Winter fuel allowance - cuts ahead?
Discussion
Seems very likely that this allowance will be targeted for cuts, already noises creating the softening process. My guess will be the use of income in determining who will/will not be receiving the allowance.
If Government use means testing too many people who NEED the allowance will fall through the net. If an arbitrary method is used (as child benefits)people on the border lines will gripe. They could let the allowance wither on the vine but then the needy will suffer.
Interesting times ahead, again.
If Government use means testing too many people who NEED the allowance will fall through the net. If an arbitrary method is used (as child benefits)people on the border lines will gripe. They could let the allowance wither on the vine but then the needy will suffer.
Interesting times ahead, again.
crankedup said:
Seems very likely that this allowance will be targeted for cuts, already noises creating the softening process. My guess will be the use of income in determining who will/will not be receiving the allowance.
If Government use means testing too many people who NEED the allowance will fall through the net. If an arbitrary method is used (as child benefits)people on the border lines will gripe. They could let the allowance wither on the vine but then the needy will suffer.
Interesting times ahead, again.
Indeed. So how would you go about it if you were in the Governments shoes? If Government use means testing too many people who NEED the allowance will fall through the net. If an arbitrary method is used (as child benefits)people on the border lines will gripe. They could let the allowance wither on the vine but then the needy will suffer.
Interesting times ahead, again.
Is it really worth the hassle (politically)?
Tinkering with it is expected to save around £1.5 billion (half the cost of the current scheme) which is hardly a massive chunk of our total deficit.
Would the Tories really be stupid enough to risk pissing off some of their core voters 'just' for £1.5b/year? If they were looking at savings and had any sense then they'd chop this off the £12b overseas aid budget instead.
Tinkering with it is expected to save around £1.5 billion (half the cost of the current scheme) which is hardly a massive chunk of our total deficit.
Would the Tories really be stupid enough to risk pissing off some of their core voters 'just' for £1.5b/year? If they were looking at savings and had any sense then they'd chop this off the £12b overseas aid budget instead.
Edited by Victor McDade on Monday 7th January 13:53
Not sure I'd agree with you about interesting times ahead, I find it rather sad that as the country teeters on the brink of financial collapse everyone's first response is a NIMBYesque scrabble to protect their own little state handouts.
Scrap it all at once. Or we will just end up with an even more absurdly complex web of taxes and benefits to fight over.
Scrap it all at once. Or we will just end up with an even more absurdly complex web of taxes and benefits to fight over.
No doubt a hugely complicated means tested way of implementing this will be used and the cost of administering this will negate any savings and will only end up pissing off the one section of society who always vote.
Either do away with it completely or leave it alone. Any middle ground is a waste of time.
Either do away with it completely or leave it alone. Any middle ground is a waste of time.
At the very least they should only be paying it to those with UK addresses receeiving the State pension.
My dad gets his winter fuel allowance - you don't apply for it they just give it to you - he works and his employer pays his utility bills. As a consequence he gives it to charity.
In my view he shouldn't receive it at all no matter what he actually does with it.
My dad gets his winter fuel allowance - you don't apply for it they just give it to you - he works and his employer pays his utility bills. As a consequence he gives it to charity.
In my view he shouldn't receive it at all no matter what he actually does with it.
markh1973 said:
My dad gets his winter fuel allowance - you don't apply for it they just give it to you - he works and his employer pays his utility bills. As a consequence he gives it to charity.
That's very typical of the Brown handouts.I'd scrap it but replace it with something which requires many hurdles to obtain - it would at least deter those who don't live in the UK. This would look better from a PR point of view.
Victor McDade said:
Is it really worth the hassle (politically)?
Tinkering with it is expected to save around £1.5 billion (half the cost of the current scheme) which is hardly a massive chunk of our total deficit.
Would the Tories really be stupid enough to risk pissing off some of their core voters 'just' for £1.5b/year? If they were looking at savings and had any sense then they'd chop this off the £12b overseas aid budget instead.
This is the sort of rubbish that everyone puts out whenever a cost saving initiative is put forward.Tinkering with it is expected to save around £1.5 billion (half the cost of the current scheme) which is hardly a massive chunk of our total deficit.
Would the Tories really be stupid enough to risk pissing off some of their core voters 'just' for £1.5b/year? If they were looking at savings and had any sense then they'd chop this off the £12b overseas aid budget instead.
There is no magic button that can be pressed. The solution will be lots and lots of little initiatives that together solve the problem.
They need to get on with it.
AJS- said:
Not sure I'd agree with you about interesting times ahead, I find it rather sad that as the country teeters on the brink of financial collapse everyone's first response is a NIMBYesque scrabble to protect their own little state handouts.
Scrap it all at once. Or we will just end up with an even more absurdly complex web of taxes and benefits to fight over.
And the unfortunate ones who choose to turn the heating off to save money to avoid being evicted and hence die are just 'collateral damage' in the quest to reduce the deficit.Scrap it all at once. Or we will just end up with an even more absurdly complex web of taxes and benefits to fight over.
Meanwhile the thugs on the sink estate will continue to claim all and sundry benefits whilst dealing weed and nicking hard-earned stuff from the likes of you an I.
oyster said:
And the unfortunate ones who choose to turn the heating off to save money to avoid being evicted and hence die are just 'collateral damage' in the quest to reduce the deficit.
Meanwhile the thugs on the sink estate will continue to claim all and sundry benefits whilst dealing weed and nicking hard-earned stuff from the likes of you an I.
But the guy who through a bit of bad luck or an error of judgement can keep a roof over his family's head until he gets back on his feet, by virtue of the same benefit. Far from perfect and I really do wish they would cut more things more drastically and much faster, but anything is better than nothing and if every cut is averted because someone might lose out then where do we find the cuts necessary? Meanwhile the thugs on the sink estate will continue to claim all and sundry benefits whilst dealing weed and nicking hard-earned stuff from the likes of you an I.
And yes I know it's easy to say feckless wasters and unnecessary bureaucracy, but once you start trying to define those and put rules in place to classify the deserving and undeserving you end up with this. Everyone in receipt of government money is a feckless waster in someone's eyes, but no one would really describe themselves as that. Just as no government in my lifetime has got elected on a platform of more benefits to scroungers and more needless bureaucracy yet the increase in both over those 35 years is simply staggering.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff