Winter Fuel Allowance decision is a massive own goal

It is amazing how many folk on here feel they are more qualified and experienced to know and talk about the UK economic situation and how it should be tackled better than the Chancellor.
What about previous Chancellors like hunt, Osborne, rishi all similarly qualified and knowledgeable but they still shafted the majority and increased inequality. Reeves has shown no desire to deviate from the austerity path. History will show her to be an inept Chancellor of that i am sure
 
No because I have a mortgage, dependants and other costs associated with going to work.

They don't just get £1k per month though do they because they also get a bus pass, housing benefit, free TV licence, council tax discount, free eye tests, prescriptions, insulation and heating schemes, care allowances, the WFA etc.

The people that need help get help.

There is a black hole in your critical thinking (I don’t mean to be rude).

Plenty of new pensioners have mortgages still. They were ripped off by the endowment scandal and had to convert interest only mortgages to capital repayment and are still paying. Home owners still have repair bills to their homes, insurance does not cover where you fail to upkeep your home.

You say you have a mortgage, so did pensioners back in their 30’s, 40’s 50’s they got on with the issues they faced back in the day, they did not expect the previous generation to pay for their generations, they expected government to do so.

Government eroded the living standards of people back in their day too and paid financially the consequences. I do not know how old you are but if you have family you may inherit from, you’ll welcome that with open arms no doubt and use it to make your life better. Many don’t have the luxury you want for your kids as they worked hard on low wages and lived in council houses. Some did not buy even though they could because they were happy as they were.

It is all about poor me. The facts are that the council tax burden about to hit eradicates the pension rise making them far worse off, while workers enjoy increasing salaries at higher rates and so the gap gets bigger and the unfairness rises. It costs a single pensioner more to cook a meal than a family of 4 per head. When you factor in energy, food bought in bulk is cheaper, single people will experience more waste if they tried that. Pensioners have to replace washing machines, fridges, TV’s, carpet, furniture, crockery and other household essentials goods too. Can you imagine what it would be like for a pensioner on say £15K a year with an increase of £566 in council tax, loss of heating allowance and say a double glazing unit fractures due to the argon and temperature pressures causing it (i have personally just had that happen, not covered by insurance).

What if a washer breaks down or their fridge, a fault on their toilet, bath, shower. Don’t they deserve a night at the bingo or the local club too? It seems that once you hit 67 in this country, nobody really cares, the NHS rations treatment due to age and health. This blokes family don’t visit as they live in the South, he gets a phone call once a month from his son there are plenty of others suffering like him because people are so self centred.

So many issues get taken for granted and cost never get factored in. I know someone who can’t afford to pay their home contents insurance, they are not family, a near neighbour. I am paying it for this coming year from November, he was burgled 3 yrs ago, the worry would kill him off, its a disaster waiting to happen, poor old soul has next to no life, doesn’t drink or smoke, I am making a rod for my back but can’t see suffering, which in turn will affect me on occasion now.
 
The bigger kick in the teeth thats looming for £4M single pensioners and goodness knows how many low wage earners is the scrapping of the 25% single persons council tax allowance, that will add an average £550 - £600 per year in a middling band D property in Durham.

They really are clobbering pensioners unfairly. If they scrap the free bus fares and go to pay per mile on road tax, scrap the 5p fuel levy and add 2p more on top as predicted, they are gonna make pensioners in rural areas in particular have to order food via supermarkets for delivery, this in turn will reduce their incentive to go out and get some exercise, meet people etc, it will only increase the risk of social isolation. It seems to me they will accelerate a few deaths in the process saving on state pension

I mean, is all this really necessary to fix the country. I appreciate other people will be hit in the budget too with council tax, ppm, but as no rises in vat, NI, or Income tax, will the burden really hit those with the broadest shoulders? It isn’t sounding that way to me. I can see this being a budget that sees a lot of ex tories be pushed back into the fold come 2029. Some pensioners on lower incomes could be over £1000 per year worse off and isolated to boot. Very short sighted, I would far sooner have seen Income tax raised across the board with the emphasis on a new higher rate of tax as well as a wealth tax and tax on energy companies and those that profiteered in the pandemic and post pandemic world.

Scrapping the 25% single person discount won’t hurt those pensioners and low wage earnings to that extent.

Council Tax Reduction is much easier to qualify for if you have a low income and most of them will be on that already.

