The great thing is the WFA isn't just going to be available to 75% of pensioners, but also available to those ex pats who enjoy living in southern Europe, Australia, etc in the sunshine Simply proves that no matter who is in charge, none of them do anything unless its to gain votes.
They've all got flatscreen TVs, though, haven't they. All to watch Homes Under the Hammer, Loose Women and Pointless on. If they sold their flatscreen TV they could afford a few months' heating. It's all about priorities, really, isn't it. Perhaps if they'd spent their 65+ years learning how to budget properly instead of bimbling around the supermarket with an empty trolley (except for a copy of the Daily Mail) they'd be a bit better with money.
Hope they get a move on! It's Winter in Australia now. Personally think they shat the bed and did this to try getting some goodwill before more bad news later this week as it was a very stupid move to start off with. Don't understand why people expected this lot to be any different, it's two cheeks of the same backside. Reeves is so out of her depth it isn't even funny.
Hmmm see what you mean but people definitely react differently to a lump sum put in their bank account rather than indirectly received. I'd have said the Treasury is just about the hardest ministerial brief to have in the current climate. Yes it's prestigious and comes with a lot of power over colleagues in cabinet, but there's no sweeties to hand out as in previous decades and frankly it must just be a constant game of trying to pick the least worst option on things. Plus the bond markets are calling a lot of the shots because the debt interest payments are so eye-wateringly high. Really not sure who could master the country's finances at this point given any attempt to cut anything, anywhere, leads to howls of protest. My biggest annoyance is Labour have been so pathetically timid. They've got a majority of about 900 in Parliament. They could make sweeping, profound reforms and definitely have the ability to block out all the whining and noise on social media and in the parts of the press that constantly parrot conservative talking points. But nope, they've decided to govern like they've got a majority of 5 and consult, ruminate and ponder over everything. And now they're backing down on even modest changes like the WFA. Disappointing.
Where did you source this from? This year it was only paid to people in certain countries (see: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/869/schedule/1), so didn't include Australia or other Commonwealth countries. And since 2015 the then government changed the rules so it would only be paid to people claiming UK benefits living in a European country with a minimum temperature no higher than the south west of England.
Labour claiming that the u-turn is because they've bought financial stability to the nation is a genuine laugh out loud moment. The morons have literally thrown away up to 12 million voters. An idiotic decision in the first place, (even though we all know that most pensioners don't need it).
I was hoping there was a lot they could do for the whole political landscape in the UK. Starmer himself said he wanted to bring honesty and integrity back to politics - Reeves is one who I've seen the least of that from, be it from the LinkedIn saga, to admitting where there could have been a mistake - She'd have won a lot of political capital today if she just acknowledged the threshold was initially too low, however she's gone to spout the usual nonsense of the black hole etc - All parties do that, and they had a platform to change that native and be different, however they've acted like the rest. She was also bigged up to be someone smart (former chess champion?) but I'm yet to see anything different or insightful - all smoke and mirrors. The past few elections have seen lower turnouts, and ultimately have been decided by the voter on who they don't want as opposed to who they do want. The Tories got their big majority as people didn't want Corbyn, now Starmers in with less votes than Corbyn got as people didn't want the Tories. Something big and bold in the scheme of things wouldn't be a huge risk in my book, as there's a chance you can turn that tide if it plays out, as opposed to waiting for the inevitable of being voted out as the public don't like you anymore. I suspect a lot of the reforms impact party reprentatives and that's stopping the two major parties from going for some. I could be wrong.
Exactly, there's loads of big things they could have done, such as changing archaic stamp duty to property/land value taxes, reforming council tax and it's 30 year old valuations, roll NI into income tax, apply NI to pensions, increase inheritance tax, get rid of the 60% tax trap, wealth taxes, put a distant end date on the triple lock far beyond when people are going to die, double lock etc They've bottled it on one of the most miniscule decisions
I don’t disagree with much of this, but worth adding that Starmer only got fewer votes because of an electoral pact with the Lib Dems. If they were fighting for all the same seats, Labour would have more votes, but fewer seats. May lost her majority (and a huge number of seats to Corbyn) because she dared to ask the wealthiest pensioners in history to contribute their own care if they used the care system (and only pay when they die). Imagine if they made the same offer to students. There would be complete uproar over how generous an offer it was.
