| Poorer pensioners? 17:10 - Jul 29 with 12464 views | DJR |
From the Guardian.
"Reeves says pensioners not in receipt of pension credit will no longer get the winter fuel payment.
That means it will only go to poorer pensioners."
I can understand the simplicity of tying it to pension credit, but there are a lot of pensioners just above the pension credit limit who are poor and rely on the winter fuel payment to heat their homes.
My parents--in-law are a case in point. They are just above the pension credit limit so miss out on a whole range of benefits etc which make pensioners on pension credit much better off than them. And they will be even more so if my parents-in-law lose the two winter fuel payments they get.
And because they don't have enough money to survive more generally, especially when unexpected bills come along, they rely heavily on us to help them get by. A stair lift, no cheap option, is just one example. [Post edited 29 Jul 2024 17:13]
|  | | |  |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 10:51 - Jul 30 with 1658 views | Churchman |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 10:18 - Jul 30 by Buhrer |
Crikey! Errmmm no?
In response to the issues in Mullets reply, I'm suggesting as a demographic they've created a rod for their own back. [Post edited 30 Jul 2024 10:19]
|
My guess is that most pensioners were children then young adults once. They then worked throughout their lives. How have they, as a demographic, created a rod for their own back? They haven’t created anything. The worst the majority of them will have done is work, build their own lives and try to put something aside for retirement, including paying more than 40 years NI.
Bundling a group of people like that is in my view wrong. If this government uses a section of the population that it believes won’t reliably vote for them as a milk cow, that’ll also be wrong both morally and economically. In fact, robbing pensioners which is clearly their intention is economically stupid since pensioners money by and large goes back in to the economy.
I noticed Reeves has taken away plans to limit social care costs. That is disgraceful. Basically, if you get old and need medical care, that’s your fault. Suck it up and pay for it with everything you have - so much for Beveridge’s cradle to grave welfare state.
The other thing I didn’t understand is that Reeves on the one hand wants to close the tax gap, yet on the other Govt Depts have to find yet more cuts plus a percentage on top. One of the departments is HMRC. So the people that collect tax will be cut yet she wants to close the tax gap? Oh ‘back office’. What is back office? There is no such thing beyond a lazy assumption that there are swathes of people sitting around doing nothing. |  | | |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 11:05 - Jul 30 with 1608 views | blueasfook |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 10:41 - Jul 30 by Buhrer |
Brexit voting pensioners thought they could choose cob nuts instead of european walnuts, but now we're all only going to receive peanuts. [Post edited 30 Jul 2024 10:41]
|
Pecan at the value of my pension, I dont think I will have much cashew either. |  |
| |
| Poorer pensioners? on 11:18 - Jul 30 with 1543 views | ElephantintheRoom |
Pensioners tend to vote Conservative and latterly Reform. This is a harsh lesson to digest
It’s a ridiculous benefit that should have been scrapped years ago. Much better to attempt to gover seriously and control interest rates and inflation, thus leave no pensioners and everyone else better off. |  |
| |
| Poorer pensioners? on 11:20 - Jul 30 with 1564 views | bluejacko |
I see most of the left wing members on here are in absence on this thread!
I stand to lose my WFP if the NI executive follows Westminster !However benefits and pensions are handled in Belfast here so we might be lucky🤞 | | | |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 11:21 - Jul 30 with 1562 views | Buhrer |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 10:51 - Jul 30 by Churchman |
My guess is that most pensioners were children then young adults once. They then worked throughout their lives. How have they, as a demographic, created a rod for their own back? They haven’t created anything. The worst the majority of them will have done is work, build their own lives and try to put something aside for retirement, including paying more than 40 years NI.
Bundling a group of people like that is in my view wrong. If this government uses a section of the population that it believes won’t reliably vote for them as a milk cow, that’ll also be wrong both morally and economically. In fact, robbing pensioners which is clearly their intention is economically stupid since pensioners money by and large goes back in to the economy.