Council Tax does need reforming but if they go around rebranding it will cost people more. I personally don’t think the SPD is fair at 25%, you could argue it should be more.

I would leave the system how it is but I can see why it would be an easy money raiser for local authorities and would cost pennies to remove SPD. TBH you could quite easily tweak the CTR system to compensate for those on lower incomes and that would just leave the more well off paying the charge.
 
What are you talking about? Of course I have. What is total inflation and what is the pension increase? Which one is bigger than the other (and remember that the triple lock means that the answer will not be inflation).

I'll do it for you:

Last year's pension was £10,600.
Triple lock of 8.5% meant an increase of £902 to £11,502.
Total inflation is currently at 2.2% so that's an increase of £233 assuming costs matching income of £10,600.
£902 - £233 = £669.
Including the WFA at £300, total income from pension and WFA was £10,900 last year so using that as the costbase means inflation at 2.2% would be higher at £240 and losing the WFA this year from income would give total income increase of £602 and a cost increase of £240 so a net gain of £362.

Inflation is forecast to come down and pensions are expected to rise another £450 in April. At no point will anyone have less money than they had last year.

Now tell me again how pensioners having more money is killing people.
Over time the triple-lock should increase pensions relative to average earnings. This is one of the reasons it was introduced - to reverse the dramatic erosion of the state pension vs earnings following Thatcher's removal of the earnings link in the 1980 Social Security Act.

According to an IFS study:

"With the introduction of the new state pension in 2016 (and, to a lesser extent, the implementation of the triple lock), the value of the state pension compared with average earnings has also risen significantly (see Figure 1). In 1979, the basic state pension was worth 26% of average (mean) full-time weekly earnings. In the Social Security Act 1980, Margaret Thatcher’s government broke the ‘earnings link’ and instead moved to price indexation of the state pension. As the economy and earnings subsequently grew, this led to a substantial decline in the level of the state pension as a percentage of earnings. With the policy of price indexation of the state pension, retained during the period of New Labour governments, it fell to less than 16% of earnings in 2008. But the introduction of the new state pension, aided to a lesser extent by the triple lock and a period of very poor earnings growth relative to inflation and 2.5%, has reversed this trend, with the new state pension in 2022 worth almost 25% of average full-time earnings, the highest level since 1980 and close to its record high as a fraction of earnings."

At some stage a government will need to take the decision to remove the triple-lock. It is a mathematical inevitability that pensions would eventually overtake earning if they don't!
 
Show me your data and analysis that no pensioners will die as a result of losing the winter fuel allowance. Because a single one is one too many, let alone thousands.

The evidence is the previous Labour analysis that shows death will result. There has been no updated analysis. You can twist and turn all you like but there is no way in hell that the numbers who will die has dropped from 4,000 to zero.

Needless death obviously comes easier to you than it does to me.

You didn't have an Uncle Fred and an Aunt Rose by any chance?
What is the point? You will just continue to refute any evidence. You didn't understand the data in 2017 and you don't understand it now.

The evidence in 2017 showed that if you reduce the amount of money that people have to below the amount that they need then more people could die but that is not happening because total benefits have increased more than costs. So the new evidence is money goes up equals no additional deaths. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp and yet here you are 350 posts in not understanding which of two numbers is the biggest.

You've now embarrassed yourself beyond belief and shown yourself to be a childish, hateful individual. I hope you haven't named yourself after the famous detective because baseless accusations of murder wouldn't have impressed him.
There is a black hole in your critical thinking (I don’t mean to be rude).
That's not rude so no problem. Pensioners can also qualify for mortgage assistance as "Support for Mortgage Interest (SMI)". There are lots of valid points in what you say and I fully agree that there should be help for people that need it. I don't think universal benefits is the way to do it. Benefits should be targeted.

Some people work all their lives and spend every penny they get. Some people save into a pension so when they retire they can be more comfortable than relying on just the state pension. They have less to spend while working because of it. It's really not fair on the people that do save responsibly if the others are then just rewarded with an equivalent lifestyle so benefits are there to provide what is needed and not more.
 
The evidence in 2017 showed that if you reduce the amount of money that people have to below the amount that they need then more people could die but that is not happening because total benefits have increased more than costs. So the new evidence is money goes up equals no additional deaths.
That's not evidence, that's conjecture.

I'm a hateful individual for wanting pensioners to live?

