel needs to be sacked. So they first took it away from 10 million, now it's being reinstated to 9 million of them. The initial change caused untold damage to the Labour party, but it's all for nothing now that the actual savings will be minimal, and yes, it probably going to cost more than the savings of taking it back from just a million people. She's absolutely hopeless!

It's the same kind of see-sawing from one extreme to another that Brown caused so much damage with by his tax credits - first it was an income change disregard of just £2,500 pa which was ridiculously small and caused huge problems, then when he was finally persuaded of his mistake, he went the other way and increased it to £25,000 which was way too huge and cost billions by continuing to give tax credits for a year to people who didn't need them (tax free of course!) when their income had substantially increased.

Rachel could have "helped" the genuinely poorer pensioners by making the threshold £20k, and it would have saved a lot more taxpayer money.