Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

There’s a whole lot of mischief making going on about the winter fuel allowance imo. Those in the greatest need will still receive help.
Speaking as someone previously in receipt of the allowance I have to say I don’t actually need it and I doubt very much that I’m amongst the wealthiest 35% of pensioners.
Amongst my friendship group are those who donate the money to charity, give it to their children, add it to the grandkids’ present fund or buy the Christmas booze with it. That’s not what taxpayers’ money should be spent on is it?
Amongst our local community are pensioners living in properties worth a million pounds or more. Why, in such circumstances, shouldn’t it be means tested. As long as those in the greatest need continue to receive the allowance what’s the problem?

[Andy_Faber]

There’s a whole lot of mischief making going on about the winter fuel allowance imo. Those in the greatest need will still receive help.
Speaking as someone previously in receipt of the allowance I have to say I don’t actually need it and I doubt very much that I’m amongst the wealthiest 35% of pensioners.
Amongst my friendship group are those who donate the money to charity, give it to their children, add it to the grandkids’ present fund or buy the Christmas booze with it. That’s not what taxpayers’ money should be spent on is it?
Amongst our local community are pensioners living in properties worth a million pounds or more. Why, in such circumstances, shouldn’t it be means tested. As long as those in the greatest need continue to receive the allowance what’s the problem?

If you're saying 'what's the problem?' in an offhand way thats not like you, if its a genuine question there are two problems IMO - first, a genuine problem 'on the margins', where because not everyone's circumstances are the same, some people will lose it and miss it and not have any other allowance to replace it, and second a problem of message delivery, its not been great, not helped of course by HMG (as ever was), by the unions and cheif string-puller Mick Lynch coming out against it.

[ramAnag]

If you're saying 'what's the problem?' in an offhand way thats not like you, if its a genuine question there are two problems IMO - first, a genuine problem 'on the margins', where because not everyone's circumstances are the same, some people will lose it and miss it and not have any other allowance to replace it, and second a problem of message delivery, its not been great, not helped of course by HMG (as ever was), by the unions and cheif string-puller Mick Lynch coming out against it.

I’ll accept that the communication hasn’t been great and Mick Lynch’s stance unhelpful…but as a principle - that such support needs to be properly targeted - I believe the government action to be correct.
If, as you suggest, ‘some people will lose it and miss it’ for genuine reasons then I understand that needs addressing, but the notion of a universal ‘benefit’ where the very wealthy receive the same £300 towards the cost of their winter fuel as the little old couple who receive nothing more than their monthly pension is seriously flawed.

[Andy_Faber]

I’ll accept that the communication hasn’t been great and Mick Lynch’s stance unhelpful…but as a principle - that such support needs to be properly targeted - I believe the government action to be correct.
If, as you suggest, ‘some people will lose it and miss it’ for genuine reasons then I understand that needs addressing, but the notion of a universal ‘benefit’ where the very wealthy receive the same £300 towards the cost of their winter fuel as the little old couple who receive nothing more than their monthly pension is seriously flawed.

But that logic is inconsistent, because you who don’t need a generous tax free allowance get one anyway to the same level as those with only state pension. This is a result of dogma by Labour, an income tax raid in all but name (it is an income, they’ve taxed it at 100% for most) because they vowed not to touch ‘actual income tax. I’m just being devils advocate here I am not old enough nor have relatives old enough to have actual skin in the game

[ramAnag]

But that logic is inconsistent, because you who don’t need a generous tax free allowance get one anyway to the same level as those with only state pension. This is a result of dogma by Labour, an income tax raid in all but name (it is an income, they’ve taxed it at 100% for most) because they vowed not to touch ‘actual income tax. I’m just being devils advocate here I am not old enough nor have relatives old enough to have actual skin in the game

I’m sorry AF…I just don’t ‘get’ any of those arguments. I suppose we just look at the world in different ways.

As for the ‘no skin in the game’ aspect…that’s a bit like saying I don’t care about schools because my children have left, I’m not bothered about the NHS because I’ve never been ill, or climate change is of no concern to me because my life is nearly done.
Surely every one has ‘skin in the game’ of seeking to ensure a well educated society where the sick and elderly are well cared for and the future is secured for our grandchildren and beyond.

[Andy_Faber]

I’m sorry AF…I just don’t ‘get’ any of those arguments. I suppose we just look at the world in different ways.

As for the ‘no skin in the game’ aspect…that’s a bit like saying I don’t care about schools because my children have left, I’m not bothered about the NHS because I’ve never been ill, or climate change is of no concern to me because my life is nearly done.
Surely every one has ‘skin in the game’ of seeking to ensure a well educated society where the sick and elderly are well cared for and the future is secured for our grandchildren and beyond.

Just the opposite. No skin in the game means I can look at it objectively rather than think ‘I should believe X but that would disadvantage uncle Bert (or whoever) so I’d better think Y.

[ramAnag]

Just the opposite. No skin in the game means I can look at it objectively rather than think ‘I should believe X but that would disadvantage uncle Bert (or whoever) so I’d better think Y.

Okay…again we’ll have to differ. To me it means no material interest or investment in the outcome of an enterprise or activity.

[Trickytreesreds]

There’s a whole lot of mischief making going on about the winter fuel allowance imo. Those in the greatest need will still receive help.
Speaking as someone previously in receipt of the allowance I have to say I don’t actually need it and I doubt very much that I’m amongst the wealthiest 35% of pensioners.
Amongst my friendship group are those who donate the money to charity, give it to their children, add it to the grandkids’ present fund or buy the Christmas booze with it. That’s not what taxpayers’ money should be spent on is it?
Amongst our local community are pensioners living in properties worth a million pounds or more. Why, in such circumstances, shouldn’t it be means tested. As long as those in the greatest need continue to receive the allowance what’s the problem?

Mischief making?
In 2017, Labour, with Starmer said that 4000 pensioners will die if May cuts the wnter fuel payment. Theyw ere outraged that she even might consider it.
Starmer said quite catagorically, that there was no plans to touch the payment or any other attack on pensioners. What changed, apart from the obvious lie?
Remember the rants pre election? NO DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO- EXCEPT WE WILL ALL BE PAYING MUCH MORE TAX.

Keir Starmer accused the Conservatives of plotting to cut pensioners’ winter fuel payments just weeks before the election was called.

The prime minister urged Rishi Sunak to “rule out” scrapping winter fuel payments in May, and suggested the then-government wanted to use the money to abolish National Insurance.

Rachel Reeves, who this month axed the payments for 10 million state pensioners, also repeatedly criticised the Conservatives for reducing the support while in her role as an opposition frontbencher.

In 2012, she accused the party of “hitting pensioners hard” over a decision to not raise winter fuel payments for retirees. A year earlier, she sought “assurances” over the future of the payments.
Gareth Davies MP, the shadow exchequer secretary, accused Labour of hypocrisy over the claims. It comes as figures show the raid is set to backfire at a cost of £490m to the Treasury.

Mr Davies said: “Labour’s hypocrisy knows no bounds. Not only has the Chancellor invented a fictitious black hole to try and justify her true economic agenda, but she has also done the very thing Labour baselessly tried to accuse the Conservatives of considering – cutting winter fuel payments – in a desperate attempt to lay the groundwork for tax rises.”