And you're a stand-up guy for wanting pensioners to die?

Gotcha.
 
What is the point? You will just continue to refute any evidence. You didn't understand the data in 2017 and you don't understand it now.

The evidence in 2017 showed that if you reduce the amount of money that people have to below the amount that they need then more people could die but that is not happening because total benefits have increased more than costs. So the new evidence is money goes up equals no additional deaths. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp and yet here you are 350 posts in not understanding which of two numbers is the biggest.

You've now embarrassed yourself beyond belief and shown yourself to be a childish, hateful individual. I hope you haven't named yourself after the famous detective because baseless accusations of murder wouldn't have impressed him.

That's not rude so no problem. Pensioners can also qualify for mortgage assistance as "Support for Mortgage Interest (SMI)". There are lots of valid points in what you say and I fully agree that there should be help for people that need it. I don't think universal benefits is the way to do it. Benefits should be targeted.

Some people work all their lives and spend every penny they get. Some people save into a pension so when they retire they can be more comfortable than relying on just the state pension. They have less to spend while working because of it. It's really not fair on the people that do save responsibly if the others are then just rewarded with an equivalent lifestyle so benefits are there to provide what is needed and not more.
I agree universal benefits are not always the way to proceed, yet child benefit exists for reasonably well off people still 🤷‍♂️ the problem is the cost of means testing and the fact the bar is set far too low on means testing. We are not talking about people who make poor life choices here generally, we are talking about poverty.

This is all about electioneering, political choices, not humanitarian social ones. They know many pensioners wont be here to vote in 2029, so are less bothered. The elderly are a costly nuisance to governments. The political classes will have their gold plated pensions, free energy in second homes, subsidised food and drink, Reeves and Starmer or Sunak and Hunt neither care, they keep their rights while removing others previously promised. All they truly care about is votes and everything they do is hot aired rhetoric to reel folk in at the expense of others. The vulnerable are always the whipping boys and this Labour party are sadly no different to many past tory ones so far.
 
Wow Fred and Rose West and Harold Shipman all mentioned in the same thread. After the years of Anti Tory rhetoric things aren’t going well for Labour on here. 😳
 
Wow Fred and Rose West and Harold Shipman all mentioned in the same thread. After the years of Anti Tory rhetoric things aren’t going well for Labour on here. 😳
We don't have a Labour government.

There were lots on here saying they believed Starmer was saying what he needed to say to get elected and would then veer left once in power. The opposite has happened, they've actually veered right.

Starmer and Streeting are Tories at heart, that much is clear, and no better than those they have replaced.
 
Tell you this thread tells you too, that politics really fcuks people up

A policy that no one should get behind, but you have people coming out and defending it. You know if this was the tories who did this they would have been stating how heartless they were

politics makes people inconsistent and morally corrupt because they want to defend their position no matter what
Never really thought about it much before, but it’s an arbitrary benefit….why not single mum’s, low earners etc…? Was a product of the Tories trying to keep the votes of the pensioners imho. Obviously don’t want to see the poor hammered, but benefits need to be targeted to those that need them.
 
Never really thought about it much before, but it’s an arbitrary benefit….why not single mum’s, low earners etc…? Was a product of the Tories trying to keep the votes of the pensioners imho. Obviously don’t want to see the poor hammered, but benefits need to be targeted to those that need them.
The caveat though is how low they have set this bar. It has been done to save money on a mechanism that exists rather than set one that is fair.
 
Never really thought about it much before, but it’s an arbitrary benefit….why not single mum’s, low earners etc…? Was a product of the Tories trying to keep the votes of the pensioners imho. Obviously don’t want to see the poor hammered, but benefits need to be targeted to those that need them.
But once you start targeting benefits you increase the administration costs. Having a universal benefit is just easier. The bit that's usually missing is that you create a taxation system that then removes money from the top.

Labour could do something really progressive and solve the UKs financial problems for generations to come, but they won't because they're tied into the same failed economic narrative that has brought us to this point over the past 50 years.

I am backing this chancellor - ex BoE and this PM over blokes on FMTTM who just look to scare old folk.
She worked at the BOE - and was seconded to the US - in the period leading up to the banking crisis. Then worked for HBOS prior to it's collapse. Obviously knows a thing or two...

Did you trust Rishi Sunak as Chancellor - he was working in the financial sector for Goldman Sachs around the same time?
 
Back
Top