I noticed Reeves has taken away plans to limit social care costs. That is disgraceful. Basically, if you get old and need medical care, that’s your fault. Suck it up and pay for it with everything you have - so much for Beveridge’s cradle to grave welfare state.
The other thing I didn’t understand is that Reeves on the one hand wants to close the tax gap, yet on the other Govt Depts have to find yet more cuts plus a percentage on top. One of the departments is HMRC. So the people that collect tax will be cut yet she wants to close the tax gap? Oh ‘back office’. What is back office? There is no such thing beyond a lazy assumption that there are swathes of people sitting around doing nothing. |
As a demographic pensioners supported the Conservative governments and fundamentally gave us Brexit. What is a lifetimes work, if you let charlatans convince you to throw it away. So I'm bundling all brexit voters as culpable for the failings of brexit. Don't worry, they get to share the successes too!! |  | | |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 11:27 - Jul 30 with 1543 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 10:51 - Jul 30 by Churchman |
My guess is that most pensioners were children then young adults once. They then worked throughout their lives. How have they, as a demographic, created a rod for their own back? They haven’t created anything. The worst the majority of them will have done is work, build their own lives and try to put something aside for retirement, including paying more than 40 years NI.
Bundling a group of people like that is in my view wrong. If this government uses a section of the population that it believes won’t reliably vote for them as a milk cow, that’ll also be wrong both morally and economically. In fact, robbing pensioners which is clearly their intention is economically stupid since pensioners money by and large goes back in to the economy.
I noticed Reeves has taken away plans to limit social care costs. That is disgraceful. Basically, if you get old and need medical care, that’s your fault. Suck it up and pay for it with everything you have - so much for Beveridge’s cradle to grave welfare state.
The other thing I didn’t understand is that Reeves on the one hand wants to close the tax gap, yet on the other Govt Depts have to find yet more cuts plus a percentage on top. One of the departments is HMRC. So the people that collect tax will be cut yet she wants to close the tax gap? Oh ‘back office’. What is back office? There is no such thing beyond a lazy assumption that there are swathes of people sitting around doing nothing. |
Actually, I think the social care costs my be the bigger story here. Don't get me wrong, the optics on the WFP are horrendous and there will be many hundreds of thousands plunged into fuel poverty. That's against everything Labour should stand for. So not good at all. Yet social care costs will affect pretty much everyone (or a very large percentage). Although looking on the 'bright' side, as more people can't afford their own homes it'll become less of an issue in the future! What a time to be alive, eh? |  |
| |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 11:32 - Jul 30 with 1536 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 10:51 - Jul 30 by Churchman |
My guess is that most pensioners were children then young adults once. They then worked throughout their lives. How have they, as a demographic, created a rod for their own back? They haven’t created anything. The worst the majority of them will have done is work, build their own lives and try to put something aside for retirement, including paying more than 40 years NI.
Bundling a group of people like that is in my view wrong. If this government uses a section of the population that it believes won’t reliably vote for them as a milk cow, that’ll also be wrong both morally and economically. In fact, robbing pensioners which is clearly their intention is economically stupid since pensioners money by and large goes back in to the economy.
I noticed Reeves has taken away plans to limit social care costs. That is disgraceful. Basically, if you get old and need medical care, that’s your fault. Suck it up and pay for it with everything you have - so much for Beveridge’s cradle to grave welfare state.
The other thing I didn’t understand is that Reeves on the one hand wants to close the tax gap, yet on the other Govt Depts have to find yet more cuts plus a percentage on top. One of the departments is HMRC. So the people that collect tax will be cut yet she wants to close the tax gap? Oh ‘back office’. What is back office? There is no such thing beyond a lazy assumption that there are swathes of people sitting around doing nothing. |
Gordon Brown introduced us to winter fuel allowance but as means testing is expensive it was payable to everyone.
