Winter fuel allowance

[Nwgs2]

On what?

And please don’t say asylum seekers, foreign aid or Ukraine.

You’re so narrow minded

 

[Justin Passing]

I wonder how it comes about. I assume some one on a full state pension doesn't receive any benefits other than maybe housing but don't know how those work.

If you get a full new state pension you're over the threshold for PC, so you wouldn't get a WFP under the new scheme via that hurdle.

The suits must have an idea who should get it or they wouldn't be able to give an estimate of those not.
Not many of those benefits JD pensions would be relevant, but they might, which is partly why the individual has to apply.

I really don't see what's unreasonable here.
At retirement age, when you get all the bumph in the post you have to fill in to get your pension, very few are so decrepit they can't read it all.
You might feel you're poor and want more money, but there's nowt wrong with the system on this.
No reason for whining!

 

[Justin Passing]

My understanding is correct and borne out by the article that you presented:

No you're all wrong. I did not present an article,
You did.
It was years out of date.
The previous one was wrong too - Mel Stride FFS.

Not everythng on the internet is rght. You can't just parrot something old and claim it EVER was true.
You're a troll getting it wrong. Trolling being your main motive as usual

I have explained.


I'm going to believe someone I spoke to in the job a couple of months ago, ahead of an internet troll's misinterpretation of something he's got wrong through naive ignorance, which is years old.
--------

On reflection of the matter of the thread, Starmer's timing is crap, he should have announced something to hit the rich first.

 

[ajohn]

On reflection of the matter of the thread, Starmer's timing is crap, he should have announced something to hit the rich first.

Maybe it's needed to cure a bit of a problem with the deficit. Part of the budget hole is down to totally ignoring pay review bodies.

Worrying for me anyway. A change of direction? There is a biggy that in some ways relates to WFP
Pensioner benefit spending is forecast to total £138 billion in Great Britain in 2023-24, of which we project £125 billion will be spent on state pensions. The same system operates in Northern Ireland, but spending there is not included in these figures or discussed on these pages as we include it separately in our figures for ‘Northern Ireland social security’. Pensioner benefit spending in 2023-24 represents 11.3 per cent of total public spending (up from 10.7 per cent in 2022-23), and 5.1 per cent of GDP.
Average awards across the different pensioner benefits vary, with state pension recipients receiving an average of £9,720 in 2023-24 and pension credit claimants £4,060 each.

Welfare spending: pensioner benefits - Office for Budget Responsibility

Welfare spending is the biggest source of AME spending, with pensioner spending the biggest item in the social security budget (accounting for 46 per cent of the total in 2020-21, down from 49 per cent in 2019-20).

obr.uk

Once again lots of money some of which will be going to people who don't really need it due to having some form of another pension other than the state one. SERPS and 2nd Pension are also around.

 

[Justin Passing]

Maybe it's needed to cure a bit of a problem with the deficit. Part of the budget hole is down to totally ignoring pay review bodies.

|Accepting that, going for the pensioners first, opened him up to widespread criticism - all over the news this morning.
He needs to reveal a package of measures with pain spread in proportion to to how it can beit can be borne and seen to be fair.
Pensioners happen to be rather expensive to have around, accounting for a big slice of the pie - so we're a legit target.

Within the slice there are some who need to be protected, and some who don't so much, but noisy people will pretend everyone does.
The amount of money deemed as adequate for pensioners, is by definition the Pension, without add-ons.

Pay reviews are a rather separate subject.

 

[ajohn]

Pay reviews are a rather separate subject.

It seems not in terms of the black hole in the budget that needs to be considered and accounting for.

but noisy people will pretend everyone does.

A political problem. No other parties will approach it on the basis that Labour's "sums" are correct apart from some not claiming pension benefits. The sums appear to be based on past pension increases and previous fuel prices.

Age Concern are concerned about ~2m of 12.6m pensioners. Reports on that from others might cause people to think all. 2m looks like a negotiating tactic or is it? Who knows the correct number?

Next years increase. Seems it's already fixed at 4%.

Fuel prices. Another increase is expected next year when usage peaks. Depends on production levels.

Anyway a debate and vote this week. Many Labour MP's have accepted that there are no magical fixes and are prepared to wait for more money to be made available via changes to be used to hit the poverty end of things. Also NHS. Starmer has been pretty clear - not at all keen on vote winning actions. Reeves - the fiscal rules must be met.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs, I guarantee they (Labour) will be kicking themselves for introducing this so soon. Should have been 2025 (if at all) and only then if their first months in government had been generally well received.

