Winter fuel allowance gone 🤔

[old man]

4 hours ago, Old Boggy said:

That’s why so many abstained for fear of having the whip withdrawn.

Possibly all sick, in one way or another? 😃

[welsh1]

12 minutes ago, oowee said:

I completely agree. In rural locations transport can be a nightmare. Here for a once a day bus I have to walk 2 miles to catch it. That said we have to tackle climate change and taxing carbon is one way to do it.

Ultimately if people cannot afford the lifestyle that they have then they have to change their lifestyle. I am currently (fingers crossed) moving into town where the bus stop will be almost opposite the house. A far cry from the location I have but recognising where I live is unsustainable. Nice that you can afford to move into a town, and shows you really have no idea of the struggles of places like wales which is manly rural, if i sold my house i would still need a very large chunk of money to afford something half the size of what i have now in a town, and do towns have enough space for all those in rural locations?, it really annoys me when people who have no idea preach to those who are working their posteriers off to stay afloat.

The govt has to raise £20bn. Every service is broken and the economy is in decline. We cannot afford unsustainable benefit payments.Here's a hint don't go giving all their mates huge payrises (9 billion,) if i am skint i don't go out and spend more

 

[harrycatcat1]

31 minutes ago, TOPGUN749 said:

Even the new basic pension of £221.20 a week is too much to get pension credit! You need to have under £218,and not a lot of savings. Someone who deliberately missed some national insurance contributions in their lifetime and getting a reduced state pension is better off now,with the top up and no council tax reduced rent etc than the one on £221.20 a week.

Somehow I'd missed some national insurance contributions before retirement and was encouraged to pay £2k to get them to near full pension. Doing so has left me 2k out of pocket and over the threshold of claiming pension credit, stuffed both ways. If only I'd had a crystal ball 😔 

[old man]

5 minutes ago, harrycatcat1 said:

Somehow I'd missed some national insurance contributions before retirement and was encouraged to pay £2k to get them to near full pension. Doing so has left me 2k out of pocket and over the threshold of claiming pension credit, stuffed both ways. If only I'd had a crystal ball 😔 

Nope. All it proves is they probably pre calculated the likely result of you doing it?

[oowee]

6 minutes ago, TOPGUN749 said:

But somehow we can afford billions to send to foreign countries,or house and feed millions of illegal immigrants? Pay the MP’s £2,000 a week with expenses, ministerial cars,higher income tax and national insurance for the well paid,,the list is endless,but no take away £4 a week from an income of under £230 a week! Marvellous idea…🤣

I hope we have higher tax for the well paid. I hope that we raise the tax threshold for the lower paid that has been held by the past govt. At the same time we have to cut benefits to make them sustainable. The books must balance. 

PS At some point we have to look at pensions. Triple lock is unsustainable. 

[Yellow Bear]

13 minutes ago, oowee said:

At some point we have to look at pensions.

How about reducing the gold plated index linked civil service and MPs' pensions then, it will garner a lot more income without hitting the less well off.  Just removing the index link if before you do it to the poor would be a start.

[welsh1]

25 minutes ago, oowee said:

I hope we have higher tax for the well paid. I hope that we raise the tax threshold for the lower paid that has been held by the past govt. At the same time we have to cut benefits to make them sustainable. The books must balance. 

PS At some point we have to look at pensions. Triple lock is unsustainable. 

The pensions that need looking at are the ones for the public sector, over generous and totally unsustainable, but i suppose if we look at doctors and nurses pensions and the civil service there will be much wailing and hollering.
 

[TOPGUN749]

37 minutes ago, oowee said:

I hope we have higher tax for the well paid. I hope that we raise the tax threshold for the lower paid that has been held by the past govt. At the same time we have to cut benefits to make them sustainable. The books must balance. 

PS At some point we have to look at pensions. Triple lock is unsustainable. 

