WFP and politics

[PhaedrusR]

Over on the Ideal World Random Musings thread, my indication of my support for removing the universal payment of the Winter Fuel Payment to all Pensioners caused a stir.

Plenty of misinterpretation and false accusations.

For the record, I agree with removing the WFP (£300) payment to ALL Pensioners. And to paying it to those who need it.

My only point is that the WFP is being paid to all pensioners. Irrespective of their income. Many of whom or indeed the majority of whom, do not need it and just put it in their bank or towards a holiday or for the kids/grandkids.
The stats indicate 21% of Pensioners are millionaire asset households and 50% of the rest are 'wealthy enough'
So perhaps maybe 25% are at lower income level where WFP is needed or useful. Question is above what income level should it not be paid?

I am not saying we should not pay the WFP to those who need it.

The question is where you set the threshold for payment if not universally paid to all Pensioners.
This is therefore, means-testing.

I do not know enough about what level of income is the correct threshold, currently the Pension Credit income level (£11,344 p/a) has been set.

The Government has chosen to use the Pension Credit income threshold as the cutoff point, the same as the free TV licence entitlement.

I suspect this is because it is simple to implement quickly in DWP, this year, basically, 2 extra lines of computer code as processing:

IF ON Pension Credit THEN Pay WFP
ELSE do Not

There is a debate over the level of income threshold that requires WFP and whether the Labour Gov should have done an impact assessment to see how the WFP change affects low income pensioners and what level it should be set.

My suggestion is not to pay to any Pensioner paying basic rate tax and above, £12,571. If you're earning enough to pay income tax, you can afford the loss of the £300 WFP. Or is that naive?
What level should the threshold be?

I fail to see how this is a controversial view.

More controversial seems to be my statement that we are supposed to work, plan for our future retirement, save money and pay for our future bills, if we can. The government provides a basic state pension and an additional earnings related pension scheme, and there are private pension schemes with tax incentives.

We wait to see any Budget changes to this and other taxes.
Those who say tax the rich may get their wish if traditional Labour take hold. CGF, IHT, private schools/health, etc.

The annual deficit is £120bn.
The national debt is £2.7 Trillion (2,700 billion)
The annual interest on the debt is £102bn.

Is cutting WFP harmful to low income pensioners above the threshold cut-off and pointless given these numbers. Those who criticise me seem to think so.

 

[PhaedrusR]

And what really annoys me, is the guy who has Taken this money away from Pensioners

Can’t be arsed to go and buy himself a suit, To Lazy to go to a Optician and pay for his glasses, and unable to pay to go and watch Arsenal, which he goes for nothing

Most. Not all.
Agreed, it's not a good look.
Or as they say these days, "the optics are not good."

Starmergeddon.

Thread 'WFP and politics' https://shoppingtelly.com/threads/wfp-and-politics.68273/

But personally, I couldn't care less what gifts/freebies he gets as PM, if he does a great job at sorting UK out!

Sadly, I think he faces big challenges there too, to put it mildly.

Arsenal: he already paid a season ticket prior. He should still pay that and accept the box/extras as PM for security.

Clothes: do they get a clothing allowance as part of the job? Can he claim work clothes back as tax deductible? Is accepting the clothes cash donations actually saving the Gov/tax man VAT/tax offset? After all we didn't want Mr. Foot and his donkey jacket .. or Mr. Corbyn and his mismatching jackets and glasses.
On the uk and international stage.

Glasses: accepting donation doesn:t seem to be a problem, or can he afford it himself.

But what do the donators want in return, that is the problem.

We know the PM is paid less than other top civil servants. Should donations or an allowance be better?

 

[PhaedrusR]

That is my prerogative to like or dislike I do NOT have to agree or like everything that is on here. Nor do you or anyone else!

Nobody said you had to!
You are arguing against points that were not made.
Straw man arguments?

I have not taken against anyone I simply pointed out you were rude.

I was not rude, am not rude and have not been rude. Show me otherwise.

I also did not agree with your post regarding the winter fuel but felt commenting would be a waste of my time as you are a staunch believer in this government policies.

I am not.
I just agree with the removal of the universal payment. To those who don't need it.
I do not know what income level it should be set at and I do not know the impact the current PC threshold will have on lower income Pensioners.

