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.

Can no one ever point out the circumstances in which some are worse if than others?
Of course some are worse off than others, but as you say - 'nobody said they weren't.'

My point is that generalisations based on what people assume others 'need' or how they live are pointless, and you've said yourself that an extra person in a household can make a huge difference to bills.

What 'fairness' comes down to is how the government balances giving to those who haven't made their own provision for older age (which privileges them over those who have tried to do so), and seeing people who have nothing be unable to heat their homes. That is always a tricky balance, whether it is applied to pensioners or younger people working part-time and getting top-ups to bring them to the same income as someone working full-time.

Obviously, the government would prefer people to provide for themselves and not claim from the state - unless, of course, their MO is to keep wages as low as possible to make profits for employers and let the taxpayer pick up the slack. They have increased NMW as they want to 'made work pay', and rewarding anyone (of any age) for not working is not the 'direction of travel' it wants to go in. I think that's fair enough.

Setting the bar at £35k does seem high, but it's not outrageously so, and will decline in real terms with inflation, and as the triple lock increases the SP for all pensioners. Also, someone on an income of £35k pays £4486 in tax, so a refund of £100 is hardly pushing the boat out.

I agree with you.

That is absolutely true and I am sick of seeing this said over and again. Of course people who have lived a long time, possibly had a couple of inheritances and/or pension lumps sums will be better off than someone starting out. Why is this so difficult to understand? As you say, it was ever thus, only today's younger generations are so absolutely convinced that they are the hardest done-by ever so they don't want to hear it.
The same with housing - of course someone who bought a house 30 years ago is going to have more equity than someone who bought one a couple of years ago, it's hardly a revelation, yet I have read surveys along the lines of 'over 60s hold 80% of the equity in homes in the UK' as if this somehow makes them greedy and grasping.
One day, the people who are shouting so loudly about boomers will be in this position themselves (oh yes they will, really) so I am not sure how the 'most shafted generation' rhetoric will pan out then.

Income is very different measure to savings. You’d need hundreds of thousands of savings, investments or property rentals to have an income of £35k if most of that was investment income!

Historically that was true, but todays 'people just starting out' are less likely than ever to own their own home and with the increased costs of literally everything, are highly unlikely to be squirrelling away much for a rainy day either.

You'd need a crystal ball to say what's going to happen to them over the next 50 years.

Well not if you base it on current trends. That's how forecasts and predictions work. Income-housing cost has increased hugely since some pensioners were buying houses in the early 80s/90s. That isn't likely to suddenly change tomorrow. So you can say with relative certainty it will apply to this generation, whether that changes for my children remains to be seen, but unless salaries remain constant and housing costs halve, it's unlikely.

Are people saying it because they’re surprised though? Or are they saying it because they think that therefore, because of this unsurprising fact, it’s not a group that needs blanket help?

I didn't mention tomorrow. I bought my first house in 1973 at the peak of a bubble. A year later we'd spent money on it, it was in a bad state when we bought it, it was worth less than we paid for it. The interest rate had gone up 3 times. We thought we'd never recover. We did.

Forecasts don't always work out. I won't be here in 50 years but I imagine lots could change. Going on history it seems unlikely that salaries won't increase over the working life of young people starting out now.

I sympathise with the struggles of younger generation to get on property ladder. But as for squirrelling away, we never had ANY savings till we were in our early fifties and the savings we have now are mainly pension lump sums that are paid on retirement. Granted we own our house, mortgage free. We had very little as a young couple - one cart hat was a rust bucket for years. But I'm not complaining, I realise owning property is very significant. And I definitely agree that the WFP could be used in other areas rather than my pocket. I don't need it.

*car that not cart hat 😆