We have some of the lowest pensions in Europe,and you want to make it lower than the cost of living? So 1% a year increase on £221 a week is adequate for you? Why do people like you always start their cuts at the lower end,never those on £2,000 a week or more? The last government cut National insurance,giving an extra £1,500 a year to the wealthy on £50,000, now this one takes away £200 a year from pensioners on £11,600. Unbelievable..

9 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

The pensions that need looking at are the ones for the public sector, over generous and totally unsustainable, but i suppose if we look at doctors and nurses pensions and the civil service there will be much wailing and hollering.
 

Agreed again, civil servants and health workers get huge percentage put in their pension pot all part of the black hole. Unless every worker gets the same and full sick pay and extra holidays then they should have just the basic too!

Edited September 11 by TOPGUN749

[TOPGUN749]

56 minutes ago, harrycatcat1 said:

Somehow I'd missed some national insurance contributions before retirement and was encouraged to pay £2k to get them to near full pension. Doing so has left me 2k out of pocket and over the threshold of claiming pension credit, stuffed both ways. If only I'd had a crystal ball 😔 

Yes that was a waste of £2,000,and now you have the full pension you can’t get a top up,and free council tax,and you will pay 20% tax possibly too! Really conned there! 

[oowee]

16 minutes ago, TOPGUN749 said:

We have some of the lowest pensions in Europe,and you want to make it lower than the cost of living? So 1% a year increase on £221 a week is adequate for you? Why do people like you always start their cuts at the lower end,never those on £2,000 a week or more? The last government cut National insurance,giving an extra £1,500 a year to the wealthy on £50,000, now this one takes away £200 a year from pensioners on £11,600. Unbelievable..

Agreed again, civil servants and health workers get huge percentage put in their pension pot all part of the black hole. Unless every worker gets the same and full sick pay and extra holidays then they should have just the basic too!

Who mentioned cuts? I said the tripple lock is unsustainable. It was a mechanism to bring pensions to a better level. It cannot continue at some point we will need a different metric. 

[TOPGUN749]

Just now, oowee said:

Who mentioned cuts? I said the tripple lock is unsustainable. It was a mechanism to bring pensions to a better level. It cannot continue at some point we will need a different metric. 

The cuts started yesterday with the long standing winter fuel payments!,and we need something better than the triple lock to raise the pathetic low state pension,something like 10% a year until it reaches somewhere near the minimum wage! You still haven’t said if you could live on the £221.20 a week,maybe you get more than double that yet think the state pension is high enough?

[oowee]

Just now, TOPGUN749 said:

The cuts started yesterday with the long standing winter fuel payments!,and we need something better than the triple lock to raise the pathetic low state pension,something like 10% a year until it reaches somewhere near the minimum wage! You still haven’t said if you could live on the £221.20 a week,maybe you get more than double that yet think the state pension is high enough?

We simply cannot afford to keep increasing benefits. The more we pay in benefits the less people work, the less they save and the more dependent they become on the teat of the state. 

[TOPGUN749]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

We simply cannot afford to keep increasing benefits. The more we pay in benefits the less people work, the less they save and the more dependent they become on the teat of the state. 

So you want us pensioners to keep on working then? (It’s pensions we are talking about not general unemployment benefits).In heavy manual jobs? Taking jobs from younger ones who need them? What employers are going to employ a 70+ man who isn’t as strong as a younger man? Get real, it’s as ridiculous as the politicians’ logic.

[welsh1]

18 minutes ago, oowee said:

Who mentioned cuts? I said the tripple lock is unsustainable. It was a mechanism to bring pensions to a better level. It cannot continue at some point we will need a different metric. 

From where i am sitting pensioners aren't exactly being given a good deal, unless you consider the pittance they have as a pension acceptable, isn't it about half what is considered a living wage? our pensioners don't get a good deal, and sadly there are many in society who think they are all well off or hiding lots of money, where the reality is they are just on the side of surviving.

One day we will all be old and may have lots of the same problems pensioners of today have, let's hope we as future oap's don't have to make the choice between heating our home or eating.