From the posts, replies and offence taken, I presume the majority here think there will be hundreds of thousands or million+ still severely affected, despite having income above the PC level?
I don't know, show me some evidence, here:

I on the other hand am not! Our overseas visitors have more rights than we do. This post is not up for a debate it's just my opinion.

Interesting. Probably wrong too. But any position can be debated.

 

[Lord Helpus]

Hi Phaed.

You got rather a rough response on the IW forum and this subject is probably too complex and emotional to be handled there.

Some posters are also quite sensitive and take everything personally.

As for grammar and spelling, well none of us are perfect and auto text and typos can take a hand here. Your no doubt well meaning attempts to correct the use of there for their for example fell on stony ground.

I did notice that the "student" Emily was prone to such errors in her brief span of postings which I found strange for someone at university. Her spelling and style was also similar to existing posters.

The reason I posted on WFP was because I personally am going to be hit by the loss. I used the money to store up a supply of logs and coal to take the strain off my ancient central heating. I don't consider myself to be poor and there must be many like me. The PC level is too low to make the cut.

I just wanted to make these points clear to you as I did not feel you were being personal or offensive.

Such discussions make a change from the deplorable antics of Peter Simon & Co.

 

[donna255]

The thing is, not everyone can claim PC. I claimed my state pension for the first time this year. So I get £220.21 per week over the rate to claim PC. Then my civil service pension, which is a massive £73.58 per month.

This is a very emotive subject and as said Lord Helpus not for shopping telly.

 

[Lord Helpus]

The thing is, not everyone can claim PC. I claimed my state pension for the first time this year. So I get £220.21 per week over the rate to claim PC. Then my civil service pension, which is a massive £73.58 per month.

This is a very emotive subject and as said Lord Helpus not for shopping telly.

Indeed it is not.

Why I originally commented on it was because some IW presenters were starting to use it as an excuse to sell heaters which I thought was unacceptable.

I am a pensioner who doesn't qualify for PC either and so I will miss out on the WFP as well. Not sure what we've done to deserve this. Why do train drivers get another £10K on an already high wage and we get minus £200? How is that making the country fairer?

 

[Patsy]

Indeed it is not.

Why I originally commented on it was because some IW presenters were starting to use it as an excuse to sell heaters which I thought was unacceptable.

I am a pensioner who doesn't qualify for PC either and so I will miss out on the WFP as well. Not sure what we've done to deserve this. Why do train drivers get another £10K on an already high wage and we get minus £200? How is that making the country fairer?

Don't forget we are not all on the higher pension I get just over £800 every four weeks.
I'm not getting into a discussion re expenses etc of MP's suffice to say it needs looking into.

 

[stratobuddy]

And I don't even like Starmer's £2000 specs.

 

[Lord Helpus]

Actually I did rather enjoy a break from talking about IW.

You tend to see the same comments about the same presenters time and again and some of your own being repeated back at you. The currency of a post is often just a few hours and it feels like we are going round in circles.

In fact the Random Musings thread is now a decade old but not much has changed at all.

 

[Duke of Cheese]

Same with politics, Lord. But that's got several hundred years over the Ideal World thread

 

[Patsy]

And I don't even like Starmer's £2000 specs.

Yep,should have gone to Specsavers.

 

[PhaedrusR]

Indeed it is not.

Why I originally commented on it was because some IW presenters were starting to use it as an excuse to sell heaters which I thought was unacceptable.

I am a pensioner who doesn't qualify for PC either and so I will miss out on the WFP as well. Not sure what we've done to deserve this. Why do train drivers get another £10K on an already high wage and we get minus £200? How is that making the country fairer?

Thanks for the comments.

During that discussion, not one person suggested a threshold for WFP if the PC one was too low.
I suggest the basic rate tax band £12,571.

Too much emotion, ,"my cold Mum", versus logic/reality, imho.

You have to take each issue separately, imho. And not conflate personal or unrelated issues in consideration.

Nobody "wants* to take £300 WFP away from anybody. But when there's little to no money around, it doesn't make sense to pay it to the majority of Pensioners who don't need it and can pay their energy bills without it.

@Patsy if £800 per 4 weeks you may qualify for PC?

PC tops you up to this minimum £218.15 but there is also Savings Credit, where they give you a bit extra if you have savings, apparently.

