OT Fuel Allowance

[CTMilller]

I do think the Labour government have miscalculated in choosing to cut the fuel allowance in the way it has been done.

It comes comes over almost as vindictive since it's one of the first (if not the first) demographic group to be singled out for austerity by the new government. It's been handled clumsily with very little done to explain what the effects are and Labour have thrown away a vast amount of goodwill by going this route.

Had it been part of a range of measures affecting other groups in the community it might at least have given the impression that many others are going to have to sacrifice something.

The amount recovered by the initiative is also arguably small relative to the backlash it has created.

Having said that, I would like to see how many are genuinely going to suffer real hardship as a result of this measure. The figures I've seen suggest that 62% of pensioners have a company pension in addition to the state benefit, one in five have assets in excess of one million pounds and pensioners have had real income growth of 21 to 39% in the last 20 years compared to a 10% increase for working people. Given that those on pension credit will continue to receive the fuel allowance, how many does that leave who will now be pushed into a state of genuine financial hardship as a result of the change?

Perhaps the bar to ineligibility should have been set at a higher level to safeguard those that will fall through the net? Basing it on a declared total pension level of x (varying for singles and married couples) might have been more acceptable.

[Brin]

I do think the Labour government have miscalculated in choosing to cut the fuel allowance in the way it has been done.

It comes comes over almost as vindictive since it's one of the first (if not the first) demographic group to be singled out for austerity by the new government. It's been handled clumsily with very little done to explain what the effects are and Labour have thrown away a vast amount of goodwill by going this route.

Had it been part of a range of measures affecting other groups in the community it might at least have given the impression that many others are going to have to sacrifice something.

The amount recovered by the initiative is also arguably small relative to the backlash it has created.

Having said that, I would like to see how many are genuinely going to suffer real hardship as a result of this measure. The figures I've seen suggest that 62% of pensioners have a company pension in addition to the state benefit, one in five have assets in excess of one million pounds and pensioners have had real income growth of 21 to 39% in the last 20 years compared to a 10% increase for working people. Given that those on pension credit will continue to receive the fuel allowance, how many does that leave who will now be pushed into a state of genuine financial hardship as a result of the change?

Perhaps the bar to ineligibility should have been set at a higher level to safeguard those that will fall through the net? Basing it on a declared total pension level of x (varying for singles and married couples) might have been more acceptable.

A more reasoned point made on several fronts. You should have been a Politician pal

[Stansmate]

What a pathetic statement ! Far right because people have an opinion you dont like!

How arrogant to think you can go through life being right about everything.

[KerrAvon]

I do think the Labour government have miscalculated in choosing to cut the fuel allowance in the way it has been done.

It comes comes over almost as vindictive since it's one of the first (if not the first) demographic group to be singled out for austerity by the new government. It's been handled clumsily with very little done to explain what the effects are and Labour have thrown away a vast amount of goodwill by going this route.

Had it been part of a range of measures affecting other groups in the community it might at least have given the impression that many others are going to have to sacrifice something.

The amount recovered by the initiative is also arguably small relative to the backlash it has created.

Having said that, I would like to see how many are genuinely going to suffer real hardship as a result of this measure. The figures I've seen suggest that 62% of pensioners have a company pension in addition to the state benefit, one in five have assets in excess of one million pounds and pensioners have had real income growth of 21 to 39% in the last 20 years compared to a 10% increase for working people. Given that those on pension credit will continue to receive the fuel allowance, how many does that leave who will now be pushed into a state of genuine financial hardship as a result of the change?

Perhaps the bar to ineligibility should have been set at a higher level to safeguard those that will fall through the net? Basing it on a declared total pension level of x (varying for singles and married couples) might have been more acceptable.

The optics of the move are certainly poor, although I've argued on another thread that might have been deliberate (in order to send a message that the government is serious about fiscal responsibility- sadly necessary after Brexit made the UK a less attractive place to invest).

It's certainly true that pensioners have done relatively well in recent years. Certainly better than many of the tax payers who fund government spending.

For me, the only real issue is whether the level of income/capital at which the means test is set is the correct one. The government have chosen to base it upon the test for pension credit (a benefit that tops up the state pension). I would imagine that they have chosen that as opposed to creating a new level of bureaucracy to assess a different test.

