|
|
Post by interval99 on Sept 10, 2024 11:28:57 GMT
While due to their current majority block this will be passed at least with a vote on the winter fuel allowance the immediate betrayal of stasis stalin election promises will be a parliamentary record.
With the possibility of some labour members abstaining at the very least and the kickback from unions, charities alongside the public outcry it will show people will not be silent over his ever hypocritical decrees.
|
|
4,803 posts
|
Post by Mark on Sept 10, 2024 15:53:20 GMT
Why shouldn’t the winter fuel payments be means tested?
|
|
1,088 posts
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2024 17:07:13 GMT
Elderly people who need help to keep warm in the winter deserve a winter fuel payment. We should look after them.
Elderly people who do not need help to keep warm in the winter should not receive a winter fuel payment, least of all when our society can't afford much of anything.
I understand nobody likes taking anything away from pensioners, but I'm glad the Labour Party aren't afraid to do unpopular things that seem pretty sensible.
|
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Sept 10, 2024 17:18:01 GMT
*from memory*
Anyone on pension credit gets it, and that means less than £10K in total assets - property, pension pot, the whole shebang. Between £10K and £16K, you will also get it but it'll diminish at the rate of £1 for every £500 you have in assets up to the cut off of £16K Triple lock still operative for all pensioners. Reeves says it should be worth £1,700 more over the next 5 years. I worry about the principle of universality but this is now a rich country. The problem is the wealth was not shared universally, it went to property (and asset) owning families/bank of mum and dad. Where are we now; 1 in 4 retired property owners is a millionaire? There is nothing in the nation's bank, the Tories spun$ed the lot - while lavishly enriching only that part of society most inclined to vote for them, and disenfranchising most of the rest.
It is not just the NHS that is broken. Answers on a postcard. |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Sept 10, 2024 17:50:44 GMT
Elderly people who need help to keep warm in the winter deserve a winter fuel payment. We should look after them. Elderly people who do not need help to keep warm in the winter should not receive a winter fuel payment, least of all when our society can't afford much of anything. I understand nobody likes taking anything away from pensioners, but I'm glad the Labour Party aren't afraid to do unpopular things that seem pretty sensible. What about if the Labour party do unpopular things that are not sensible? |
|
5,054 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Sept 10, 2024 17:59:25 GMT
Not every pensioner (the boomers) is poor and because of the treble lock the basic pension is going to get/had an hefty increase anyway, which is great. Anyone who is just getting basic pension should get winter fuel allowance, it sounds this is going to happen anyway. More pressing though the other end of the spectrum and that is the young (millennials) who cannot afford a mortgage of there own, but who can afford to pay someone else’s mortgage via rent.
|
|
|
|
Post by SilverFox on Sept 10, 2024 18:50:58 GMT
The idea of removing universal Winter Fuel Allowance is sensible. The problem is the Govt have shot themselves in the foot in the way they have a) announced it and b) administered / defended it.
If everyone they are trying (?) to get to take up pension credit does so, then the saving will be negative (ie they will have caused a 'scandal' with a deficit to the economy).
If they had tapered the cut depending on the Tax Coding, they could have made a pretence of targeting the wealthy pensioners, whilst protecting the poorest.
The Triple Lock has already been degraded because it was skipped during lockdown. When is it right to defend / ignore the rules?
The current Govt have made a mockery of the reasoning for the cut when they suggested that NOT implementing it would have caused a run on the GBP.
Trumpeting the fact that the pension will rise by £460 next April is seriously muddying the waters, as firstly by no means every pensioner will get that increase, take off the £300 fuel allowance, and the remainder equates to just £3 per week for the FULL state pension holders (after 2016) BEFORE you remove the extra tax burden that anyone with even a meagre private / workplace pension has to pay (due to the frozen Personal Allowance), and the increase means nothing, or next to nothing.
I do understand the need to reduce costs. It just inflames me how the 'facts' are manipulated to divide society. We will all be old one day (well OK I already am), cuts now are unlikely to restored for future generations.
|
|
|
|
Post by max on Sept 10, 2024 21:35:40 GMT
My parents used to say they didn't really need it, but these days money is tighter.
