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.

But they could tweak that - single pensioners with one income get more somehow -but maybe those pensioners have a million pound house.
they need to start from scratch really, the Gov

Derailing to say good to see you back @ArseInTheCoOpWindow, I missed you.

Once again this is an example of government and media induced intergenerational infighting.

The solution is simple. CB is repaid through tax at a certain level. Why can’t WFA be dealt with similarly.

i understand how younger generations may feel about pensioners receiving WFA and think much of those feelings have been driven by the media.

Older people are portrayed as wealthy boomers, holidaying in the sun, sitting on huge piles of property earned wealth, with large triple locked pensions etc. etc.

For some that may be true, but not for all. And particularly not necessarily for lone women currently in their 70’s, 80’s, 90’s.

We are the generations that experienced Married Womens NI, no Home Responsibilities protection (NI credits) when children were young, being locked out of Private Pension funds because we were women, the changing of Pension age with very little notice etc. People in their late 70’s and above are also on a lower basic Pension provision than later generations.

When you add the facts that Supplementary Benefit was often the only route for women through a Divorce system that was heavily in a mans favour in terms of the division of financial assets and it is easy to see why there are so many struggling Women pensioners.

However, I have yet to hear any of my friends in this situation bemoaning their lot. They quietly turned off the heating last winter and replaced it with blankets. As generations before them will have done.

I honestly think we need to understand where all the hype from WFA is coming from. It is media driven and induced by a clumsy government that has no idea of how to create a balanced and fair tax regime. Yes pensioners voted with their feet at the last election round but many of them only did so because of media hysteria.

I hate, and I dont use that word lightly, HATE the current pitting of generations one against the other. It is constant, you cant read a newspaper, listen to a political programme or even sit around a lunch table without the subject of rich boomers, or lazy feckless benefit recipients being broached.

What needs to happen is that the government stops knee jerking with their taxation and benefit mechanisms. Devise a system that is fair for all sectors of society and stick to it. For those on WFA who are deemed not to need it, tax it away like CB, but don’t just whip away a benefit that was important to some cohorts. Recognise that some are in a situation of need because of their own specific experiences at the hands of a society that was far less fair to women in the past.

Thank you.

Ive got Long Covid. Screens can be impossible sometimes.

I think the cost of means testing v savings would be very different. They always quote £300 a year but I only ever got £100, as husband claimed we got half each. So means testing would have to be pretty cheap to make a savings. How much is CB? Much more than £100 year I s.uspect

A refreshingly wonderful, nuanced post.

If one person is eligible they get the £2 or 3 hundred. If you are in a couple you get half each so a couple of pensioners don't get more than a single pensioner.

The baby boomers have been quite happy to watch everyone younger than themselves freeze in mouldy rental flats and work for nothing for themselves. I very much resent the proposed u-turn on winter fuel allowance. They’re the most selfish and grasping generation in history and they’ve taken far too much of the country’s wealth already.

That's interesting. Can you point us to a source for your comment about what so-called 'baby boomers' were 'happy to watch'? How do you know they were happy?

What do/did you personally do about people younger than you in poor accommodation? Also, what exactly have you turned down that you were entitled to? Most people just live their lives doing the best they can to provide for their families. When non-means-tested child benefit was available, of course people claimed it. How was that 'grasping' and against what are you measuring 'graspiness' so that you can say 'boomers' are more grasping than any other generation in history?

Boomers are the most entitled generation ever.

Can you back that up in any way at all?

Some 'boomers' might have been entitled to things like council housing, MIRAS and so on, but those at the younger end weren't. And being entitled is not the same as having feelings of entitlement. Generalisations are pointless and don't move debates on at all.

Are we? What do you think we’re entitled to?

I think this is right, and probably what should have happened in the first place - ie it was fine to make it not universal when so few if any other benefits are, but the cap was placed much too low.

All of the posters who have come on to say that they give theirs to charity / foodbanks are proof that they recognise the money can be better used.

Surely it makes more sense for the money to be spent centrally to benefit those who need it in society rather than a haphazard approach of giving money to people who don't need it and hoping some makes it's way to a charity?

I’m not sure it does. I’d lay money that the £150 given to my local foodbank benefited more people in a meaningful way than it would if the government spent it.

But if everybody's £150 was put into a scheme e.g. healthy start voucher type thing to help reduce reliance on foodbanks wouldn't that be better and less of a postcode lottery?

The majority (not all) of pensioners who can afford to donate their WFA are less likely to live in the most deprived areas and as people tend to donate local this creates a postcode lottery.