In respect of targeting other groups, the Labour Party painted itself into a corner by promising not to raise income tax and national insurance for 'working people'. That was probably necessary in a country that wants high quality public services, but doesn't like paying tax.

I suspect that the budget will bring in changes to 'target' the 'better off' by reducing tax relief on pension contributions for higher earners and tweaking inheritance tax and capital gains tax. Any such changes will also attract outrage in large swathes of the press (that also like to complain about poorly maintained roads and the shortcomings of the NHS etc.).

[CAMiller]

What a pathetic statement ! Far right because people have an opinion you dont like!

How arrogant to think you can go through life being right about everything.

Stansmate. Consider using the Reply With Quote option (like I have here) so other posters know who you are talking to.

[gm_gm]

The optics of the move are certainly poor, although I've argued on another thread that might have been deliberate (in order to send a message that the government is serious about fiscal responsibility- sadly necessary after Brexit made the UK a less attractive place to invest).

It's certainly true that pensioners have done relatively well in recent years. Certainly better than many of the tax payers who fund government spending.

For me, the only real issue is whether the level of income/capital at which the means test is set is the correct one. The government have chosen to base it upon the test for pension credit (a benefit that tops up the state pension). I would imagine that they have chosen that as opposed to creating a new level of bureaucracy to assess a different test.

In respect of targeting other groups, the Labour Party painted itself into a corner by promising not to raise income tax and national insurance for 'working people'. That was probably necessary in a country that wants high quality public services, but doesn't like paying tax.

I suspect that the budget will bring in changes to 'target' the 'better off' by reducing tax relief on pension contributions for higher earners and tweaking inheritance tax and capital gains tax. Any such changes will also attract outrage in large swathes of the press (that also like to complain about poorly maintained roads and the shortcomings of the NHS etc.).

The UK is the second most investable country in the world after China for VC.... Or was before the election. Also, imports and exports up significantly since Breggsit

[Stovicmiller]

Seems some people live in ivory towers on here. I live in greasbrough and just down the road from where I live there is an old peoples complex basically bungalows and I don’t see any of these people living a life of luxury with assets of around a million, suspose it depends where you want to get your information from .Did not labour’s own figures suggest 4000 old folk could die ? But let’s just ignore that.

[frogmiller]

Seems some people live in ivory towers on here. I live in greasbrough and just down the road from where I live there is an old peoples complex basically bungalows and I don’t see any of these people living a life of luxury with assets of around a million, suspose it depends where you want to get your information from .Did not labour’s own figures suggest 4000 old folk could die ? But let’s just ignore that.

I have the same feeling Stovic and can't imaging the anxiety of those just above the threshhold let alone those that are frantically applying for Pension Tax Credits online.
The Labour party have extended the date to apply for the credits for this year and it will be back paid eventually if the people qualify. Mind you that is after they have paid their bills.

[Yak]

Seems some people live in ivory towers on here. I live in greasbrough and just down the road from where I live there is an old peoples complex basically bungalows and I don’t see any of these people living a life of luxury with assets of around a million, suspose it depends where you want to get your information from .Did not labour’s own figures suggest 4000 old folk could die ? But let’s just ignore that.

Agreed.
We look after the old fella next door he has nobody and he’s not wealthy at all.
I’ve told him get your heating on myself and another couple of neighbours have told him we will sort the bill when it comes.
I know other ones who are picking the bills up for their relatives.
Do politicians still get money towards their heating etc ?

[KerrAvon]

Seems some people live in ivory towers on here. I live in greasbrough and just down the road from where I live there is an old peoples complex basically bungalows and I don’t see any of these people living a life of luxury with assets of around a million, suspose it depends where you want to get your information from .Did not labour’s own figures suggest 4000 old folk could die ? But let’s just ignore that.

Nobody has suggested that all pensioners live 'a life of luxury with assets of around a million'. Quite the reverse, it has been said that some pensioners don't need the benefit and others do, hence the means testing.

Back in September, frog told us about his in-laws who apparently used the fuel allowance to pay green fees. Do you think it fair that working people - some of whom will be low earners and perhaps struggling to bring up a family - should subsidise their golfing through their taxes?