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.

I don't disagree with the analysis, but statistics are also not accurate reflections on why things happen.

You could, for example, point out that the more working class the person, the more likely they are to die younger. That is also a fact. So the better off (more likely to lean right than left) will live longer on average. You would also need to take into account that many people of my generation (I am 67) did not vote Labour at the last general election (I didn't - the first time in my life I haven't) because Labour is right of us! I and many people I know could see what Starmer and his ilk were going to bring with them and simply could not support it because we are far to the left of Labour now. Around where I live Reform swept the local elections not due only to their level of support but due to the fact that Labour voters were so disillusioned they simply didn't vote, but interestingly our local "no-hoper" leftie, who usually gets maybe 50 votes, actually beat some of the Labour candidates.

Voting patterns and decisions are far more complex than just generational breakdowns. It isn't an easy stat to pull up, but what would be more interesting would be to see where former Labour voters are casting their votes, if they are doing so. More and more what I am hearing is people simply stopping voting because they cannot find anyone to believe any more.

I'm a pensioner and I don't need the WFA. But the cut off was ridiculously low before and is just as ridiculously high now..
I do vote labour but agree a lot of pensioners don't, many are the new middle class as they see themselves after buying their council houses.

I cringe every time I see the latest stupid suggestions like no tax or council tax for anyone over SPA, all this will be comfortably paid for by stopping the boats and deporting all those in hostels. (I refuse to say hotels because that no longer describes these buildings). Its depressing it really is.. I'm fast becoming the most unpopular pensioner on facebook.

I like the sound of your MIL.

I do

So do I but we’re in a minority.

I don't know any pensioners who struggle. I know plenty of (now) pensioners who lived on state benefits, in council housing ,their whole life, with little bits of work thrown in. They're now on all the pensioner benefits and feel loaded in comparison to when they were younger or working and are better off than the, working or not working, younger neighbours.

I do, DH does, my sibling and their partner does. We are all in our 70s, two almost 80s.

I wonder if the pensioners on Mumsnet are outliers when it comes to voting. Higher intelligence maybe. ;)

Some of us in social housing did work all of our working lives. 🙄🤷‍♀️ And are still paying tax, full rent and not claiming any top up benefits.

I’m just wondering why you know so many pensioners like this and none at all who struggle.

You aren’t paying full rent in social housing though, nor can you say you don’t claim any benefits.

You’re paying the appropriate rent for the property because there’s no profit involved. Of course you can say you don’t claim any benefits if you pay the rent from your earned income.

..and how many posters know the same amount of pensioners who go on cruises. Let's also not forget the amount of pensioner in laws, who are rich.

But most people exist in their own bubble don't they? The pensioners I mix with attend a gym and go out for lunch. They also travel abroad although strangely not many cruise. This doesn't mean I deny the existence of others.

All sorts of things make a massive difference.

If you have state pension and nothing, or almost nothing else on top, AND are a single householder you have all the overheads and utility bills, maintenance, insurances etc to pay for on one pension.

Much easier if there are two pension incomes contributing.

The heating is the same whether one or two people are in the house.

The fridge and the TV cost the same, the oven costs the same to heat up two pies as one, etc etc.

The only concession is you pay 75% of Council Tax instead of 100.

On pension (rather than pension credit) you still pay for your dentist and glasses (but free eye test), the estimates I often see on MN leave off all sorts of expenses that have to be covered.

Women are far more likely than men to have nothing but basic state pension.

18% of all single pensioners rely solely on state pension.

And it seems to be getting worse as very high numbers of O-55s have no private pension saved.

If the WFA enables pensioners on low pension incomes to feel happier about putting the heating on for another hour a day, I have no issue with it.

Much easier if there are two pension incomes contributing.
The heating is the same whether one or two people are in the house.
The fridge and the TV cost the same, the oven costs the same to heat up two pies as one, etc etc.

Some of what you say is right (eg that it costs the same to heat two pies as one), but there are misconceptions about two living as cheaply as one. Unless a couple is joined at the hip they are likely to need the heating on for longer than a single person. If one gets up earlier and the other goes to bed late, if one is out on Mondays and Thursdays and the other Wednesdays and Fridays, if they watch different things on separate TVs, or each have a laptop or whatever, it does cost more when there are two or more people in a household, and that's without washing machines, hairdryers and so on. This is the case at any age, of course - ask anyone whose teenage son has recently left home😉

There needs to be a balance between helping those who would suffer without it, and not making saving towards older age pointless, which means there should be a gap between what people get if they haven't worked (assuming they were/are capable of doing so) and what they get when they have paid tax for decades. Having the cut-off at PC level was unfair because as soon as people qualified for benefits (ie hadn't saved into a personal pension) they were given more than those who had saved. That unfairness has to be considered if the government wants more people to reach retirement age financially independent.

I'm honestly glad they've done this, because the £12,000 threshold was farcical! ALSO, the fact that the £35,000 threshold means 80% of pensioners are going to qualify for the WFA, has proven that the vast majority of pensioners are not on a high income with shit loads of savings. In fact, they are NOT fucking minted as some people like to make out.

Hopefully, this will start to dispel the myth that all pensioners and babyboomers are loaded, and people can quit the disparaging remarks and snide comments about 'privileged boomers.'

Maybe stop the hate towards boomers now? LOL as if that's going to happen!

80% of pensioners having an income from pensions of £35k or under does not mean anything relating to savings nor does it dispel the fact that as a demographic pensioners are incredibly well off.
It’s got nothing to do with “hate” it’s statistical facts that pensioners hold more wealth.

There is it. ^ Textbook. 😂

Pensioners as a class hold more wealth because they’ve had more time to accumulate it. I don’t know why that should be a revelation to anyone. It was ever thus. My parents were considerably better off than me for most of my life.

You are arguing with provable facts. You might dislike it but that doesn’t make it wrong.

Moaning that facts are too textbook for you!

My husband is disabled, we have the heating on more and higher than I would like as he feels the cold more than I do as he can't move around. Then there is electrical equipment ( bed, scooter etc) plus more washing. So in our case my gas/electric use would be much lower if I was living alone.

She's lovely. Shame about her voting preferences.

Agreed 👍

Nobody said two can live as cheaply as one

They have a pie each, for a start.

But there is a big difference between two pensions covering:
Insurance
Boiler service and replacement
Standing charges
Internet
The heating when both are present
TV licence or streaming
Home maintenance/ roof repairs
Sharing the CT (25% cheaper each than a single occupant)

And this is before we include pensioners who could afford one modest car between two, etc

And as the owner of a recently emptied nest your average pensioner (me!) does not use anything like the amount of hot water for endless long showers and frequent washing loads (sport, emergency going out clothes, endless outfit changing etc) by the average teenager.

Tough that might change if I become incontinent in my last years, thank heavens for the extra £100 on the WFA after 80.

Can no one ever point out the circumstances in which some are worse if than others?