I hope Reeves and Starmer haven't spaffed all the spare cash on OAPs (the overwhelming majority of whom are, as everyone knows, multi millionaires) and we've still got a few bob left in the kitty for a bloody good war
Thing is, it wasn't a bad move to start with IMO. Rich pensioners should not be given an annual 300 quid bunce just for being old, whilst the rest of the country suffers with underfunded services. The stupidity was perhaps how it was dealt with, but that's never been Labour's strong point. The narrative from the Mail, Express, right wing Twitterati etc. was that this was taking money out the pockets of poverty line elderly people who were now freezing to death with their tepid gruel in their hovels, having fought two world wars for our freedom, whilst their 300 quid was directly diverted into the pocket of a radical muslim cleric off a dingy who hates Britain. The WFA was a temporary measure when fuel prices went absolutely through the roof. It was a sticking plaster whilst we came to terms with the immediate ramifications of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the global oil cabal cashing in. Somehow, the right wing media have managed to spin it into a fundamental human right for all over 65s. The fact is, people didn't used to get it. We won't get it when we're old. Many of them don't need it. But Labour lost the argument because they can't handle modern culture wars nonsense very well at all.
Exactly. It was appallingly handled. Announced in isolation and without context. Imho they should have announced, within a formal budget, that it was being fazed out (say reduced by £100 per year) while state pensions and/or benefits would be increased accordingly. Now, even after making a "u-turn" the government are now being criticised for "not apologising". It's the gift that keeps on giving. What a **** up.
It was actually introduced in 1997. Back then the basic state pension was £62.45 a week. Now, thats £176.45, and the new state pension is £230.25. Madness
It was a very stupid move with the timing and how it was dealt with - They did their own letter less than a year before stating that a cut to the WFA would lead to deaths - They then cut it in the first weeks. Why was this the most urgent thing to do? From a financial aspect it's miniscule, especially after deducting the cost of pensioners then looking to get pension credits that they were eligible for already. If they wanted a quick move which requires little thought - reverse the stupid Employee NI cut that was thrown out there to get votes by the Tories. As to Rich pensioners - Agree if by this you mean they have nice private pensions, a bucket load in savings etc, but a lot of pensioners wealth is in their property and from a cash perspective they aren't "rich". I personally don't feel it's right to force the pensioners to sell up and potentially relocate somewhere cheaper to just afford heating - As they get older too you'd ideally not want them to be too far away from loved ones as then the states picking up additional care burdens. This is where the original threshold was ill thought out and more time should have been taken to properly plan any cut and do it in a more sensitive staged approach. Now Reeves is creating another storm for herself by trying to sell that the economy is on a firmer footing and calling 35k as "lower income". I'll await the backlash if she announces cuts tomorrow as she doesn't seem to learn.
I think you make a reasonable argument and agree that a lot of it was ill handled, but I maintain the principle was correct and that was largely lost in the furore. As for 'rich pensioners' or as you paint them, 'poor old folks with a massive house who just want to be near their grandkids,' should people earning 30k a year be having some of their tax to be handed to people who own an asset which is worth more than they will earn in their entire working lives, just so that person can heat their monster home? Shouldn't those pensioners consider the option of downsizing out of their large, family homes and also free up homes for people who actually need the space? Bear in mind here, for every 300 quid given to a millionaire pensioner, that's 300 quid not feeding hungry kids, fighting crime, paying nurses, improving schools, housing boat migrants etc.
There's a lot of elements to that one Moog. From stats I can see 27% of pensioners are millionaires with their assets included - Some of these I presume aren't just asset rich and have cash - so off the bat, yes those ones don't need it. The remaining chunk of the 27% - I can see an argument that there's potentially measures they can take to afford their heating, though a staged cut would probably be fairer - assets aren't always that liquid and if we take the past year with interest rates being higher than the past decade (though these were ridiculously low) if they needed cash urgently this may not have been easy, such as selling their properties. For the remaining 73% who aren't millionaires - This will be unpopular but no, I don't think they should have to sell off their assets to fund inflated utitlity bills. When we work we're paying for our previous generations care, it's been that way for quite some time whether we like it or not. What life are we living if you work hard to buy a property, pay off your mortgage and raise your kids if then in retirement you just have to kiss it all goodbye and start a fresh somewhere? It's only £300 and isn't £K's. The cost of it in the scheme of things is small and there's plenty of areas where cuts/restructures can be made without touching the WFA. I'm not against a reduction to the super wealthy - such as a portion/potentially large chunk of that 27% (these were 2023 figures, if you find some which are more recent/materially different I'm happy to be corrected) but the labour cut was the polar opposite.