The optics of this are very poor for them and they'll know it, regardless of whatever narrative is now being spouted.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs, I guarantee they (Labour) will be kicking themselves for introducing this so soon. Should have been 2025 (if at all) and only then if their first months in government had been generally well received.

The optics of this are very poor for them and they'll know it, regardless of whatever narrative is now being spouted.

Possibly quite true.

But it is good to see a government making tough decisions (right or wrong) rather than just pretending everything is ok and continuing down the fast flowing river without any paddles.

They have got to take tough choices to change things. Does anybody dispute that we couldn't carry on as we were under the previous lot.

Whether labour and/or starmer survives, and thrives, time will tell

 

[Brigadier]

Perhaps Labour have been looking on here and thought "Despite everything the last lot wasted, stole, fiddled, and lied about, plenty of idiots will vote them in next time regardless" and thought they'd just do what they thought was right, and not what they thought would be popular?

 

[ajohn]

Should have been 2025 (if at all) and only then if their first months in government had been generally well received.

Ok relate this to a £20b tax cut via NI to this
When the government spends more than it receives in tax and other revenues it borrows to cover the difference. This borrowing is known as ‘public sector net borrowing’ but is often referred to as the deficit.

In the financial year 2023/24, government revenue – from taxes and other receipts – was £1,096 billion (£1.1 trillion) while government spending was £1,217 billion (£1.2 trillion). The deficit was therefore £120 billion, equivalent to 4.4% of GDP.

At 4.4% of GDP, the deficit was the UK’s eighteenth largest since 1948.

Borrowing of £120 billion is equivalent to around £1,780 per head of the UK’s population.
The deficit could have been £20b less. So borrow to keep up the winter fuel costs or not? France has a deficit problem and need to do something about it. Some has been - their left want to wipe that out. Magic money tree style.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06167/

Anyway the debate and vote is to come.

​

 

[securespark]

The way I see it is that this payment has not been completely withdrawn, but will be means-tested. Many other benefits are means-tested also.

I don't hear anyone complaining about those.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

Possibly quite true.

But it is good to see a government making tough decisions (right or wrong) rather than just pretending everything is ok and continuing down the fast flowing river without any paddles.

They have got to take tough choices to change things. Does anybody dispute that we couldn't carry on as we were under the previous lot.

Whether labour and/or starmer survives, and thrives, time will tell

They have to make tough choices yes, and it's good to see a government being proactive from the start. However I'll stick with my assertion that, purely from an optics and 'how this has gone down with the public' pov, Labour will be kicking themselves on this one.

Of course as per your last sentence, as the months and years roll by, if public perception of Labour's governing remains positive and if Keir's rating tracks upwards then this change will largely be forgotten about by most. If the opposite is true then ...

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

The way I see it is that this payment has not been completely withdrawn, but will be means-tested. Many other benefits are means-tested also.

I don't hear anyone complaining about those.

My complaint is, that it is all, or nothing. Meet the criteria, and you are entitled to very many things - thousands of pounds worth of benefits, don't meet it, and you get nothing. It's a cliff edge. In addition, it takes away the incentive to save for your retirement.

So, a few very wealthy people will get a WFP they don't really need. Many/most of them will be those like me, who have paid lots of money into the system, when they were working. Some will be millionaires, who have perhaps paid vast amounts into the system in taxes over the years, and probably still pay taxes, that more than cover the WFP.

 

[Justin Passing]

I consider the lack of any article to support your assertion, coupled with your resort to abuse says it all.
My understanding is supported by eminent articles, and I don't feel the need to resort to abuse to make my argument valid.

I see my post is removed.
I repeat. I reported what someone whose job it is, told me.
The posts the forum #1 troll insists are right, are wrong for the reasons I gave. One was out of date, the other from a known lying politician, "spinning" the matter.


Why trolly man is saying I'm wrong when I simply wrote down what I was told, I have no idea.. I have no axe to grind, I'm just saying what the horse's mouth said.
So irrelevant trollyman is saying I'm lying. His problem.

Perhaps it'll lead to his getting deleted again. I hope so, the forum is repeatedly dragged down by trolls like that.

 

[Justin Passing]

They have to make tough choices yes, and it's good to see a government being proactive from the start. However I'll stick with my assertion that, purely from an optics and 'how this has gone down with the public' pov, Labour will be kicking themselves on this one.

Yep. KS a bit Naive.
I quite like that