It was a mistake back in 1997 but it is a bigger mistake now to limit it to those receiving Pension Credit. It isn’t a very socialist thing to cause hardship to so many who find themselves cut off from benefits because they have slightly more than a pittance to live on. It isn’t just WFA they miss out on over 75’s who just fail to be entitled to Pension Credit Aldo miss out on a free TV licence.
I guess Labour politicians, like left wing journalists, are simply out of touch with reality. Just like their Tory counterparts.
Personally will I miss my WFA no but since I redirected it to charities others will. |  |
| |
| Poorer pensioners? on 11:33 - Jul 30 with 1532 views | bluejacko |
| Poorer pensioners? on 11:18 - Jul 30 by ElephantintheRoom |
Pensioners tend to vote Conservative and latterly Reform. This is a harsh lesson to digest
It’s a ridiculous benefit that should have been scrapped years ago. Much better to attempt to gover seriously and control interest rates and inflation, thus leave no pensioners and everyone else better off. |
Tell you what there a lot of benefits’ paid to people I think are ridiculous! Let’s scrap ALL benefits and see how the masses survive. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Poorer pensioners? on 11:36 - Jul 30 with 1504 views | quirkie |
| Poorer pensioners? on 08:37 - Jul 30 by DJR |
Interesting to note how ignorant two commentators in today's Guardian are about pensioners whose lives they couldn't comprehend.
Polly Toynbee: "the winter fuel allowance made no sense for pensioners not on benefits."
Jonathan Portes: "ending the winter fuel payment, except for pensioners on means-tested benefits, is sensible."
[Post edited 30 Jul 2024 8:37]
|
Toynbee is an idious hypocrite of the worse order. Labour really have stuck two fingers up to some very poor people in our society and hardly been in the job a month, utterly shameful. |  |
| |
| Poorer pensioners? on 11:43 - Jul 30 with 1454 views | DJR |
| Poorer pensioners? on 11:20 - Jul 30 by bluejacko |
I see most of the left wing members on here are in absence on this thread!
I stand to lose my WFP if the NI executive follows Westminster !However benefits and pensions are handled in Belfast here so we might be lucky🤞 |
I am a lefty and started the thread to point out the injustice. | | | |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 11:44 - Jul 30 with 1442 views | DJR |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 10:51 - Jul 30 by Churchman |
My guess is that most pensioners were children then young adults once. They then worked throughout their lives. How have they, as a demographic, created a rod for their own back? They haven’t created anything. The worst the majority of them will have done is work, build their own lives and try to put something aside for retirement, including paying more than 40 years NI.
Bundling a group of people like that is in my view wrong. If this government uses a section of the population that it believes won’t reliably vote for them as a milk cow, that’ll also be wrong both morally and economically. In fact, robbing pensioners which is clearly their intention is economically stupid since pensioners money by and large goes back in to the economy.
I noticed Reeves has taken away plans to limit social care costs. That is disgraceful. Basically, if you get old and need medical care, that’s your fault. Suck it up and pay for it with everything you have - so much for Beveridge’s cradle to grave welfare state.
The other thing I didn’t understand is that Reeves on the one hand wants to close the tax gap, yet on the other Govt Depts have to find yet more cuts plus a percentage on top. One of the departments is HMRC. So the people that collect tax will be cut yet she wants to close the tax gap? Oh ‘back office’. What is back office? There is no such thing beyond a lazy assumption that there are swathes of people sitting around doing nothing. |
Very well put. | | | |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 11:50 - Jul 30 with 1399 views | DJR |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 11:27 - Jul 30 by Swansea_Blue |
Actually, I think the social care costs my be the bigger story here. Don't get me wrong, the optics on the WFP are horrendous and there will be many hundreds of thousands plunged into fuel poverty. That's against everything Labour should stand for. So not good at all. Yet social care costs will affect pretty much everyone (or a very large percentage). Although looking on the 'bright' side, as more people can't afford their own homes it'll become less of an issue in the future! What a time to be alive, eh? |
This is yet another U-turn which raises questions of trust. Not a good look so early into a new government.
