Agree. The WFA was implemented incorrectly as everyone was able to claim it. So its going to be removed and replaced by universal credit.
I am a pensioner my total income is substantially below £35000 and i felt the WFA a bit of a bonus rather than a need, i am all for it going to the needy i also think consideration should be given to geography , folk up in the dales suffer winter hardship a damn site more than those down south.
I get what you mean now. It’s just about drawing the line somewhere reasonable that is easy to apply.
Fair enough millions of people don't need it but the cut off point is around £215 a week single and £330 couple. That's low and thing is millions don't claim the benefits they're entitled to . Government technology and computer systems aren't joined up yet here we are doing marvellous things on a mobile phone. Billions invested by the government and not up to scratch. Do they care if you're not claiming ? Doubt it as it's never bothered them before. Big Labour own goal but people forget and next election is 5 years away. Total spend by government is £1.2 trillion a year so any cuts are a drop in the ocean in money terms . Still have a huge budget deficit and national debt. It's been this way for decades. Whole spending needs a rethink but politicians haven't got the bottle to challenge much as they'd get booted out in the next election. Out of that £1.2 trillion all departments could make efficiency savings there's always waste . We all see it at work . In our own homes we all waste money. Why does big business need billions in grants from the government yet it happens .? That's just one idea before we start targeting people themselves . UK Public Spending - Numbers Charts Analysis History
TBH I wont ever vote again, I think all members of all parties are just there to line their own pockets while stroking the rich corporations
The labour party disgust me, talk about the enemy within, I was serious, will never vote again, unless it was a vote to hang all MPs
People are taking too simplified a view of it, by the age thing. As an example, my parents will have it removed. They aren’t arsed. They have 2 large private pensions on top of their state ones and have tens of thousands sat in accounts etc, they aren’t arsed. My school of thought is as some have mentioned on here, it should be easier for folk on low incomes to claim that regardless of age. Factor in older folk have less outgoings as well. They ain’t paying for school uniforms and trainers and clothing for kids, travelling to work and food and drinks whilst they are there etc. It’s too easy to say ‘they attacking pensioners’. The vast majority of those affected have more than enough money than they can spend. The thing that sticks, again, with me, is the solution is right there with the rich and multi billion corporations. They could tax them a tiny % on top and bring in more money quicker. Do both even. Don’t do one. I did vote Labour. I would again if there was an election tomorrow. This is the start of a 5-year cycle. It’s not a great start, but it’s not nearly as dramatic as folk would have you think, when you read between the lines.
My wife and I are pensioners and our income from two state pensions and a workplace pension is more than enough for us to live comfortably on, we should never have received the winter fuel allowance. We never used it as it was intended, it was just savings and I was embarrassed to receive it. I have always felt that support should be directed to people who require it. The problem that I have with removing the payment across the board is that some people just above the benefits threshold will not receive the allowance and endure genuine hardship but someone on a couple of pounds less per annum will receive the allowance and be able to heat their homes. In my opinion the allowance should be tapered and the qualifying threshold staged. Meaning that someone earning a thousand pounds above the threshold will still qualify for the payment but will get a pro rata payment. I wrote to my MP (Labour) before the vote and expressed my concerns and suggested that the payment should be tapered, his reply was generic and obviously designed to fob me off, but he did further respond to my email saying that he had raised my suggestion at a meeting with the Chancellor on Monday evening. I am a Labour voter and will more than likely vote the same way at the next election. I would have been disappointed had Starmer shied away from the difficult decisions he has been faced with since July. The government are being hammered at the moment, they are an easy target simply because they need to make changes that are unpopular, but there are no easy fixes for the economy, sticking plaster economics won’t work this time. As an electorate we voted for change so I will reserve my judgement for when they have had a reasonable opportunity to make a difference.
As long as means testing is done correctly, then I think a lot of benefits should be means tested. Child Benefit isn't, but we don't take it anymore. We don't need it. The problems come when means testing isn't accurate and doesn't take into account personal circumstances. Labour need to learn from the Tories and the whole bedroom tax/universal credit fiasco
I think I was quite clear in that ‘those who need it, should get it’. I used an example of my parents (and Montys point above), that it’s absolutely fine to remove it from some. My parents said same as above ‘just goes in the savings account’. What Labour need to do is correctly find the line and balance based not just on income but on expenditure and means.
The problem is Labour aren’t going to, so what do people do who are going to suffer this winter. What me, you and others want isn’t going to help anyone. So it is as dramatic as what a lot of people think.
Sounds like they'll go after savers and investors according to the media. That's capital gains tax , inheritance tax ? Might even be ISA's and private pensions. ? Let's take the last one for example . Imagine earning £80,000 a year and a higher rate tax payer . To get back to basic rate tax , £50,000 , many pay into pension plans and get 40% tax relief. So pay £30,000 into your pension , get 40% tax relief , at £12,000 a year in tax. Multiply by 30 years that's a fair amount. Not saying it's unfair as that's the rules but some would argue why do you need 40% tax relief when earning a canny salary ? Benefits and tax reliefs are a queer old do. Anything could happen here in the budget .
Sorry you feel this way, hopefully labour will deliver this parliament and give you a flicker of hope for the future.
