|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 20:36:32 GMT
How do you know they don't need it? You don't. If you are wrong though, people could die. The Winter Fuel Allowance has been in place for something like 22 years. Sprnding 1.5 billion 'distorts the economy', yet you are happy that the government has just committed approx. 11 billion in public sector pay rises and given Ed Milliband 11,2 billion to give to African countries for their Net Zero projects? They don't. The growth in pension pay is greater than the £300 pa fuel allowance And this 'growth' in the pension just covers inflation/rising costs. You are trying to defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 20:40:55 GMT
I think there is a lot of faux outrage about the winter fuel allowance. A lot. If a party other than Labour had proposed it as part of their spending plans, and the need to cut back on universal benefits, we wouldn't have heard a peep from the usual suspects. I would say it doesn't play well in the country and with Labour's core support, and I'm surprised they did it so quickly. But it's done, and the principle of scrapping an expensive and unnecessary handout to people who don't need it is correct. Those who need it most will still get it. Talk of people dying because of it is sensationalist and a bit disgraceful. It is Labour's own report that says 4,000 people would die if the WFA was withdrawn. Sensationalist and a bit disgraceful? I do not think there is faux outrage at all.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,512
|
Post by oldie on Sept 11, 2024 20:51:28 GMT
They don't. The growth in pension pay is greater than the £300 pa fuel allowance And this 'growth' in the pension just covers inflation/rising costs. You are trying to defend the indefensible. Au contraire. "The increase for 2024/2025 is the second bumper increase in a row for the state pension: it increased by 10.1% in 2023–2024 when the triple lock followed the high inflation rate of 10.1% of September 2022." Labour has been lambasted for settling the rail disputes over pay and conditions. When in fact pay increase was "4.75% for 2023-2024, and 4.5% for 2024-2025." Pensions will rise by 4% next April after this 10.1% this year. No, we cannot afford to hand out untested universal benefits like £300 winter fuel allowance for all over 65.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 21:13:19 GMT
And this 'growth' in the pension just covers inflation/rising costs. You are trying to defend the indefensible. Au contraire. "The increase for 2024/2025 is the second bumper increase in a row for the state pension: it increased by 10.1% in 2023–2024 when the triple lock followed the high inflation rate of 10.1% of September 2022." Labour has been lambasted for settling the rail disputes over pay and conditions. When in fact pay increase was "4.75% for 2023-2024, and 4.5% for 2024-2025." Pensions will rise by 4% next April after this 10.1% this year. No, we cannot afford to hand out untested universal benefits like £300 winter fuel allowance for all over 65. But we can afford to spend 11+ billion on public sector pay rises (and will rise), and we can afford to give 11.2 billion to African countries to help them with Net Zero.........but we cannot afford 1.5 billion to help our own OAP's. Sorry, but it's a disgrace no matter how you try to dress it up. The speed at which Labour cut it indicates that this was planned before the election. It was the very first economic decision they made. Shall we re-link the videos of Starmer telling us that OAP's sit in the Library all day as they cannot afford to heat their homes? Shall we re-link the videos of Starmer telling us how he had met with OAP's who couldn't afford to keep warm in winter? Shall we re-link the videos of Starmer telling us that old people travel on buses all day top keep warm? Shall we ? Shall we re-link Labour's own report that says that cutting the WFA will result in an extra 4,000 deaths in the Winter? Don't try to deny it, this was their very own report on the WFA! The simple solution would be to cut the Overseas Aid Budget by 1.5 billion to pay for it. Same old Labour, same old policies, same old result. No Labour government, ever, has left office with unemployment lower than when they took office. That is not my opinion but fact. Labour have shot themselves in the foot with this policy decision, and it will continue to haunt them up to the next GE.
