Is 35k too high for winter fuel allowance cut off?

Are you honestly suggesting that over 60s are hard done by and the younger generations should be contributing more cash to fund them?

 

Well, I'm not looking forward to being a pensioner, dreading getting alzeimers and living in pain from conditions like osteoporosis, arthiritis etc. But as the saying goes, youth is wasted on the young!

 

What do you suggest euthanasia?

 

Been a pensioners isn't promised I know many who never got that opportunity, paid into the system but taken too early unfortunately for them. But I'm not looking forward to it either if I get there.

 

Do you honestly believe that someone on 35,000 a year can't afford to heat their home?

 

Depends on their home. As I say the older you get the more you feel the cold. I don't want anyone to be fearful of heating their home properly, it's miserable

 

So someone in a large house, whos done very well in life, but not planned for their later years, spent their gains on other luxuries and not maintained their property......gets a benefit that a younger family who genuinely could do with it more, (or a benefit that could be channeled towards those with disabilties) and are contributing towards?
You say, "depends on their home"....so should it be paid on Council tax bands? Loads of anomalies in that too.
Income is probably the best marker and £35k is way above sensible for a benefit for people who in the main have much lower outgoings than younger folk on the equivalent income.

 

What about the owner of Harewood House. Bet it costs him a bomb to heat his home. He'll not be opting out...

 

The Queen once tried to access a poverty heating fund to pay her bills for Buckingham Palace.

 

Am saying that everybody who reaches pension age is not always flush with cash...each generation has always funded the elder generation
So why is it suddenly a problem
The Torries classed it as benefit...but I guess those that object must be the selfish ones me first me last ...the Thatchers love child's attitude

 

Yes, too high

 

House prices and an ageing population are why it's a big problem.

 

I don't think anyone has said that. We are talking about people on an income roughly ten thousand pounds a year above the minimum wage that other age groups are expected to get by on

 

Spot on! Everyone seems to assume most pensioners have a private pension. I know loads of people that are over 60 who will probs be reliable on just the state pension.
I don't have one! But I've just sold my London property so all you young uns can bog off! Lol

 

To play devil’s advocate - whilst elderly people will in the main have paid off their house (especially ones with an income of 35k plus), they can have far more expenses when they get frail. If you can no longer clean, garden, cook etc. then you have no choice but to hire someone. I’m the queen of doing jobs myself (car maintenance, decorating, fence construction etc.) but I’ll have zero chance of doing that in my 80 and 90s (and probably much sooner, let’s be honest). That’s all things I’ll need to pay thousands for that I don’t whilst I’m younger. I know someone who is looking to hire a carer to nip in twice a day and they’re being quoted between £35 - £50 an hour. £35k really doesn’t go far when you have to outsource almost all aspects of living.

 

That’s a tad disingenuous.

I’m pretty certain ‘The Queen’ had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Her staff did their job by trying to make savings, the government did its job by telling them channelling funds their way instead of schools and hospitals might not look the greatest…

 

But pensioners who have income of 35k plus, not necessarily ‘flush’ - but doing fine - do they need £200 or £300 a year to heat their homes?

More of a need, say, than a mum of two kids, working where she can around childcare etc, on a wage of much less than that and topped up with a minimal amount of UC and tax credit? She can’t get a winter fuel allowance. Her kids feel the cold just as much as Derby and Joan in their big fully paid up family home they’re rattling around in…

Her gas and electric bills still need paying. As well as paying rent and every other bill. Feeding / clothing herself and the kids. With no guaranteed increase in either wages or of benefits whilst pensioners have the triple lock guarantee? Where does it stop?

This is not about not helping the older generation. I’m happy to help all generations where they need it. I didn’t want the winter allowance scrapped (news flash - it never was), but it did need rethinking.

This issue is about giving even more to an already very protected generation - they needed to move the line in the sand from where it was I imagine; the pension credit rule was flawed. But £35k? When they may well also be (and often are) mortgage and rent free; when they get free medication, subsidised transport, often have a second income over and above that £35k in the household? Too far the other way. It isn’t sustainable.

You reference younger people being selfish for the views voiced - I’d argue anyone with a cash income of £35k a year, with few to no commitments and outgoings, would be the selfish ones if they accepted £200-£300 on top just because of the year it says on their birth certificate.