This from the Guardian.
"Andrew Dilnot, the economist who produced the report saying adult social care costs should be capped, has accused the government of breaking a promise to implement the policy.
Speaking to Times Radio, he said that during the election campaign Wes Streeting, who was then shadow health secretary and who is now in charge of health in cabinet, said Labour would go ahead and introduce the cap, as planned by the Tories.
Dilnot first proposed a cap in a report published in 2011. Successive Tory governments delayed implementing this plan, but under Rishi Sunak the government was committed to bringing in the cap from October 2025. That would have imposed a cap of £86,000 on how much anyone would have to contribute to the cost of their own care during the course of their life.
In an interview with the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg on 16 June, Streeting said he was committed to this policy. He told her:
"One of the things that we’ve committed to is – obviously the cap on care costs is due to come in, I’ve wanted to give the system the certainty this side of the election of knowing we’re not planning to come in and upend that and scrap that."
When Kuenssberg asked him to confirm that Labour would stick to the plan set out by the Tories, and the October 2025 date, he replied:
"Yeah, and I’ve met with Andrew Dilnot. What he set out is a framework that can also be adjusted to make it fair and more progressive when resources allow, but that is something that is already there. I’m not interested in tearing things down, until we’ve got something better to put in its place."
Dilnot told Times Radio this meant Labour had broken a promise made to voters. He said:
"I think people have got a reasonable case for breach of promise."
"Wes Streeting, who’s now the secretary of state for health and social care, in the run up to the election said one of the things that we’ve committed to is the cap on care costs, ‘I’ve wanted to give the system the certainty this side of the election.’"
"So they promised they’d do it. Now, of course, we could say that’s just politics. But if we can’t take seriously when members of the shadow cabinet become the members of the cabinet and have made a promise, what are we to do?"
This allegation is serious because generally Labour was very careful about not making promises during the election campaign it did not intend to keep." [Post edited 30 Jul 2024 12:12]
| | | |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 12:13 - Jul 30 with 1341 views | itfcjoe |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 10:51 - Jul 30 by Churchman |
My guess is that most pensioners were children then young adults once. They then worked throughout their lives. How have they, as a demographic, created a rod for their own back? They haven’t created anything. The worst the majority of them will have done is work, build their own lives and try to put something aside for retirement, including paying more than 40 years NI.
Bundling a group of people like that is in my view wrong. If this government uses a section of the population that it believes won’t reliably vote for them as a milk cow, that’ll also be wrong both morally and economically. In fact, robbing pensioners which is clearly their intention is economically stupid since pensioners money by and large goes back in to the economy.
I noticed Reeves has taken away plans to limit social care costs. That is disgraceful. Basically, if you get old and need medical care, that’s your fault. Suck it up and pay for it with everything you have - so much for Beveridge’s cradle to grave welfare state.
The other thing I didn’t understand is that Reeves on the one hand wants to close the tax gap, yet on the other Govt Depts have to find yet more cuts plus a percentage on top. One of the departments is HMRC. So the people that collect tax will be cut yet she wants to close the tax gap? Oh ‘back office’. What is back office? There is no such thing beyond a lazy assumption that there are swathes of people sitting around doing nothing. |
"In fact, robbing pensioners which is clearly their intention is economically stupid since pensioners money by and large goes back in to the economy."
Pensioners have the most money tied up of any generation. I'm not suggesting that this policy is one I like, and personally think it should be tapered so those outside it are not worse off. |  |
| |
| Poorer pensioners? on 12:37 - Jul 30 with 1307 views | cooperd5 |
| Poorer pensioners? on 20:07 - Jul 29 by pointofblue |
For all the hope of Labour... really does look like they may just be competent Tories.
Can't say some didn't try and warn us. |
Tories only plan was to enrich pensioners because they're their voters.