What a crass society we live in.

[oowee]

6 minutes ago, TOPGUN749 said:

So you want us pensioners to keep on working then? (It’s pensions we are talking about not general unemployment benefits).In heavy manual jobs? Taking jobs from younger ones who need them? What employers are going to employ a 70+ man who isn’t as strong as a younger man? Get real, it’s as ridiculous as the politicians’ logic.

If you earn x and are happy with it knowing you don't need more for your pension because state pension is y then the pension payment is not encouraging more work. If however the payment is less than the y you need then you will work harder, save more get another job. Simples. Its another benefit not an entitlement. 

[TOPGUN749]

5 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

From where i am sitting pensioners aren't exactly being given a good deal, unless you consider the pittance they have as a pension acceptable, isn't it about half what is considered a living wage? our pensioners don't get a good deal, and sadly there are many in society who think they are all well off or hiding lots of money, where the reality is they are just on the side of surviving.

One day we will all be old and may have lots of the same problems pensioners of today have, let's hope we as future oap's don't have to make the choice between heating our home or eating.

What a crass society we live in.

A person working 40 hours at just £11.50 an hour takes home about £400 a week,take off possible travel costs and it’s a lot more than the state pension,and each year the increase is more too! Minimum wage has risen £108 a week in the past 4 years,while the pension has risen £46!

[oowee]

13 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

From where i am sitting pensioners aren't exactly being given a good deal, unless you consider the pittance they have as a pension acceptable, isn't it about half what is considered a living wage? our pensioners don't get a good deal, and sadly there are many in society who think they are all well off or hiding lots of money, where the reality is they are just on the side of surviving.

One day we will all be old and may have lots of the same problems pensioners of today have, let's hope we as future oap's don't have to make the choice between heating our home or eating.

What a crass society we live in.

Totally agree. The answer though is not in increasing state pension as that only encourages less work. We must push for personal pensions so when retirement comes you get the very minimal subsistence (not sure that's the right word) state pension enhanced by the personal pension plan you saved for. 

I appreciate that for many pensioners private pension was not an option so we would need some tapering system for those older pensioners. Although I am not sure how that works. My mum 86 earned extra pension working in a shop years ago.

Edited September 11 by oowee

[welsh1]

11 minutes ago, oowee said:

Totally agree. The answer though is not in increasing state pension as that only encourages less work. We must push for personal pensions so when retirement comes you get the very minimal subsistence (not sure that's the right word) state pension enhanced by the personal pension plan you saved for. 

I appreciate that for many pensioners private pension was not an option so we would need some tapering system for those older pensioners.

What world do you live in? people who only have state pensions tend to be those who have worked most of their lives in lower paid jobs,and if they had to save for their own pension would literally starve. If the government want people to only have private pensions then the taxation system should be adjusted giving those people more money in their pockets to save, but i doubt our glorious leaders could manage without all those little pennies we as the tax payer have to hand over to them. 
How about sorting the massive public pension problem first then all the huge wastage in government departments and when that is sorted i am sure there would be quite a bit of money washing around.

Why pick on the most vulnerable in society first? do you think that is the right way ?

Pensioners now get a literal " very minimal subsistence"

[oowee]

3 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

What world do you live in? people who only have state pensions tend to be those who have worked most of their lives in lower paid jobs,and if they had to save for their own pension would literally starve. If the government want people to only have private pensions then the taxation system should be adjusted giving those people more money in their pockets to save, but i doubt our glorious leaders could manage without all those little pennies we as the tax payer have to hand over to them. 
How about sorting the massive public pension problem first them all the huge wastage in government departments and when that is sorted i am sure there would be quite a bit of money washing around.

Why pick on the most vulnerable in society first? do you think that is the right way ?

Pensioners nmow get a literal " very minimal subsistence"

The pension is a benefit. It must be set at a level that is affordable. It should also be set at a level that encourages work, the same as all other benefits. If someone works all their lives in a minimal paid job then they should get the basic state pension. 