My nanna didn’t get it last year. She will this. She could opt out. She won’t. She’ll get it and give it to her great-grandkids for Christmas. It’s plain wrong. And it’s my kids who will get £100 each - doesn’t make me change my mind about it.

I’d give every pensioner £2k a year (or even more if needed) to pay their whole utility bill - if it was affordable and if it didn’t mean cuts to other areas which will make others who are already worse off suffer more. Being old isn’t the only vulnerability and being old isn’t necessarily anything new that warrants extra protection whatsoever.

We aren’t in that place.

There are many people who both say pensioners should get this as a universal benefit - and who also cry about the prospect of more kids getting a free lunch at school.

Cash and asset rich pensioners can have more as ‘they’ve always paid in’ (I can vouch for an absolute certainty that this is a fallacy - my nanna’s NI contributions totalled just about enough to buy a freddo from a service station WHSmiths).

‘Shouldn’t have kids if you can’t afford to feed them’. Ok Karen, I hear you. How about ‘shouldn’t have a big house if you can’t afford to heat it in retirement’. Or ‘you’re sitting on an asset worth exponentially more than you paid for it, you’ve benefitted massively from a period of time that won’t ever exist again where one average wage could buy a very decent property - those starting out now couldn’t buy your house on two above average for the area salaries combined and if they did they’d not be able to afford to have kids and continue society - you also had much more opportunity to set aside a lot of your pay for a private pension as living costs now mean a lot of people just can’t afford to do that - so how about you use some of your accrued wealth to pay your own fecking gas bill’… Doesn’t really roll off the tongue as well.

Pensioners are untouchable politically. As I say, my nanna is one, as is my uncle, my mother is also close to being one - and they’re in a strong financial position having done little to nothing to accrue it other than have a normal job and be in the workforce at the right time to benefit from housing prices and living costs being much less of a percentage of wages than they are now. They had high interest rates at times - but high interest on mortgages of homes which were accruing equity at a vast rate. I have worked hard to build myself to a level where I earn a decent rate compared to many in the area - not huge but ok - my Mrs also works full time for a lower salary but still over minimum wage - and we couldn’t afford to buy my mums house. She hasn’t actually had a job for nearly twenty years. Her husband works - but it’s mainly paid for out of equity built up in previous houses. My mum worked a full time job for less than 20 years: she’s voluntarily topped up
her NI, and will get maximum state pension. As will Mark her husband - who will also benefit from the ridiculous final salary scheme pension he signed up to thirty years ago which you’d not be offered in a month of Sundays now (which my mum will continue to receive if she happens to outlive him - was one of the reasons they got married after co-habiting happily for nearly two decades; the other reason being he uses her tax allowance…)

Just giving pensioners more and more isn’t the answer. SOME pensioners really need the support. Give it. But SOME younger people need it just as much and I’d rather my tax support them than increase the estate values of older people who wouldn’t (and didn’t) miss the £200 or £300. It should go to those who it would make a huge difference to, regardless of age. Single mums or young working couples aren’t protected - but they don’t represent 35% of votes cast at each election either (rising population age and a larger propensity to vote).

£35k is too much imo - I earn an ok wage but take the mortgage off and I’m probably barely clearing that. Can I have £200 for my gas bill? No? Good. I DONT NEED IT.

I’m not sure it’s the under 50’s with the selfish ‘Thatcher’s Child’ attitude. I’m not sure the self-centredness is in any way in this side of the argument at all to be honest.

 

[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji6]">

If they don’t have a private pension then their income will be much, much lower than thirty five grand - and so they will - fairly - receive the benefit.

What is your point?

 

But that's not the fault of the pensioners It's previous Governments policy that created this situation
I accept an aging population creates problems for an out dated system
But it's the complete system that needs re visiting and a fairness that's equal to all needs implementing from top to bottom.
But good luck with that one when the minority have more wealth than the majority

 

It seems to me that the problem is WFA wasn't established entirely on need, but in large part as a means of vote-winning. What is required is more information on the standard of life enjoyed by those above the PC threshold, but below the average income level. Only then could payments be set according to need. Rachel's fix looks to have gone back to political expediency, rather than grappling with where the real need lies.