"The solution is simple. CB is repaid through tax at a certain level. Why can’t WFA be dealt with similarly."

Because most of the people who claim "it cannot be done because it will cost more to administer than it will save" have an agenda, and the argument is convenient for them, even though there is no evidence it is actually true.

"What needs to happen is that the government stops knee jerking with their taxation and benefit mechanisms. Devise a system that is fair for all sectors of society and stick to it. For those on WFA who are deemed not to need it, tax it away like CB, but don’t just whip away a benefit that was important to some cohorts. Recognise that some are in a situation of need because of their own specific experiences at the hands of a society that was far less fair to women in the past."

Yes.

But then you’d have admin costs and less money would get through. It’s possible to make a donation to the Trussell Trust centrally if you’re concerned about wealthier areas getting more money.

Can someone who has posted about 'those who need it' please define what they mean by 'need'?

Are all pensioners supposed to live a subsistence lifestyle with anything above that debarring them from help to rise above it?

Did these pensioners expect to be able to live off the state pension alone? If anyone is thinking this looks like a good option for the future they are very, very foolish.

You can say that about any benefit though. How do we define who "needs" anything? We pick a threshold, and unfortunately, some people will fall outside it.

The cost of means testing has always been raised in discussions about universal benefits.

It would be pretty easy to exclude any pensioners in the higher tax brackets and Martin Lewis has suggested using postcode bands as they did for the cost of living payments a couple of years ago.

Certainly, the current threshold is far too low and some people who really need it are not eligible under the current rules.

In the past few decades, pensioners have become a powerful political force that all political parties want to keep on side. There is also a mindset amongst a lot of pensioners that they are more deserving than other groups.

It amuses me that the hostility towards people who rely on benefits to live suddenly turns to compassion the minute those same people reach state pension age as though the dial suddenly switches from 'burden on the state and hard working taxpayers' to 'deserving pensioner. I don't know whether it's because previous generations of pensioners who had lived through the two World Wars had made huge sacrifices for the freedoms and standard of living that we have today but we are reaching a time when the majority of pensioners will not have lived through or fought in a war.

Anyone currently receiving a pension started work in or before the 1970s when the world was very different.

Yes, that's true, and I do say that about any benefit. I think that means-testing (whether for young or old) traps people in poverty and stifles ambition or moves towards self-reliance.

That aside though, I'd still like to know what people mean by 'needing it' in this context.

traps people in poverty and stifles ambition or moves towards self-reliance.

Yes, all those old people who have worked all their lives and now struggle to manage should definitely be a lot more ambitious and self-reliant. they wouldn't be trapped in poverty. It's a real shame we closed the pits, because we could have sent the pensioners down to learn about ambition and self-reliance.

@thepariscrimefiles It amuses me that the hostility towards people who rely on benefits to live suddenly turns to compassion the minute those same people reach state pension age as though the dial suddenly switches from 'burden on the state and hard working taxpayers' to 'deserving pensioner. I don't know whether it's because previous generations of pensioners who had lived through the two World Wars had made huge sacrifices for the freedoms and standard of living that we have today but we are reaching a time when the majority of pensioners will not have lived through or fought in a war.
That's a huge generalisation - I have never been hostile against those on benefits and I don't know many who are. Most of them seem to have cornered that market on this site!

I did not live through a war, but I did fight for many of the benefits that todays generation considers their rights. When I started working the idea that women should be equal in the workplace was not enshrined in law. Equal pay was a laugh. Minimum wage - nope. The right to 28 days paid leave - no. Childcare - no. Pensionable employment - not for the vast majority. I am not complaining about that - things change and hopefully for the better. My life has been immeasurably better in many ways than my mothers. Things move on. But it is not a matter of whether we fought in the war or not. It is about the fact that eligibility for pension credit is well below the minimum income level (as calculated by those overly generous people at the DWP) required for a decent standard of living.

It doesn't amuse me that older people are depicted as reactionary or living the high life, and use that as an excuse to make massive generalisations about how they think or how easy it is to heat their homes at a time of escalating fuel and living costs.

https://www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-press/articles/more-than-three-quarters-of-pensioners---equivalent-to-9.2-million---spent-their-winter-fuel-payment-on-fuel-related-costs-last-year/

Age U.K. and others spoke up about the pensioners who would struggle or worse. But in the end it’s the threat of career changing votes that got Labour moving.

The local elections do impact national policy, possibly better than anything else, bar a GE of course.