Those that work hardest in the best paid jobs will to some degree have to carry those that depend on benefits. There is a limit. The more you tax the less work becomes worthwhile. 

 

[oldypigeonpopper]

2 hours ago, TOPGUN749 said:

But somehow we can afford billions to send to foreign countries,or house and feed millions of illegal immigrants? Pay the MP’s £2,000 a week with expenses, ministerial cars,higher income tax and national insurance for the well paid,,the list is endless,but no take away £4 a week from an income of under £230 a week! Marvellous idea…🤣

Hello, Also on todays news, MPs get a heating allowance £££££££SSSSSSSS

[Yellow Bear]

51 minutes ago, oowee said:

If you earn x and are happy with it knowing you don't need more for your pension because state pension is y then the pension payment is not encouraging more work. If however the payment is less than the y you need then you will work harder, save more get another job. Simples. Its another benefit not an entitlement. 

Then you take out a private pension, that grows well --- and along comes a "socialist" government and decides you have too much and Taxes steals a substantial percentage of it (then has the afront to complain people are not saving enough for their old age).  25 years later the next "socialist" government comes along and threatens to do the same again, and hits the state pension,  to pay inflation busting wage rises to state employees or those on generous inflation linked public service pensions. Talk about two faced.

[TOPGUN749]

10 minutes ago, oowee said:

55 minutes ago, oowee said:

Totally agree. The answer though is not in increasing state pension as that only encourages less work. We must push for personal pensions so when retirement comes you get the very minimal subsistence (not sure that's the right word) state pension enhanced by the personal pension plan you saved for. 

I appreciate that for many pensioners private pension was not an option so we would need some tapering system for those older pensioners. Although I am not sure how that works. My mum 86 earned extra pension working in a shop years ago.

Why would anyone in their right mind voluntarily pay into a personal pension scheme for many years? when at 66 you can’t get any allowances because of it,and to make it worse they tax you on it too! If anyone has any spare disposable income much better to invest in gold coins etc or antiques,then sell them in old age when needed,they don’t count as savings,there’s no tax taken on any gains.Could still qualify for pension credit etc,much better than a pension or cash in bank,and being penalised and taxed at 20%.

52 minutes ago, oowee said:

[oowee]

3 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

Then you take out a private pension, that grows well --- and along comes a "socialist" government and decides you have too much and Taxes steals a substantial percentage of it (then has the afront to complain people are not saving enough for their old age).  25 years later the next "socialist" government comes along and threatens to do the same again, and hits the state pension,  to pay inflation busting wage rises to state employees or those on generous inflation linked public service pensions. Talk about two faced.

You mean the pay rises recommended by the review body? Of course we don't have to have to pay workers at all but then we won't have any. That would not be much of a system. Either pay what they are worth or get what you pay for. 

1 minute ago, TOPGUN749 said:

 

In that case getting rid of winter fuel allowance is a plus. It stops rewarding those that did not pay in and better recognises those that did. 

You can't have it both ways.

[Dougy]

14 minutes ago, oowee said:

In that case getting rid of winter fuel allowance is a plus. It stops rewarding those that did not pay in and better recognises those that did. 

You can't have it both ways.

The country still hands out benefits to how many immigrants that have paid nothing in If you've got a hole in your bucket you plug the hole if you want to fill it. 

 

[Yellow Bear]

23 minutes ago, oowee said:

Either pay what they are worth or get what you pay for. 

In my opinion  in many cases we are paying more than they are worth and we are no where near getting what we paid for.

26 minutes ago, oowee said:

You mean the pay rises recommended by the review body? Of course we don't have to have to pay workers at all but then we won't have any. That would not be much of a system. 

As for the pay review body IIRC it is made up of civil servants that are not going to cut their own throat.

In my working life I have encountered many ex civil service personnel, most of whom have totally failed to "cut the mustard" as it were, in private industry and have scuttled back. in this I go as far back as the PSA.