Gordon Brown suggests people on top rate of income tax should be excluded from winter fuel payments

Given that the state pension has risen by well above the cost of inflation for the last two years everybody who is receiving that shouldn’t get the WFA. The government was right first time around.

Churchull (alleged).

“If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain.” 

Asking a pensioner to consider if they really need a Government handout is asking them to show compassion and thought for the squeezed working population who are actually paying for that handout. Because it isn’t the majority of pensioners paying for it given the money comes from general taxation.

That money could be used to fund better education, more NHS appointments, or better infrastructure to boost the economy. What it’s actually going to be used for is to top up the pensions of people who have inflation busting pension rises year after year.

Let’s call the Winter Fuel Allowance what it really is now. The Winter Fuel Bribe.

The fundamental issue is that Labour started from the assumption of ‘we need to make cuts to reduce state spending, what benefits can we cut?’, rather than the assumption of ‘we need to make the benefits system fairer, how can we ensure those who don’t need benefits don’t receive them?’ It meant they rushed in and tied WFA to pension credit, even though there are plenty of poor pensioners who *don’t* receive pension credit who were now excluded (and people spamming on Reddit about ‘millionaire pensioners’ doesn’t mean these poor pensioners do not exist). It also meant they rushed in to implement these changes before conducting any sort of impact assessment.

They ran roughshod through the programme, then quickly realised their proposals were both unpopular and ineffective and having to backtrack. So much political capital has been wasted justifying cutting a benefit which only accounts for a fraction of spending anyway, and which Labour are going to start restoring anyway. It’s just such poor politics from every single angle, and entirely avoidable if they actually thought about engaging with the public rather than constantly talking down to them.

I think what Gordon Brown is suggesting is a way to make it very easy to determine who should and should not get WFA while also expanding it to people who maybe don’t need it to the point of falling into poverty, but it will win their votes if Labour return it to them.

HMRC already have the details of the level of tax people are paying, so the government already has this, avoiding expensive means testing, and it’s probably more politically palatable and explicable to say if you have a pension income high enough you’re paying top rate income tax (which is more than £50000 a year) then you don’t really need a few hundred quid handed to you for free. It’ll likely play better with the general public.

On a cynical level, as inflation reduces the buying power of money while tax bands are held at the same figure, this will push more and more people out of WFA without political backlash.

To get winter fuel payments, you need to be getting one of the following benefits:

* Pension Credit
* Universal Credit
* income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
* income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA)
* Income Support
* Child Tax Credit
* Working Tax Credit

On all these benefits, i think you should already be excluded if you are currently on the top rate of income tax, so maybe easier to add that to all these instead?

anyone on the top rate of tax should probably lose alot of benefits and relief tbh

People on additional tax rate should be allowed to drive in bus lanes and get their pick of state schools and not have to go on hold at the GP

Gordon Brown’s suggestion seems sensible to be fair.

The issue here was always going to be the specifics of the threshold/criteria for eligibility. And of trying to do a massive change all in one go.

If they had targeted the right people with this change, and explained it properly they may have tolerated it.

Reeves and co were overconfident and up against a wall to have their numbers add up. It would have been wise to demand civil service draw up different plans for a softer rollout, rather than banking on this to plug their budget gaps.

The extra admin for means testing benefits is likely to exceed the savings. Give universal benefits, then tax them back from people who don’t need them.

How many pensioners does he think are earning >£125k?

I mean yeah obvs. Not sure what there is to debate here.

So . . . what he’s really saying is that **everyone** who makes less than £50k a year should be eligible for it, right?

A silly suggestion. It would exclude too few people to make much difference.

Pensioners generally have *wealth* rather than *income*.

The original proposal was right and should stand. They’re doing this cos they’re rattled by the local elections.

It is £200-300 ffs, anyone with liquid assets of more than 10k should be excluded. Fuck these greedy pensioners sitting on mountains of savings and still holding the country to ransom over a measly £200-300

I find it amazing that we base every benefit on income and not wealth.