|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 21, 2024 22:45:08 GMT
Who do you define “in real fuel poverty” Those who are on meager private pensions and can't afford to heat their homes due to unbelievably high utility prices? So are you arguing that pension credit is not set at a high enough level? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2024 22:48:01 GMT
The crucial fact is how we determine need, and limit handouts to those who need them. And it is a fact that most working people have much higher costs than pensioners, having not yet paid off their mortgages and in many cases not gained access to lower rent social housing either. Many will also be parents of school age or younger children. So the average pensioner needs less than the average working person, though there will of course be exceptions.
We are paying out a lot in welfare and we cannot justify paying this to those who don't actually need it of any age. And when it comes to getting what you are entitled to, poor pensioners just like the rest of us need to take some responsibility and look into what they are entitled to rather than pleading poverty whilst not doing so. And there are plenty of charities like Age Concern who are more than willing to help pensioners who find this difficult. There really is no excuse. Another thing we should do is scrap free prescriptions for better off pensioners, better off pregnant women, or people with certain medical conditions who have the resources to pay charges. I am on a low income and get free prescriptions, but I only get them because I am a recipient of diabetes meds which entitles me to a medical exemption from charges. But the ludicrous thing is that if I won the lottery and had millions, I would still get free prescriptions even though I could then easily pay for them.
Any form of welfare support ought to be targeted at those who need it and withdrawn from those who dont.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2024 22:51:31 GMT
Those who are on meager private pensions and can't afford to heat their homes due to unbelievably high utility prices? So are you arguing that pension credit is not set at a high enough level? It is at a much more generous level than universal credit is for working age people already. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 21, 2024 23:03:30 GMT
I tend to agree with you Mr Benn.
The only exception I would make is where the cost of administering means testing is so high that the saving compared to universal is minimal or negative. That might be the case with prescriptions - I don’t know.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,702
|
Post by Steve on Aug 21, 2024 23:43:27 GMT
. . Another thing we should do is scrap free prescriptions for better off pensioners, better off pregnant women, or people with certain medical conditions who have the resources to pay charges. . . That would not only be to further betray the 'free at point of service' promise of the NHS but to introduce another half hidden income tax and worse only to levy that tax on the sick. In effect a tax on illness. Count me out of that idea. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2024 0:01:21 GMT
. . Another thing we should do is scrap free prescriptions for better off pensioners, better off pregnant women, or people with certain medical conditions who have the resources to pay charges. . . That would not only be to further betray the 'free at point of service' promise of the NHS but to introduce another half hidden income tax and worse only to levy that tax on the sick. In effect a tax on illness. Count me out of that idea. That promise was betrayed decades ago. So we either abolish such charges for all - which begs the question of how is that to be funded - or we exempt only the poor. For those needing lots of meds we could cap how much they have to pay in total. I think we have to rein back the welfare bill, and the place to start are those who dont need it. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,702
|
Post by Steve on Aug 22, 2024 0:18:46 GMT
If something is wrong is no excuse to say it's OK to make it wronger.
Scotland has free prescriptions.
If you want to tax better off people more then just be honest about it and see if that's an electable proposition but hidden taxes on the sick is just sick.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2024 4:10:24 GMT
Those who are on meager private pensions and can't afford to heat their homes due to unbelievably high utility prices? So are you arguing that pension credit is not set at a high enough level? See comparison chart to rest of Europe |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2024 4:15:01 GMT
The crucial fact is how we determine need, and limit handouts to those who need them. And it is a fact that most working people have much higher costs than pensioners, having not yet paid off their mortgages and in many cases not gained access to lower rent social housing either. Many will also be parents of school age or younger children. So the average pensioner needs less than the average working person, though there will of course be exceptions. We are paying out a lot in welfare and we cannot justify paying this to those who don't actually need it of any age. And when it comes to getting what you are entitled to, poor pensioners just like the rest of us need to take some responsibility and look into what they are entitled to rather than pleading poverty whilst not doing so. And there are plenty of charities like Age Concern who are more than willing to help pensioners who find this difficult. There really is no excuse. Another thing we should do is scrap free prescriptions for better off pensioners, better off pregnant women, or people with certain medical conditions who have the resources to pay charges. I am on a low income and get free prescriptions, but I only get them because I am a recipient of diabetes meds which entitles me to a medical exemption from charges. But the ludicrous thing is that if I won the lottery and had millions, I would still get free prescriptions even though I could then easily pay for them. Any form of welfare support ought to be targeted at those who need it and withdrawn from those who dont. Hi srb (I assume that's you), I half accept what you're saying on principle but I find it rather Tory-like thinking to suggest that because others are slightly better off things should be withdrawn from them espec when it comes to pensioners (Unless we're talking over 50K per year or something like that), that's the politics of spite in my opinion, which is ironic as pensioners overwhelmingly voted Tories despite them attacking pensioners non stop In principle, withdrawing free prescriptions and other things on the NHS for those who are rich makes financial sense, but also makes the 'at the point of need' thing look a bit skewed as you're paying NI to fund the NHS and having to pay again to use it if you're too rich - so they'll just say why should we fund it at all when we could have private healthcare? |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 22, 2024 6:56:30 GMT