Winter allowance was always an OAP vote sweetener and grossly unfair given it was not means tested. Must be easier ways to do it |  | | |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 12:39 - Jul 30 with 1297 views | DJR |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 12:13 - Jul 30 by itfcjoe |
"In fact, robbing pensioners which is clearly their intention is economically stupid since pensioners money by and large goes back in to the economy."
Pensioners have the most money tied up of any generation. I'm not suggesting that this policy is one I like, and personally think it should be tapered so those outside it are not worse off. |
Interestingly, my in-laws have had to go down the equity release route, and with interest currently accumulating at a rate of £10,000 a year, have precious little equity left in a house worth around £300,000, not a bad rate of return for the Prudential who lent them only around £50,000, which they needed to get by on. | | | |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 12:44 - Jul 30 with 1265 views | giant_stow |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 12:39 - Jul 30 by DJR |
Interestingly, my in-laws have had to go down the equity release route, and with interest currently accumulating at a rate of £10,000 a year, have precious little equity left in a house worth around £300,000, not a bad rate of return for the Prudential who lent them only around £50,000, which they needed to get by on. |
Gawd that's a scandalous rate on the face of it - Near robbery. sorry to hear that. |  |
| |
| Poorer pensioners? on 12:51 - Jul 30 with 1242 views | BloomBlue |
| Poorer pensioners? on 12:37 - Jul 30 by cooperd5 |
Tories only plan was to enrich pensioners because they're their voters.
Winter allowance was always an OAP vote sweetener and grossly unfair given it was not means tested. Must be easier ways to do it |
But it was introduced by Blair/Brown Labour government. Yes the Tories could have abolished it, but it was introduced by Labour. |  | | |
| Poorer pensioners? on 12:59 - Jul 30 with 1227 views | GlasgowBlue |
Oops!
|  |
| |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 13:08 - Jul 30 with 1205 views | DJR |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 12:44 - Jul 30 by giant_stow |
Gawd that's a scandalous rate on the face of it - Near robbery. sorry to hear that. |
At least they'll qualify for free social care! But they'll have to like or lump what they are offered, if indeed they're offered anything. [Post edited 30 Jul 2024 13:16]
| | | |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 13:21 - Jul 30 with 1158 views | Churchman |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 11:21 - Jul 30 by Buhrer |
As a demographic pensioners supported the Conservative governments and fundamentally gave us Brexit. What is a lifetimes work, if you let charlatans convince you to throw it away. So I'm bundling all brexit voters as culpable for the failings of brexit. Don't worry, they get to share the successes too!! |
17.4m people voted leave (about 25% of the population. They were not all pensioners so they didn't ‘fundamentally give us Brexit’. Had any demographic group in its entirety voted remain, the result would have not been leave.
You have also conveniently forgotten that the vote took place over 8 years ago. Many of those who voted one way or the other who are pensioners now were not then. Many that voted who were pensioners then are now gone. Your bundling of a group together for blame and in turn pillaging is fundamentally flawed and wrong.
Lifetime’s work? It is people who worked for a lifetime. People who with little or no help from anyone did their best for themselves and their families, paid into public services and at the same time in some cases saved for their retirement. Do you view them as suckers; a milk cow to be emptied as it looks like they are now or just parasites to society? Perhaps the Spartan solution of the cold hillside is for you.
Lastly, sarcasm on Brexit towards me is never going to work, given my posting stance on it and my (now 5 years out of date) knowledge of it. | | | |
| Poorer pensioners? on 13:32 - Jul 30 with 1100 views | blueasfook |
| Poorer pensioners? on 12:59 - Jul 30 by GlasgowBlue |
Oops!
|
Oh dear. Can't wait to vote this lot out. When's the next GE now? | |
| |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 13:57 - Jul 30 with 1045 views | Buhrer |
| Yep, my old fella.... on 13:21 - Jul 30 by Churchman |
17.4m people voted leave (about 25% of the population. They were not all pensioners so they didn't ‘fundamentally give us Brexit’. Had any demographic group in its entirety voted remain, the result would have not been leave.