This is where I completely disagree with cude and the majority of the population it seems. The idea that not taking money from working people who have the heaviest tax burden, and giving it to pensioners to subsidise heating their home amounts to forcing old people out of their homes is ludicrous. If I retire and can't afford petrol to put in my beloved 1970s V12 Rolls Royce, should I get subsidised petrol? If not am I being forced by the government to sell my car? When people claim that pensioners are asset rich and cash poor because the paper value of the house is meaningless (when in reality comlared to many working parents they are better off in cash, and unfathomably richer asset wise) and therefore need more benefits and less tax, I find those people rarely accept the idea that wealthy people can use equity release deals to make the most of that asset. Again, there's an entitlement mentality that kier Starmer and Rachel reeves are personaly going round taking money from old people. The reality is we tax working people, and borrow money then give it out to pensioners. Who's going to be paying back the debt and interest on the borrowing we take while giving the largest state pension we've ever had out? The working generations of today and the future. Guess who we borrow a large amount of that money from and pay interest on bonds to? "Asset rich" UK pensioners and pension funds.
Agree with the first and last paragraphs. Can't agree with the bit in bold though. Everyone should be encouraged to adapt to their circumstances and, if they're sitting on a windfall, using that should come ahead of state handouts. And I'd say almost everyone who bought a house in the last century is sitting on a massive capital gain they didn't 'earn' in any way and will likely never be repeated again for future generations. Why shouldn't they be incentivised (by push factors if pull factors don't work) to downsize? Plus this isn't just about affording heating. Why not sell up, free up some cash, treat the grandkids, go on a nice holiday, ensure you've got a more manageably sized house for things like cleaning, moving around when you're less mobile? It would also free up larger housing stock for families to use - potentially even cooling house price rises. I also question the point about moving away from loved ones. Can only speak for my own family with any authority but first chance we had my sister and I both moved independently of one another ~70 miles up the road as renting or buying anywhere near Watford was completely unaffordable. My parents still live in Croxley in their ridiculously over-valued semi. It's worth twice my house and is about 2/3rds the size. Bonkers. And obviously because we had to move out of necessity 15yrs ago we're no where nearby now they're getting older and need more support. I know from speaking to friends around my ages we're far from the only family that's got a similar geographic split.
I've highlighted in bold the two points I heavily disagree with. OK you worked your whole life and paid off your mortgage, but does that entitle you to be subsidised by future generations who cannot buy a house, cannot get a mortgage and will not get a state pension until much mater in life, if at all? This money isn't coming out of tax they paid in 1983, it's coming out of tax that working people are paying today. Should those people who are scrimping and scraping just to afford an occasional avocado as a treat, be seeing part of their tax going to comfortable older people in 800k houses who can't be bothered to move house? Also the idea that there are 'plenty of areas to cut' seems wildly inaccurate. After Tory Austerity, where do you think all this supposed fat is? Do you buy the 'inefficiencies' spin from Farage and his new DOGE gimmick? Sack a few DEI officers and pay pensioners what they are worth? Because I don't. Our core services are all underfunded.
