To say the £35k winter fuel threshold is way too high!

[chocolateismyweakness4]

The threshold needed to be raised, but £35k?! I wish I earned that and I have a mortgage and commuting costs. It also doesn’t take into account savings (so they could have millions in the bank) or household income.

We all know it’s a bribe, but they still won’t get pensioners to vote for them.

The point remains that far less women worked in past generations than do now.

Not, that's not why they didn't work.

It’s exactly why we didn’t work! Your anecdata from being a child in the 80s doesn’t trump the statistical evidence or the experience of people who were adults at the time. We were the first generation of women who wanted careers, not “little jobs” and we made sure we got them. The first generation in control of our fertility and the opportunities that allowed.

Look at the graph. That huge increase from 1975 includes today’s pensioners!

Well it is at least a bit fairer than it was under the Tories, who made zero changes to it being universally avaliable.

I wonder why they didn't and why there wasn't ever an outcry about it?

I'm not quite sure why this has devolved into an argument about which generation of women had it harder, who owes who for maternity leave, etc. Winter fuel allowance isn't supposed to be compensation for past injustices or the fact that mortgage rates were higher in the past. It is supposed to be needs-based (it's a benefit, much as people who get it often hate the idea that they get benefits!) and so the rate should be set at a level that means those who need it get it, without wasting public money on giving it to those who don't. I personally don't think this is the right level for that.

Apparently the Treasury presented it as an option to various chancellors going back as far as Osborne and none of them would have a bar of it.

And the fallout from it has shown that indeed, it was not particularly politically savvy to touch in any way benefits paid to pensioners! Which doesn't mean it's economically the wrong thing to do.

It’s absolutely the right thing to do. Trouble is the previous threshold was far too low and now it’s gone to the other extreme. There’s no way I should be getting it and my personal income is nowhere near £35k.

Well I suppose people were saying that today's pensioners could live on one income throughout their working lives. So if they had done that then obviously some people who never worked are still getting pensions now. My ex mother in law is a case of that. At 19 she married and went to Australia on a £10 ticket. Returned pregnant a few years later and never worked again. Still gets pension AND pension credit despite never having paid a penny into the UK tax statement.

Totally agree. Many on mumsnet think they will not age (and that applies to the over 50s also).

Those who bash the pensioners need to remember that previous generations did work if they needed money. Yes many women who were married didn't but that was because their husbands supported them, not the government. The single women worked. The government didn't provide an alternative benefits lifestyle. A person was responsible for their own life choices (Personal and financial).

Maybe to level the intergenerational playing field remove all WFA and all child benefit??

Back to WFA, I think the concept of X receives thus and Y receives this is overcomplicated. Much better to give all pensioners in receipt of state pension a lower WFA of £200

But add it to the state pension amount.

Exactly. It’s not relevant to setting the cut off.

They clearly had more sense than Rachel!

@Lincslady53

We know it us tough for younger generations, but these pensioners benefits will one day be the benefits you get after a lifetime of working and paying taxes.

Today's younger workers know that they won't get the same generous benefits when they retire than today's pensioners. There may not even be a universal state pension, and even if there is, state pension age will have risen again.

The massive push on workplace pensions (making them compulsory) is the first step towards the scrapping of universal state pensions in 2 or 3 generations time!

It was quite often discussed.
I think the rationale for it being a universal benefit was that it costs less than having the admin required to do means testing. It’s not clear to me if labour have properly costed this change.
Im 64 and this puts me off labour rather than bribing me. The winter fuel allowance should be abolished and benefits for genuinely poor pensioners increased such that they can pay for heating from their budget.

It’s not clear to me if labour have properly costed this change.

The government are now saying that it will save £450 million per annum, but its not clear if this includes the the increased cost of pensioners who began claiming pension credit when the original wfa policy was announced. According to Martin Lewis, there are approx 100K new claimants.

The whole thing is a mess. Reeves needs to go.

If Reeves goes, so should Starmer. She hasn't acted alone.

For every year your ex MIL claimed child benefit that would count as a NI credit. I think you can claim up to 12 years credit per child? Also she may have paid her NI for some years even though she didn't work.

I do think it's unfair that someone who has worked all their life and only gets the state pension is worse off than someone who gets pension credits and hasn't worked.

My mum also worked in the late 60s and 70s. Full time. And I wasn’t unusual 8n having a working mum. I became a mum in 1993 and it would have been pretty much unthinkable for someone to give up then unless there were disability issues or a very high earning husband. The idea that it didn't become ‘more common’ until the 90s/00s is utter nonsense.

Bollocks. I became a mum in 1993. Nobody in normal jobs (in which I include the professions) seriously considered giving up work in the 90s.

@Sharptonguedwoman has unpicked a lot of this for you. I’m intrigued by your idea that fit and healthy pensioners (who are the ones you were discussing) will have small food bills. Where does that idea come from? Yes, the frail very elderly will have smaller appetites (though judging by my late dad will need to buy more expensive ready meals due to not being safe to prep food) but the rest? Those in their 70s for eg?

Yep. He’s accountable, they both are. Probably why she’s lasting so long, it’s tied to his prospects.

That is not really how it works, though, is it? Ministers are ultimately responsible for their Department's decisions, even though no.10 is obviously involved in signing off those decisions.

We can't have the PM stand down every time a minister fucks up, resigns or is sacked. A revolving door of PMs does no good, as we found with the last administration.

This isn’t a rerun of Truss and Kwarteng. Hopefully we’ve reached the end of having another PM every five minutes.