On a practical note, I looked at any buying that my parents do that is actually just entrenched habit with little enjoyment or value attached. So that's Radio Times cancelled - they agreed immediately. For years now they've mainly used the TV's EPG to see 'what's on tonight', and they get a TV/Radio listings section with their Saturday Times (the only national newspaper they get), and also one with the daily local paper!
Over £200 saved instantly, with no fuss.
I could save them £500 a year if they'd read their local paper on a Tablet rather than get paper copies (Subscription to Magzter is just under £50 with access to thousands of magazines). In the first year they'd have to buy a tablet, and learn to use it - learing it turned this to a veto!
Virgin TV they're sticking with, but I could have saved them £480 a year by switching to EE TV or Freely (though I'm a bit relieved they're not going for it right now, as those services powered by Wifi are a bit new and need to settle I think).
I'm not suggesting all pensioners are well off or wasteful, but an outside eye can really help save money, cut the clutter of papers and bills, and neutralise that loss of the Winter Fuel Payment with no loss of lifestyle or enjoyment.
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Sept 10, 2024 23:19:08 GMT
I think that it should be means tested yes, given to those who need it. We do an interesting thing when it comes to pensioners in this country. We conjure an image in our minds of tiny old ladies in headscarves who survived WWII. The fact is, many pensioners nowadays are fairly healthy and active homeowners with savings and assets and private/job-related pensions that mean that they perhaps don't need it anywhere near as much as others.
The media narrative that everyone is being put out in the snow and left to die isn't quite true.
That being said, I'm all for taxing the billionaires over making cuts, but that will never happen, will it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 11, 2024 6:36:03 GMT
The issue for me is that Starmer is on record several times attacking the Conservatives for even *thinking* about removing the Winter fuel payment, and saying he'd freeze energy prices, and being part of a shadow cabinet that commissioned and presented a report that said around 4000 extra pensioners would die if the winter fuel payment was removed. But after all that it was one of the very first things he announced. So plainly you can't believe a word he says. The buyer's remorse from some quarters is amusing to behold.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 11, 2024 6:38:43 GMT
The media narrative that everyone is being put out in the snow and left to die isn't quite true. That's not the *media* narrative though is it ? It's based on a report commissioned by Labour and presented by the Labour Shadow Chancellor in 2017 that said 4000 extra pensioners would die if the winter fuel payment was removed. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 11, 2024 6:53:33 GMT
There is nothing in the nation's bank, the Tories spun$ed the lot .... .... mostly on massively expensive lockdowns and furlough schemes which the Labour Party wanted to be longer/more. Meanwhile Labour are taking £1bn off pensioners whilst giving 22% pay increases to the best paid train drivers in Europe and sending £11.6bn in climate aid (in addition to foreign aid) overseas. They are political choices not forced on them by the state of the economy (which apart from the Covid debt pile is quite good). When Margaret Thatcher stopped school milk it was a trivial saving in overall terms but it was never forgotten and forever used to attack her. Same with Starmer and the winter fuel payment. |
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Sept 11, 2024 7:41:48 GMT
I shouldn't worry too much @jan, the value of the WFA is less than the averaged wealth increase of property owners in the London area for every week of the last 15-years. Thatcher the milk snatcher went on to be PM for 11 years. I imagine Starmer would take that.
Fwiw, last time I saw anything, the Covid debt is an extraordinary £90 billion - just in interest.
|
|
1,482 posts
|
Post by mkb on Sept 11, 2024 8:54:09 GMT
The media narrative that everyone is being put out in the snow and left to die isn't quite true. That's not the *media* narrative though is it ? It's based on a report commissioned by Labour and presented by the Labour Shadow Chancellor in 2017 that said 4000 extra pensioners would die if the winter fuel payment was removed. It absolutely *is* the media narrative, as I'm sure you well know. Quite why is a report that makes claims on the consequences of a benefit removal from ALL pensioners relevant, when that's not what is happening? My parents are in their 80s and not rich, but they've never understood why they were given £300/year when they could see their grandchildren struggling financially and in greater need of relief from excessive energy costs. Restricting the benefit to the poorest 17.5% of pensioners is not the killer blow to Starmer that the media think it is. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 11, 2024 8:59:56 GMT
Any new government would have to make lots of unpopular and painful decisions to improve the dire public finances. That was inevitable. It may not have been something that was in election manifestos, but we’ve reached the point where there is no alternative. Something has got to give.
