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.

My parents are your typical "I am alright Jack, pull the ladder up" boomers. Made £££££ on property, loads in savings, final salary pensions, the works. Mother was FUMING when they lost the WFA. Freely admitted that they dont need it, but said that they deserved it as they had "paid in" all their lives.

I also agree that the cut off was too low, so people that really did rely on it were up shit creek. It needs to be sorted so that the cut off is higher but its still means tested.

It’s not inter generational unfairness.

Old people are indoors more and more likely to need heating and can often move less. And are lot are on a fixed income.

It’s like saying child benefit is inter generational unfairness.

They took it away from anyone with an annual income of more than £!1,500. You apparently have an income of £60,000+. Would you like to live on £11,501? Because that is who just lost an extra £200 a year in help to pay to keep their house a little warmer.

I’m on the border of Gen x.

I think 6 months later and l would be Gen X. As it is I’m a Boomer or a Gen Jones.

Gen Jones are very different from Boomers. We are the tail end of the baby boom who’s coming of age was marked by Thatcher/Reagan.

And the point I am making is that she clearly does resent them. Both things can be true.

well she may resent her PIL, but that doesnt have anything to do with WFA does it

It is if you reinstate it to all pensioners purely because of their age.

If you means test it, then it isn't a generational issue, but an income one (the same as CB)

There are poor pensioners, but as a group, they are the wealthiest demographic not just in society but in history.

It's ridiculous to target a universal benefit at the wealthiest part of society.

It was one of the very few Labour policies I've agreed with. I had to hold my nose to vote for Kier Starmer as it was, but he's been worse than I expected.

Those admin fees won't be more than the amount of WFA sent out to people who don't need it but choose to keep it.

Not to mention the difference to the recipients. The feeling of having to rely on a foodbank to feed your children is very different to the feeling of using vouchers that are given to families of children upto X age as standard.

We need to tackle ALL such cliff edges throughout the tax/benefits systems as they cause a lot of adverse decision making that is detrimental for the country as a whole. Likewise we need to tackle stupidly high marginal tax rates and the rate at which other benefits are reduced/lost as income increases. I've said many times, we should have a cast iron limit of 50% of "lost" benefits or "higher" tax when circumstances change. If you go over a threshold by a pound, the worse you should be worse off by is 50p. Get a £1 wage rise, you get to keep 50p of it and don't lose more than 50p whether in tax and/or benefits. That way it encourages people to work and save - and we need people to work and save. All these disincentives are dragging the country down where people won't work an extra shift because they lose most (or all) of extra wage, or won't save because they'll lose benefits if their savings (or interest) go over a particular threshold. It all needs to change.

I’d prefer that taxpayer funds do not subsidise fossil fuel profits like this.

Energy companies should offer lower tariffs which people on lower incomes should be able to apply for regardless of whether they’re retired or not. It would work like applying for credit, and once qualified could be reviewed every couple of years.

Ofgem would oblige energy companies to provide this service at their own cost, and regulate the required discount.

Agreed @Badbadbunny. This is the point I was making above. I think we need people to spend, rather than save, but the fact remains that means-testing just keeps people down, whether it is applied to pensions, CB or anything else.

And you have completely misunderstood my point which is that for the vast majority of us there were precious few benefits, no overtime or pensions to pay into. You are judging todays pensioners based on todays entitlements, most of which did not exist. Your post was very clear - you specifically said that means testing people, young and old, prevents them from being more ambitious and self-reliant.

I am 67, I have worked all my life barring a short period out of work, when benefits levels were such that you could not afford to live on them at all, and after 13 weeks on benefits you had to take any job offered by the benefits office. There was no pension in many of my jobs when I was younger, and I earned just about enough to live. There were no free childcare hours. Etc. Etc. So if you want to object to older people being means tested then you are consigning people who have lived through very different circumstances to poverty because they weren't, in your opinion, self-reliant enough in 1970 or some such date.

Equally, if you abolish means testing for people of working age you do not make them more self-reliant or ambitious. A hard cut off point for beneits doesn't make people more inclined to work. If you lose everything and end up worse off in work then yoiu simply won't work. That is why means testing was introduced. It may be an imperfect solution, but there isn't a better one. The problem is not means testing. The problem is, excepting those who cannot work, laziness. On that we probably agree. If you were only going to be £50 a month better off if you worked full time, you might decide not to bother working either. I am not saying that is a good choice, but it is the choice that many people are making.

Means testing isn't what determines that choice. Having a guaranteed income - however low - is what makes that choice possible. For many years of my life we - society collectively - did not have that choice because with few exceptions you ran out of benefits and worked or starved. We have plenty of work that needs doing in this country. Work is better for people. And if you don't like the job that you are given, there is a clear choice. The one we had. Get a better one.

