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

Errm.. that a lot of pensioners don't have a private pension!

 

You're all saying this but Werthers Original are £1.35 a bag now at Asda. Won't someone think of the elderly?

 

Income is a terrible measure of wealth. It's fairly straightforward (and sensible) to structure one's investments so as to generate capital growth rather than income, and enough of that can be wrapped in vehicles like ISAs so as to be able to crystallise enough tax-free profit each year to live very comfortably indeed. We're not going to get anywhere until we drop the tax-free limits to a level that is not beyond the imagination of most working people and start taxing capital. And I say that as someone who retired in their early 40s and lives off their savings.

 

With any system there will always be anomalies. I would say this is far better than the removal to all but those on pension credit.

Is it perfect? no, but way better.

 

When the state pension was first designed, it was 4-5 workers for every pensioner and most didn't live much past 65. Its now 2.5 and decreasing every year and the average person will live to see 80.

That's the problem. Its unsustainable.

Don't get me wrong, we should support the pensioners and give them their best life. But we can't just afford it with the contribution from workers.

 

Well I think its a good starting point as opposed to the initial scrapping of it, that level will get rid of the expense of the higher incomes and then maybe reassess.
Personally I worked hard all my life up to age 66 and obviously have state pension plus a small private one that we managed to pay for by missing out on other stuff and that investment is currently struggling because of the likes of Putin and Trump!
Since I've retired a lot of the 'benefits' ( not state benefits) of getting older have either gone or shrunk.
Now as somebody ( usually the younger ones who still feel bulletproof or are better off) suggested I don't expect the young to pay more to support pensioners, but I have paid my dues over the years and feel really sorry for the pensioners who are struggling to heat their homes but I do begrudge the moaners who have had annual holidays abroad and pissed a lot away down the club whilst I was trying to save, and quite often just dismissed what would happen in their later years.
Plus as ( I think JD said) expenditure varies when you get older , you feel the cold more so need the heating higher and in my case I've got Osteo Arthritis so am finding myself more and more having to pay for stuff doing that I have always done myself.
I'm not pleading poverty but just pointing out stuff that others seem oblivious of.

 

Real life is totally different to Google methinks!

 

The best way would be to leave it as it is and nationalise all utilities. Pensioners (and everyone else) would save far more than the pensioners get in winter fuel payments.

 

I’m happy that this payment is coming back next winter even though I’m far from being a “poor pensioner”. My RAF/CS time served gives me two pay days every month plus the SP, but these don’t add up to anywhere near the 35k threshold. So I will take the payment as offered but if they take it away again it won’t affect me either way.

 

Yes we can afford it. We can always afford things. The trouble is that when issues get oxygen and seem expensive the state tends to say 'we have to make difficult decisions.' There is enough wealth in this country (at the last count I saw 6th wealthiest in the world) to make sure we can pay pensioners, help the disabled and help children in poverty. Governments should be constructive, bold and imaginative instead of saying 'we can't afford it'. They have tools in their armoury to sort things out. The easiest things they do are to say 'we can't afford it' or pick on the weakest in society to save a bit of cash. They will though always find money for pet projects like nuclear weapons. No long-term thinking and no willingness to make progressive decisions are the issue. So ultimately it looks like we can't afford it but there'll be an argument we can't and it will be lapped up and accepted by most folk because they think governments act like household accounts.

 

My understanding is that it is too expensive to administer a proper means-tested system, so the only two criteria to be used are if you above 80 or below 80 and if you have less or more than £35k income. Meaning my Mum, who gets about 18k and is 79 and 10 months in December, I think will get £200 but her friend who is 6 months older and has considerably more from private pensions will get £300.

Anyway, my point is, is it really so expensive to have multiple criteria and make the figures fairer? There'll always be anomalies but in a world of AI and big data surely you could factor in more than 2 criteria?

 

Ditch the nukes and pay the pensioners? (Even the rich ones?)

 

Should it be means tested? Absolutely

is that means testing threshold too high and I’ll thought out? Yes.


Fairly shambolic governing on this issue imho