The time to do that is now, both because doing it is what is needed to improve the financial situation and because the furore will have died down before the next election.
The goal is for a year or two of pain to lead to the improvements being felt by year 4 of the Parliament.
That is politics.
|
|
5,054 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Sept 11, 2024 14:50:22 GMT
The pension is/was for when you get too old and infirm to work the state gave/gives you a basic allowance to survive nothing more, it is not designed for luxuries that is what your private pensions are for. It is done an assumption by the age of 67 you own your house. That is the very problem the young are presented with, with graduate taxes, high rents, high inflation so a private pensions would be a pipe dream. So the danger when they come to retirement and still have to pay rent, they’re going to be in trouble with rent taking the majority of there state pension.
I agree if you are a pensioner on the basic pension, you should still get the winter allowance.
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Sept 11, 2024 15:44:25 GMT
The pension is/was for when you get too old and infirm to work the state gave/gives you a basic allowance to survive nothing more, it is not designed for luxuries that is what your private pensions are for. It is done an assumption by the age of 67 you own your house. That is the very problem the young are presented with, with graduate taxes, high rents, high inflation so a private pensions would be a pipe dream. So the danger when they come to retirement and still have to pay rent, they’re going to be in trouble with rent taking the majority of there state pension. I agree if you are a pensioner on the basic pension, you should still get the winter allowance. I agree, yes. I also hate the argument that all pensioners should get it because they've all "paid into the system". That's not what the system is for. The "system" is there to provide public services when they are needed. I pay taxes which go towards the NHS, that doesn't mean I can just pop into the doctors every week when I'm perfectly healthy just because "Oh I've paid into the system so I might as well." |
|
2,760 posts
|
Post by n1david on Sept 11, 2024 20:11:29 GMT
The pension is/was for when you get too old and infirm to work the state gave/gives you a basic allowance to survive nothing more, it is not designed for luxuries that is what your private pensions are for. It is done an assumption by the age of 67 you own your house. When the state pension was introduced very few people owned their own house. When the state pension was introduced retired people (of whom there were many fewer relative to the working population) did not generally have the capital wealth that today's pensioners have. The issue today is that many pensioners have significant assets but a relatively low income, and some pensioners are unwilling or unable to liquidate their assets. This is most significant when it comes to long-term social care, which successive governments have tried and failed to resolve - Theresa May nearly lost the 2017 election because she thought that pensioners ought to be forced to liquidate their assets in order to pay for their social care. I don't think capital-rich pensioners should receive the winter fuel allowance. This is getting into a whole other area, but stamp duty is a major point of friction in stopping wealthy pensioners from trading down and realising their assets. |
|
3,484 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Sept 11, 2024 21:30:04 GMT
The pension is/was for when you get too old and infirm to work the state gave/gives you a basic allowance to survive nothing more, it is not designed for luxuries that is what your private pensions are for. It is done an assumption by the age of 67 you own your house. When the state pension was introduced very few people owned their own house. When the state pension was introduced retired people (of whom there were many fewer relative to the working population) did not generally have the capital wealth that today's pensioners have. The issue today is that many pensioners have significant assets but a relatively low income, and some pensioners are unwilling or unable to liquidate their assets. This is most significant when it comes to long-term social care, which successive governments have tried and failed to resolve - Theresa May nearly lost the 2017 election because she thought that pensioners ought to be forced to liquidate their assets in order to pay for their social care. I don't think capital-rich pensioners should receive the winter fuel allowance. This is getting into a whole other area, but stamp duty is a major point of friction in stopping wealthy pensioners from trading down and realising their assets. 100% to all of this. Well summarised. |
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Sept 11, 2024 21:56:27 GMT
The issue today is that many pensioners have significant assets but a relatively low income, and some pensioners are unwilling or unable to liquidate their assets. This is most significant when it comes to long-term social care, which successive governments have tried and failed to resolve - Theresa May nearly lost the 2017 election because she thought that pensioners ought to be forced to liquidate their assets in order to pay for their social care.