I'm a pensioner & I'll be damned if I'd let myself freeze; I hate being cold! I'm not wealthy (£15.5k pa) & I don't have any direct housing costs. However, I can pay all my bills & afford a few treats. Most pensioners I know are in the same boat.
The problems are:
a) energy costs are too high
b) this type of universal grant should not be used at all. They're designed to win votes.
c) The 'old pension' is much too low for anyone to live on.
d) the top line for claiming pension credit is much to low.
I would expect the government to address d) rather than just 'u turning'; I thought they would have to do this at the time. We shall just have wait until next week & see what happens.

You are right that we need to consider what a particular generation has contributed or cost throughout its whole projected life, not just as a snapshot.

That's what I meant by intergenerational unfairness. When you look at the numbers one specific generation, the Baby Boomers, sticks out a mile.

The generations before and after were either slight net beneficiaries or a slight net contributors to public finances over their lifetime (i.e. they more or less paid for themselves), and the more recent generations are likely to be large net contributors even once their aging costs are accounted for.

By contrast, the 1946-65 generation (the bulk of today's winter fuel payment recipients) are huge net beneficiaries. In fiscal terms, they were subsidised by the generations before them and their debts will be carried by the generations after them.

You can see it also in the national debt figures over time. The debt comes down rapidly until about 1980 as the earlier generations paid off war debt. Then as the Boomers hit their prime working age it flatlines (i.e. even in their prime contributing age when their generation outnumbered the one before, debt did not decrease, it stayed stable). And debt has shot up again as the Boomers age out. They are, as a cohort, taking out what they haven't put in, in contrast to every other modern generation.

There is a fairness issue there, and it's not mean-spirited to raise it (because the numbers have to balance somehow and future generations matter too).

My parents were very vocal about it being taken away. They live in housing where the electric is included in their rent and have the heating on all the time regardless .They also go on mini breaks at least once a month. You're not wrong OP

@BlueEyedStarling i agree with you in the sense that not everyone needs it. It should be means tested - I think the goal posts should be maybe moved but not everyone needs it and it’s a waste of resources

I completely disagree. My parents were born in 1916 and 1918 respectively. They had two children with all the education and health care costs associated with that and paid tax on one unspectacular income. My mother, who never did any paid work after her 35th birthday, drew her state pension for 37 years. My father drew his for 34 years.

Contrast this with me. I worked for 45 years, over 20 of them as a higher tax payer, and had one child. I’ve paid for two previous generations’ pensions and three generations’ education. Don’t try and tell me that my parents’ generation took less from the state than mine because it’s utter bollocks.

Yet again, you are attacking without knowing the detail.

I am one year younger than you, and have had exactly the same experience of (lack of) benefits and pensions. I wasn't allowed to join one until I was 37.

That's not the point though, which is that, in my opinion, means-testing keeps people down. Why pay into an occupational pension if doing so will mean that you are denied PC and the benefits that go with that, because you are deemed to have more than you 'need'? Why work overtime or go for promotion if it means that you won't get CB? Your opinion may differ, which is fair enough, but you are responding based on assumptions, not what I have written.

I repeat - I am not saying that older people should or should not get WFA. I am saying that deciding who gets it based on whether or not they have £X from a pension they have contributed to, or that a working couple should not get CB because between them they earn more than a family with one working parent is not the right way to do it. If we want to encourage people to be self-reliant there has to be an advantage to being so, and that means not setting a baseline of 'need' and keeping everyone on it by denying those who have worked and saved the benefits given to those who haven't. I would make CB and WFA universal, and get it back in a much more progressive system of taxation.

It's more expensive to means text it than it is to pay it. People should be able to opt out.

The triple lock was put in place becasue our state pension rates were so scandalously low compared with other European countries. We still haven't caught up, so it should stay in place.

I'm 75, and I still work part time. I could (just) live on my pensions, but I don't want to spend my later years, especiall;y while I'm still fit and healthy, living hand to mouth.

@BlueEyedStarling

My solution is that this could be a benefit that should be applied for. Then means tested [properly] with other income and outgoings assessed. Decades ago I worked for what might have then have been called the DSS. Benefit claimants were interviewed at home and documents seen.

Why pay into an occupational pension if doing so will mean that you are denied PC and the benefits that go with that, because you are deemed to have more than you 'need'?

Because what you gain from 40 years contributions will significantly outweigh the benefits of pension credit. And, of course, you get tax relief on those contributions.

Yes, we pointed this out to our relatives who basically used the winter fuel allowance to pay their cruise holiday drinks bill.

The war debt wasn’t paid off until 2006.

Alistair Darling sent the last payment.

And also, we subsidised the generations above us.

Well I am a pensioner and I mix with plenty of them none of whom seem to be particularly struggling.
I have been saying ever since the WFA was removed it could easily be means tested using the tax information they hold on every one, I have seen others suggest the same but I have never seen anyone explain why this is not feasible.