|
|
|
Post by lostinspace on Sept 11, 2024 21:14:56 GMT
Asking for a friend..do the MP's still qualify for heating allowance for their living accommodation out of the 'family' home,
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,512
|
Post by oldie on Sept 11, 2024 21:18:02 GMT
Asking for a friend..do the MP's still qualify for heating allowance for their living accommodation out of the 'family' home, No idea
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,512
|
Post by oldie on Sept 11, 2024 21:22:03 GMT
Au contraire. "The increase for 2024/2025 is the second bumper increase in a row for the state pension: it increased by 10.1% in 2023–2024 when the triple lock followed the high inflation rate of 10.1% of September 2022." Labour has been lambasted for settling the rail disputes over pay and conditions. When in fact pay increase was "4.75% for 2023-2024, and 4.5% for 2024-2025." Pensions will rise by 4% next April after this 10.1% this year. No, we cannot afford to hand out untested universal benefits like £300 winter fuel allowance for all over 65. But we can afford to spend 11+ billion on public sector pay rises, and we can afford to give 11.2 billion to African countries to help them with Net Zero.........but we cannot afford 1.5 billion to help our own OAP's. Sorry, but it's a disgrace no matter how you try to dress it up. The speed at which Labour cut it indicates that this was planned before the election. The simple solution would be to cut the Overseas Aid Budget by 1.5 billion to pay for it. You cannot expect the public sector workforce to accept real income levels to remain static (excluding energy costs) whilst all pensioners get 10% + 4% plus £300 contribution. All the other costs you mention are another debate.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 21:23:36 GMT
Asking for a friend..do the MP's still qualify for heating allowance for their living accommodation out of the 'family' home, No idea Yes they do.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 21:32:10 GMT
But we can afford to spend 11+ billion on public sector pay rises, and we can afford to give 11.2 billion to African countries to help them with Net Zero.........but we cannot afford 1.5 billion to help our own OAP's. Sorry, but it's a disgrace no matter how you try to dress it up. The speed at which Labour cut it indicates that this was planned before the election. The simple solution would be to cut the Overseas Aid Budget by 1.5 billion to pay for it. You cannot expect the public sector workforce to accept real income levels to remain static (excluding energy costs) whilst all pensioners get 10% + 4% plus £300 contribution. All the other costs you mention are another debate. Their income levels have not remained static ! Where do you get these sixth form ideas from? The other costs are not another debate. You sit here defending the policy as "we cannot afford it". OK, then justify giving 11+ billion to African countries to pursue Net Zero as good economic policy!
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 606
|
Post by aghast on Sept 11, 2024 22:03:26 GMT
I think there is a lot of faux outrage about the winter fuel allowance. A lot. If a party other than Labour had proposed it as part of their spending plans, and the need to cut back on universal benefits, we wouldn't have heard a peep from the usual suspects. I would say it doesn't play well in the country and with Labour's core support, and I'm surprised they did it so quickly. But it's done, and the principle of scrapping an expensive and unnecessary handout to people who don't need it is correct. Those who need it most will still get it. Talk of people dying because of it is sensationalist and a bit disgraceful. It is Labour's own report that says 4,000 people would die if the WFA was withdrawn. Sensationalist and a bit disgraceful? I do not think there is faux outrage at all. The WFA has not been withdrawn. It's been restricted. Labour were talking about the effects of a total withdrawal.
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 606
|
Post by aghast on Sept 11, 2024 22:04:30 GMT
You cannot expect the public sector workforce to accept real income levels to remain static (excluding energy costs) whilst all pensioners get 10% + 4% plus £300 contribution. All the other costs you mention are another debate. Their income levels have not remained static ! Where do you get these sixth form ideas from? The other costs are not another debate. You sit here defending the policy as "we cannot afford it". OK, then justify giving 11+ billion to African countries to pursue Net Zero as good economic policy! Can you tell me where the figure of £11 billion for net zero assistance comes from? It's not a number I'm familiar with.
|
|
baldrick
Joined: July 2024
Posts: 757
Member is Online
|
Post by baldrick on Sept 11, 2024 22:30:38 GMT
Their income levels have not remained static ! Where do you get these sixth form ideas from? The other costs are not another debate. You sit here defending the policy as "we cannot afford it". OK, then justify giving 11+ billion to African countries to pursue Net Zero as good economic policy! Can you tell me where the figure of £11 billion for net zero assistance comes from? It's not a number I'm familiar with. It's a commitment from 2019 following the COP series, spread over 5 years to 2025/26. Boris was keen iirc. icai.independent.gov.uk/uk-climate-finance-commitment-at-risk-as-aid-resources-stretched/
|
|
baldrick
Joined: July 2024
Posts: 757
Member is Online
|
Post by baldrick on Sept 11, 2024 22:33:45 GMT
The thing to bear in mind regarding pension increases and the winter fuel allowance is that the former is spread over the financial year while the latter is not. The strain of the coffers is more immediate.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 23:24:29 GMT
The thing to bear in mind regarding pension increases and the winter fuel allowance is that the former is spread over the financial year while the latter is not. The strain of the coffers is more immediate. It really is quite sad and desperate to hear you all trying to defend this policy.