Heh. Theresa May went for more than their homes in the 2017 Conservative manifesto - also included was ending the pension triple lock and, would-you-believe-it, ending the winter fuel allowance ... for all pensioners.
Another live issue was, inevitably, Brexit.
Jeremy Corbyn got 3 million more votes then than Starmer got in July (almost 12.9 million vs. 7.8 mill). How about that; a proper socialist got 40%.
|
|
5,054 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Sept 11, 2024 23:16:45 GMT
That maybe because and shamefully two in five adults didn’t vote, which is appalling.
Theresa May also said she supported repealing the fox hunting laws, bring back grammar schools and a blue, white and red Brexit. It was the perfect way of how not to do a general election campaign. Her and Liz were a disaster.
Politics is a cruel mistress, as both them know too well.
|
|
1,827 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by stevej678 on Sept 12, 2024 7:28:56 GMT
The issue today is that many pensioners have significant assets but a relatively low income, and some pensioners are unwilling or unable to liquidate their assets. This is most significant when it comes to long-term social care, which successive governments have tried and failed to resolve - Theresa May nearly lost the 2017 election because she thought that pensioners ought to be forced to liquidate their assets in order to pay for their social care.
Heh. Theresa May went for more than their homes in the 2017 Conservative manifesto - also included was ending the pension triple lock and, would-you-believe-it, ending the winter fuel allowance ... for all pensioners.
Another live issue was, inevitably, Brexit.
Jeremy Corbyn got 3 million more votes then than Starmer got in July (almost 12.9 million vs. 7.8 mill). How about that; a proper socialist got 40%.
Lets be honest. Corbyn came up against the worst election campaign in history in 2017 and lost. He then handed Boris a landslide in 2019. He's a serial protester who can now sit on the backbenches achieving nothing - campaigning against things like scrapping the winter fuel payment and two-child benefit cap, all of which get passed regardless. If only the country had had an effective, credible opposition in the second half of the last decade, the country might not be in the mess it's in now. |
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Sept 12, 2024 7:46:12 GMT
Fwiw, I think it's a very interesting election. Those Conservative pensioners might abstain, but it's a struggle to think they would vote for a socialist, esp. one so demonised. And yet .. he achieved 40% and 12.8 million votes(Wiki says 68.8% turnout).
I tend to agree he's a campaigner and not a leader, and a result of that was the party was not united on Brexit or Israel. I can't dismiss his numbers, though - and Theresa May won more votes than Tony Blair in 1997. That's what it took to keep Corbyn out.
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Sept 12, 2024 8:20:42 GMT
Heh. Theresa May went for more than their homes in the 2017 Conservative manifesto - also included was ending the pension triple lock and, would-you-believe-it, ending the winter fuel allowance ... for all pensioners.
Another live issue was, inevitably, Brexit.
Jeremy Corbyn got 3 million more votes then than Starmer got in July (almost 12.9 million vs. 7.8 mill). How about that; a proper socialist got 40%.
Lets be honest. Corbyn came up against the worst election campaign in history in 2017 and lost. He then handed Boris a landslide in 2019. He's a serial protester who can now sit on the backbenches achieving nothing - campaigning against things like scrapping the winter fuel payment and two-child benefit cap, all of which get passed regardless. If only the country had had an effective, credible opposition in the second half of the last decade, the country might not be in the mess it's in now. Let's be honest, Corbyn lost because his own party wanted the Tories to win. Dangerous these centrists. We all remember Hilary Benn's face on election night 2017 |
|
1,827 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by stevej678 on Sept 12, 2024 10:05:52 GMT
Lets be honest. Corbyn came up against the worst election campaign in history in 2017 and lost. He then handed Boris a landslide in 2019. He's a serial protester who can now sit on the backbenches achieving nothing - campaigning against things like scrapping the winter fuel payment and two-child benefit cap, all of which get passed regardless. If only the country had had an effective, credible opposition in the second half of the last decade, the country might not be in the mess it's in now. Let's be honest, Corbyn lost because his own party wanted the Tories to win. Dangerous these centrists. We all remember Hilary Benn's face on election night 2017 Everyone to blame except the leader eh? |
|