So are you arguing that pension credit is not set at a high enough level? See comparison chart to rest of Europe So if I understand you right, we have moved away from saying winter fuel allowance should be universal but now appear to be arguing that the state pension (topped up where necessary by pension credit) should be significantly higher. State pension is a major cost of government. How would you pay for the state giving more money to old people - often financially secure old people. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2024 6:59:38 GMT
See comparison chart to rest of Europe So if I understand you right, we have moved away from saying winter fuel allowance should be universal but now appear to be arguing that the state pension (topped up where necessary by pension credit) should be significantly higher. State pension is a major cost of government. How would you pay for the state giving more money to old people - often financially secure old people. No, once again you are just insisting I'm saying something I'm not, it's rather tiresome to be misrepresented in every post, I remember this problem on PoFo UK in debates with old Grasshopper as well.. I never said that the WFA should be universal in any post, where did I state that please? Do you see how it's tiresome when you just make things up.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2024 7:02:38 GMT
Start with all those women that didn't pay any NI while in work relying instead on the husbands contributions to get them a minimum pension And you have hard stats for this? It's just common sense has the Esther McVey ring to it, I don't advise it as a debate strategy |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 22, 2024 7:14:59 GMT
So if I understand you right, we have moved away from saying winter fuel allowance should be universal but now appear to be arguing that the state pension (topped up where necessary by pension credit) should be significantly higher. State pension is a major cost of government. How would you pay for the state giving more money to old people - often financially secure old people. No, once again you are just insisting I'm saying something I'm not, it's rather tiresome to be misrepresented in every post, I remember this problem on PoFo UK in debates with old Grasshopper as well.. I never said that the WFA should be universal in any post, where did I state that please? Do you see how it's tiresome when you just make things up.. As I understood your position in this whole thread, you were critical of Labour’s decision to move winter fuel allowance away from being a universal benefit for those over state pension age towards making it a need based benefit for those old people on very low incomes (defined as those receiving pension credit). You seem to have moved away from that position but it may be that was never your position after all. Perhaps it would help the debate if you stated exactly what you are arguing for. What should state pension be Should there be a minimum income guaranteed by the state for people over retirement age (pension credit) Should there be another state benefit (WFA) for all or some older people. How much and precisely how would you define eligibility. If you are changing from the system now in place (after Reeves changes) how would you fund it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2024 7:29:42 GMT
If you read my posts, I very clearly stated that it should be reformed but there should be provisions for those who don't get state benefits, it was an agreement with ACH as I recall. Not sure why they can't just means test and see who's in real fuel poverty and who isn't and whom needs it? It's not completely easy but it's doable, they do similar things with other benefits? There should be a minimum income for those over retirement age. There should be a targeted state benefit for some older people, the amounts should vary based on need and eligibility and should be strictly means-tested, I'm not against that at all The system would likely cost less than the current system (prior to Reeve's abolishing it) costed, so there's no need for extra funding. As far as I've read, means testing and administration on average can add as little as 2% to the program cost Look at this from Age UK and tell me which part is wrong? www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/30/what-are-winter-fuel-payments-and-who-will-lose-and-keep-themHowever, charities say the cuts go too far: Age UK said that 2 million people who need the payments will no longer get them. Almost half qualify for pension credit but do not claim it and about half have weekly incomes that are less than £50 a week above the poverty line – they do not qualify for extra benefits but do rely on the payments. Another group is made up of those who are unwell or live in badly insulated homes and need the heating on high.
These people could die without this Why can't the govt show the compassion it said it would as opposed to the Tories' callousness and just alter the system a little bit to help the 2 million people who might die without it? Yes, people will die if they can't heat their homes in the winter in England, that's not scaremongering it's true, already enough people die each winter there |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 22, 2024 8:09:47 GMT
There currently are three main state benefits for old people.
The state pension is a universal benefit payable to all old people regardless of private income and assets subject only to a minimum years previously worked criterion. It amounts to £221 per week.
There is in addition a further state benefit payable to anyone who for whatever reason does not qualify for the full state pension and has limited other sources of income. That tops up minimum income to £215 per week. This is called pension credit.
There used to be a third benefit payable to all of £4 per week (£6 per week if over 80). This has now been moved from a universal benefit to a means tested benefit with the means tested criteria being set at the pension credit level.
Are you arguing for any changes to state pension or pension credit. If so specifically what and how should those changes be funded.
You now seem to be arguing that the means testing threshold for the WFA benefit should be set at a higher level than the pension credit level. You seem reluctant though to say at what level that threshhold should be set for this benefit. Could you clarify exactly what eligibility criteria you would set for this benefit and assuming higher than pension credit how this extra cost would be funded.
|
|