For the last century yes, but never ever at the rate of today. Even when we had less pensioners, it was deemed unaffordable to pay this much, there wasn't any money so the triple lock was created to slowly ratchet up year after year... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensions_in_the_United_Kingdom#History Following the passage of the Old Age Pensions Act 1908 a pension of 5/— per week (£0.25, equivalent, using the Consumer Price Index, to £33 in 2023),[2] or 7/6 per week (£0.38, equivalent to £49/week in 2023) for a married couple, was payable to persons with an income below £21 per annum (equivalent to £2800 in 2023); the qualifying age was 70, and the pensions were subject to a means test
Your first point touches on one of UEA's points so will try to give my thoughts on both here. There's a lot where stats don't show us the bigger picture - How many are in 800k - 1m houses? These are predominatley in areas like London? The other differential is pensioners range from very fit and healthy 65 year olds who still look, feel and act like they're in their 40s, to the old poorly 80s and 90s who are house bound. One side of the coin probably focuses more on the younger pensioners, whilst the rest focus on the older ones - Perhaps not linking the WFA to pension age could be a smarter solution - I certainly wouldn't be against that? Some of the older generations from personal experience have lived where they are for 40/50 years - Moving wouldn't even cross their minds as its where and what they've always known and are comfortable. Older generations also have a very different mindset, and it's something I think the government should look more into from educational purposes for future pensioners - personal finance. Widely in the UK our personal finance knowledge is shocking compared to other countries. The older generations i've spoken to have a mindset that investments were high risk, and this was largely due to them growing up in higher interest rate environments where there was a return on savings for a much lower risk - nowadays properties are more widely viewed as investments as opposed to just a home. If people were more widely educated on personal finance they may actually look into where assets can enhance their lifes through cash, but this isn't widely understood as growing up through their adult lives was a very different environment. However with this in mind it shouldn't be forced upon them in my opinion - it should be a choice (And UEA makes a very good point that in some scenarios it could enhance the quality of family life). The amount paid isn't substantial and for those who are in the most dire need it could even put a heavier burden on our public services if they did struggle to heat their home, or even if times got tough from a mental health perspective. The £300 saved certainly wouldn't help with supporting our younger generation getting on the ladder as it wouldn't move the dial. To fully help our younger generation get onto the ladder much bolder reforms are needed in this country as its getting more challenging each year. To UEA's point about moving away, we'll disagree on this due to our personal experiences, but parents nearby who are retired and can help with childcare of their grandchildren are extremely valuable. Nursery fees are through the roof and this often means that one parent can't work which makes the financial challenge even harder. If the pensioners are forced to move away there's circumstances where more of the younger generations will face tougher challenges will childcare and future prospects, especially for those on the lower end of the payscale. To your point Moog on Farage and DOGE - I think if you gave me £1m I couldn't name a pledge Farage has said - Could probably guess a couple but that'll be me getting lucky. I was actually thinking more along the lines of reducing the 20k ISA allowance (How many regular people can save £20k annually after all expenses are paid? I certainly don't get near that) and strengthening rules on what's deemed a UK Non Resident for tax - something more similar to the US system would be beneficial where if you're a UK Citizen you pay some form of tax. These aren't huge changes, but would bring in more than WFA cut. No idea if this is "DOGE" or Farage's pledge.
I'm against wealth taxation for many reasons. If you disinventivise working hard and saving then people stop working and you get no tax from wealth, or income and people can't support themselves when they get to old age. If excesive wealth has been generated then it's a failure of taxation policy on the income used to generate it. Also wealth taxation takes no account of liquidity, the ability to pay or whether the accumulation was through prudence or not. It's a blunt instrument that is inherently unfair. I also don't think the primary family home should be considered as an asset. It was purchased from already taxed income, was taxed at time of purchase and taxed whilst being lived in. The fact that it's perceived value has possibly rocketed is down to poor government policy over decades. If you sell the family residence then it's likely you'll have to purchase a smiliar or improved replacement which has likely also escallated in price, so you've not actually made financial gain. Conversely as house prices increase the gaps between say a semi and a detached have increased so you end up paying more. We need to reduce investing in property for profitt but we also need to make it easier and cheaper for people to rent out low cost/value housing whilst also increasing the stock available. If you want to incentivise downsizing to help jog the market along then one thing that can be done is to abolish stamp duty for the primary family residence, increase stamp duty on multiple homes but offer tax refunds to those that rent out on an affordable basis. Say 10% discout on the initial stamp duty every year the property is rented out as long as it done so at an afordable rent. It's far better to help the market improve, rather than tax the market and spend the tax receipts on trying to help the market. The inherent inefficiences and loopholes that the super rich use mean it's a more expensive way to solve the problems. The whole tax system probably needs reworking from the ground up. Decades of tinkering have made it bloated, inefficient and complicated and when you can earn more money advising how to avoid it than in administering the collection, it'll never collect as much as it should.
It is good to see the wealthier pensioners and right wing channels were so upset the winter fuel payment was cut for the poorest. Given their concern they should have no complaint of a wealth tax on their assets to fund it, along with the triple lock.
All assets over £1m charged at 1%. They have nowhere to go they voted for Brexit and are Islamophobes so won’t go to Dubai. The US charges the British 21% for repatriation of profits from US firms to the UK so they will be caught on death anyway.
Nobody is going to “work less hard” for a 1% wealth tax as nobody is going to forgo £100,000 for £1,000 it would be irrational. The same reason Goldman Sachs still has more applicants than places with a 45% income tax.