Also, with the Pension triple-lock, they should rise next April to cover some of the WFP loss, or so we're told.

From MSE:
Your current weekly income needs to be below £218.15 (single) or £332.95 (a couple). There's no savings limit for Pension Credit, but if you have more than £10,000 it affects the amount you receive.

 

[Duke of Cheese]

Always did wonder who ‘Emily’ was. She seemed like a pastiche to me. A quickly discarded second identity, as it were. No sooner that she came, she was gone - as the cabinet minister said of the call girl.

 

[PhaedrusR]

The thing is, not everyone can claim PC. I claimed my state pension for the first time this year. So I get £220.21 per week over the rate to claim PC. Then my civil service pension, which is a massive £73.58 per month.

This is a very emotive subject and as said Lord Helpus not for shopping telly.

If you don't mind me asking, so will you struggle without the £300 WFP now?

Taking your figures, that works out as £12,333.88 income per year. Excluding other income if any, savings, etc

In theory, you do not pay any income tax, as below £12,751.

Is that enough to live on, pay bills, or with/out a partner?

'Interestingly', you would fall below my suggested basic tax threshold, so would receive WFP under my scheme!

So what should a fair threshold be?

 

[Niwa]

Thanks for the comments.

During that discussion, not one person suggested a threshold for WFP if the PC one was too low.
I suggest the basic rate tax band £12,571.

Too much emotion, ,"my cold Mum", versus logic/reality, imho.

You have to take each issue separately, imho. And not conflate personal or unrelated issues in consideration.

Nobody "wants* to take £300 WFP away from anybody. But when there's little to no money around, it doesn't make sense to pay it to the majority of Pensioners who don't need it and can pay their energy bills without it.

@Patsy if £800 per 4 weeks you may qualify for PC?

PC tops you up to this minimum £218.15 but there is also Savings Credit, where they give you a bit extra if you have savings, apparently.

Also, with the Pension triple-lock, they should rise next April to cover some of the WFP loss, or so we're told.

From MSE:
Your current weekly income needs to be below £218.15 (single) or £332.95 (a couple). There's no savings limit for Pension Credit, but if you have more than £10,000 it affects the amount you receive.

To be fair you explain well the monetary problems of the country.
I know very little about such matters apart from that we as a country are massively in debt. Not only too mention collective personal debt which I understand is also enormously huge.
I have no answers or solutions.
It seems crazy that we are doing £102 billion in interest up the wall every year.
But to take away the £300 to save what is a comparatively small amount of money is wrong.
After all, will it not cost to means test and likely more people to claim PC maybe?
Funny they didn't mention any of this pre re-election in the manifesto?
I more than sure they will more than rue this decision in the future especially when all the other stuff that comes out inevitably in next few years.

 

[Niwa]

Over on the Ideal World Random Musings thread, my indication of my support for removing the universal payment of the Winter Fuel Payment to all Pensioners caused a stir.

Plenty of misinterpretation and false accusations.

For the record, I agree with removing the WFP (£300) payment to ALL Pensioners. And to paying it to those who need it.

My only point is that the WFP is being paid to all pensioners. Irrespective of their income. Many of whom or indeed the majority of whom, do not need it and just put it in their bank or towards a holiday or for the kids/grandkids.
The stats indicate 21% of Pensioners are millionaire asset households and 50% of the rest are 'wealthy enough'
So perhaps maybe 25% are at lower income level where WFP is needed or useful. Question is above what income level should it not be paid?

I am not saying we should not pay the WFP to those who need it.

The question is where you set the threshold for payment if not universally paid to all Pensioners.
This is therefore, means-testing.

I do not know enough about what level of income is the correct threshold, currently the Pension Credit income level (£11,344 p/a) has been set.

The Government has chosen to use the Pension Credit income threshold as the cutoff point, the same as the free TV licence entitlement.

I suspect this is because it is simple to implement quickly in DWP, this year, basically, 2 extra lines of computer code as processing:

IF ON Pension Credit THEN Pay WFP
ELSE do Not

There is a debate over the level of income threshold that requires WFP and whether the Labour Gov should have done an impact assessment to see how the WFP change affects low income pensioners and what level it should be set.