|
|
baldrick
Joined: July 2024
Posts: 757
Member is Online
|
Post by baldrick on Sept 11, 2024 23:41:45 GMT
The thing to bear in mind regarding pension increases and the winter fuel allowance is that the former is spread over the financial year while the latter is not. The strain of the coffers is more immediate. It really is quite sad and desperate to hear you all trying to defend this policy. I've previously stated I'm not defending it, I'm just pointing something out.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,512
|
Post by oldie on Sept 12, 2024 4:58:13 GMT
You cannot expect the public sector workforce to accept real income levels to remain static (excluding energy costs) whilst all pensioners get 10% + 4% plus £300 contribution. All the other costs you mention are another debate. Their income levels have not remained static ! Where do you get these sixth form ideas from? The other costs are not another debate. You sit here defending the policy as "we cannot afford it". OK, then justify giving 11+ billion to African countries to pursue Net Zero as good economic policy! Perhaps you should have attended a 6th form. You missed the word "net" "Before the financial crash UK real weekly wages grew on average by 1.7% each year. Since 2008, average annual growth has been –0.2%. The UK has one of the worst records among OECD nations for pay growth since the financial crisis.29 Apr 2024"
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 606
|
Post by aghast on Sept 12, 2024 6:11:24 GMT
The thing to bear in mind regarding pension increases and the winter fuel allowance is that the former is spread over the financial year while the latter is not. The strain of the coffers is more immediate. Thanks. So there is no extra money going overseas due to Labour, just the number previously agreed by the last administration.
|
|
baldrick
Joined: July 2024
Posts: 757
Member is Online
|
Post by baldrick on Sept 12, 2024 6:21:44 GMT
The thing to bear in mind regarding pension increases and the winter fuel allowance is that the former is spread over the financial year while the latter is not. The strain of the coffers is more immediate. Thanks. So there is no extra money going overseas due to Labour, just the number previously agreed by the last administration. I think Sunak was looking to reduce it, which would make sense if Miliband is reconfirming the UK's commitment to it.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,512
|
Post by oldie on Sept 12, 2024 6:32:21 GMT
It really is quite sad and desperate to hear you all trying to defend this policy. I've previously stated I'm not defending it, I'm just pointing something out. Everyone has a view, but ultimately some difficult decisions have to be taken. If you award a group, in this case State Pensions, a 10% pay increase in April 24 and commit to a further 4% pay increase in April 25, is it not legitimate to look at a universal benefits paid to all pensioners, regardless of need? Your point about the spread and impact is salient, but not quite right. Everyone I know is on a contract with their utilities supplier so their payments are equalised and spread over 12 months, or length of contract. For example I renewed my contract just very recently and my monthly costs declined (yes went down) by 30%. Should I still get a £300 credit paid for by others? I think not.
|
|
baldrick
Joined: July 2024
Posts: 757
Member is Online
|
Post by baldrick on Sept 12, 2024 7:35:06 GMT
I've previously stated I'm not defending it, I'm just pointing something out. Everyone has a view, but ultimately some difficult decisions have to be taken. If you award a group, in this case State Pensions, a 10% pay increase in April 24 and commit to a further 4% pay increase in April 25, is it not legitimate to look at a universal benefits paid to all pensioners, regardless of need? Your point about the spread and impact is salient, but not quite right. Everyone I know is on a contract with their utilities supplier so their payments are equalised and spread over 12 months, or length of contract. For example I renewed my contract just very recently and my monthly costs declined (yes went down) by 30%. Should I still get a £300 credit paid for by others? I think not. No problem with reviewing costs nor with cutting the winter fuel allowance in principle, I just think that it is too simplistic in terms of how and will catch many out. Out of interest, and referring to the point I made above, how do you receive the payment? Is it a one off or installments?
|
|