You have also conveniently forgotten that the vote took place over 8 years ago. Many of those who voted one way or the other who are pensioners now were not then. Many that voted who were pensioners then are now gone. Your bundling of a group together for blame and in turn pillaging is fundamentally flawed and wrong.
Lifetime’s work? It is people who worked for a lifetime. People who with little or no help from anyone did their best for themselves and their families, paid into public services and at the same time in some cases saved for their retirement. Do you view them as suckers; a milk cow to be emptied as it looks like they are now or just parasites to society? Perhaps the Spartan solution of the cold hillside is for you.
Lastly, sarcasm on Brexit towards me is never going to work, given my posting stance on it and my (now 5 years out of date) knowledge of it. |
I'm working. I have a lot of relevant work experience.I'm not talking about not supporting the vulnerable. I'm not talking about the state pension. The question really is Why should I pay djrs homeowning relatives electric bill? Why should generation rent protect their equity. Is this leverage that will force sales? I hope so.
Conveniently forgot the vote 8 years ago? Look around you. Who can forget. There's no humour yetl, but you can bang your pans for me every Thursday this winter lol. | | | |
| Poorer pensioners? on 14:31 - Jul 30 with 989 views | OldFart71 |
So we have to put up with a double whammy. The Tories cut National Insurance twice when if they had raised personal allowance it would have benefited lower paid and pensioners. Then we get this rabble in who immediately cut £200 or £300 winter fuel payment. Added to this we are told that gas and electricity will rise by 10% come October. Don't get me wrong, I can afford it, but many pensioners get just the State Pension and a small pension from elsewhere and because of that they pay some income tax and can't claim anything. | | | |
| Poorer pensioners? on 15:06 - Jul 30 with 936 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Poorer pensioners? on 14:31 - Jul 30 by OldFart71 |
So we have to put up with a double whammy. The Tories cut National Insurance twice when if they had raised personal allowance it would have benefited lower paid and pensioners. Then we get this rabble in who immediately cut £200 or £300 winter fuel payment. Added to this we are told that gas and electricity will rise by 10% come October. Don't get me wrong, I can afford it, but many pensioners get just the State Pension and a small pension from elsewhere and because of that they pay some income tax and can't claim anything. |
A small private pension is really a poverty trap. The sort of trap you would expect a Labour government to see as immoral…
Pension Credit opens the door to far more benefits than most people realise.
If you get Pension Credit you can also get other help, such as:
Housing Benefit if you rent the property you live in
Cost of Living Payments
Support for Mortgage Interest if you own the property you live in
a Council Tax discount
a free TV licence if you’re aged 75 or over
help with NHS dental treatment, glasses and transport costs for hospital appointments, if you get a certain type of Pension Credit
help with your heating costs through the Warm Home Discount Scheme
a discount on the Royal Mail redirection service if you’re moving house
Now add Winterfuel allowance.
Rachel Reeves a Tory in a red dress. | |
| |
| Poorer pensioners? on 15:11 - Jul 30 with 925 views | blueasfook |
| Poorer pensioners? on 15:06 - Jul 30 by Pinewoodblue |
A small private pension is really a poverty trap. The sort of trap you would expect a Labour government to see as immoral…
Pension Credit opens the door to far more benefits than most people realise.
If you get Pension Credit you can also get other help, such as:
Housing Benefit if you rent the property you live in
Cost of Living Payments
Support for Mortgage Interest if you own the property you live in
a Council Tax discount
a free TV licence if you’re aged 75 or over
help with NHS dental treatment, glasses and transport costs for hospital appointments, if you get a certain type of Pension Credit
help with your heating costs through the Warm Home Discount Scheme
a discount on the Royal Mail redirection service if you’re moving house
Now add Winterfuel allowance.
Rachel Reeves a Tory in a red dress. |
What is it about the Labour Party you like? Is it the cancelling of road projects and hospital building? Is it giving a 22% rise to junior doctors already on a average salary of £37k? Is it taking money from pensioners barely above the poverty line? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