My suggestion is not to pay to any Pensioner paying basic rate tax and above, £12,571. If you're earning enough to pay income tax, you can afford the loss of the £300 WFP. Or is that naive?
What level should the threshold be?

I fail to see how this is a controversial view.

More controversial seems to be my statement that we are supposed to work, plan for our future retirement, save money and pay for our future bills, if we can. The government provides a basic state pension and an additional earnings related pension scheme, and there are private pension schemes with tax incentives.

We wait to see any Budget changes to this and other taxes.
Those who say tax the rich may get their wish if traditional Labour take hold. CGF, IHT, private schools/health, etc.

The annual deficit is £120bn.
The national debt is £2.7 Trillion (2,700 billion)
The annual interest on the debt is £102bn.

Is cutting WFP harmful to low income pensioners above the threshold cut-off and pointless given these numbers. Those who criticise me seem to think so.

On a aside point I didn't think your comments on the other thread were particularly offensive or unpleasant, but they weren't aimed at me anyway.
It probably wasn't the best place to start a discussion on those lines.
If you remember what they used to say about Pubs, Politics, Religion?

 

[donna255]

My electric man has just been this afternoon to read the meter.

I am £1,600 in credit with my gas and £600+ for electric. Friends have told me I have too much and if I die the money will be lost. I prefer to be able to have my heating on when I need it. I pumped the money in when I was working.

 

[PhaedrusR]

My electric man has just been this afternoon to read the meter.

I am £1,600 in credit with my gas and £600+ for electric. Friends have told me I have too much and if I die the money will be lost. I prefer to be able to have my heating on when I need it. I pumped the money in when I was working.

It does sound a tad excessive.
Also, if you had put the cash into a savings account, you could make interest, and then pay the utilities as you go, knowing you have the cash in the bank.
Don't give them the money for free for them to make interest!

 

[PhaedrusR]

On a aside point I didn't think your comments on the other thread were particularly offensive or unpleasant, but they weren't aimed at me anyway.
It probably wasn't the best place to start a discussion on those lines.
If you remember what they used to say about Pubs, Politics, Religion?

Thanks. I honestly cannot remember if I started the topic or not. I suspect I was responding to someone's aside re WFP!
I nearly used the "don't talk politics or religion" quote when defending myself but there are only so many clichés I can post!

 

[PhaedrusR]

To be fair you explain well the monetary problems of the country.

Thanks, I had to research it to understand why they were making cuts. Although I think they were also told there was an immediate cash shortfall at the Treasury and needed to save the £3bn quickly, this financial year.

t seems crazy that we are doing £102 billion in interest up the wall every year.
But to take away the £300 to save what is a comparatively small amount of money is wrong.

If you remember, interest rates 5 years ago were 0.01% at their lowest, so borrowing interest costs were 'mere' millions. 10m on 1bn.
Then we had COVID, Ukraine, inflation zinterest rate hikes, etc.

It's also why Sunak cut HS2. To save £30bn.

I understand the compassionate point but they have to make savings, this year.

They've looked at spending and asked why are we paying WFP to so many pensioners that don't need it?

The real question to my mind is a t what.incine level do you stop paying WFP if not the PC level?

Would you rather they cut benefits, defence, education, etc.?

Fair enough. Personally I would announce that as our deficit is £120bn per year, on £1.2trillion expenditure, then that is 10% overspend and so I would instruct every government department to cut their budget by 10%.

I know it is small beer, but you can't just keep paying money we don't have, to people who don't need it!

After all, will it not cost to means test and likely more people to claim PC maybe?

That is why they set at the PC level. An existing scheme and method and simple to implement new claims and easy to amend the WFP payments.

It is a shame none of this is explained by the Gov/Starmer.

Funny they didn't mention any of this pre re-election in the manifesto?

They say they found an unexpected large shortfall, despite the pay settlements and WFP is an urgent fix required. They did not plan to remove WFP, they had to pick a cut quickly

I more than sure they will more than rue this decision in the future especially when all the other stuff that comes out inevitably in next few years.

Yes, but I suspect they may review the WFP issue in future budgets and introduce a different threshold or account for it in different ways.

The big question is how do you cut/save money while creating GDP growth and yet invest in things?
Without borrowing even more unless you can pay it back.

Good luck with that.