I'm Really Worried I Have Upset My...
Family & Relationships1 min ago
Idiots
So what is wrong with Idiot Duncan Smith? he wants to stop the Winter fuel allowance for ex pat pensioners, who have paid into the scheme all their working life, and now we have that prat Cable who wants to tax pensioners on their Bus passes .What planet are they from???
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by BayBoy1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Our friends in Spain get all their healthcare in Spain, they say it's excellent. And why not means-test benefits - the country's in hock up to its armpits. I get a winter fuel allowance and I'm still in full-time work. Princess Diana (we were told) was entitled to claim child benefit - how ridiculous.
If its a winter fuel allowance for higher costs of fuel during the colder weather in this country and you are now not living in the UK and in warmer climes why should you get it. It is to make up for increased fuel costs. It is not a reward to pensioners who have paid their taxes. I am a beneficiary of this allowance but if I moved abroad would not expect to receive it.
one thing is if you retire to the sun, say Spain, you can't go there potless, you have to have some money, to rent, buy a property, so chances are the folk sold up here and moved there, that doesn't make them rich, just swapped UK for a more sunnier clime in their later years. And believe me it doesn't stay warm all year round, and at night it can be very cold indeed.
The two benefits mentioned in particular by VHG (winter fuel allowance and child benefit) have a history which may be worth a mention before moving on.
The Winter Fuel Allowance was introduced for all State pensioners in recognition that it would be an additional element to the State pension to help with heating. It was not means tested; it was not aimed solely at “poor” pensioners; it was provided to all of them and as such could probably be regarded as part of the “package” for which many (though not all) people had made contributions throughout their working life. As far as State pensions go there needs to be a clear differentiation made between the payments made to those who have made sufficient NI contributions and those who have not. The pensions paid to the former are NOT benefits any more than a private pension is. They are the agreed sums payable for agreed contributions. Those paid to the latter ARE benefits in the same way as non-contribution based Jobseekers’ Allowance is. The agreed sums to be paid include such things as Winter Fuel Allowance and Bus travel and to remove or reduce those is breaking the agreement. As far as who should receive the Winter Fuel payment (who have qualified to receive their pension) it should be of no concern to the government what the recipients spend it on so it should not matter where they live.
Child Benefit was introduced when the income tax allowance for children was abolished. The idea was that it would be paid predominantly to mothers. The tax allowance was made to recognise that parents have additional expenditure when bringing up their children. It was provided mainly to fathers and it was felt that a sizeable number of children were not seeing the benefit of the allowance made for them. Once again it was not means tested, nor was it only for poor people (as the income tax allowance was not). If there is any justification to remove Child Benefit from anybody it should be removed from those who pay no Income Tax because, under the old scheme, such people would not have benefited from the Income Tax allowance.
The country needs to decide whether the State pension scheme is worthy of the name or whether it is simply another wealth redistribution scheme which removes money from those who have some and gives it to those who have somewhat less. If it is to be the latter then people should have the opportunity to opt out of the State scheme and make their own arrangements.
There also needs to be some clarity about whether these payments should only be made to those who “need” them. Once again, for those who have contributed to the scheme, the question of need should not arise. Nobody asks a private pension recipient whether they “need” the cash or perhaps the travel benefits that are provided. By all means make such a test on those who are receiving the payments having not contributed, but those who have paid for the full package should receive the full package whether they need it or not.
The Winter Fuel Allowance was introduced for all State pensioners in recognition that it would be an additional element to the State pension to help with heating. It was not means tested; it was not aimed solely at “poor” pensioners; it was provided to all of them and as such could probably be regarded as part of the “package” for which many (though not all) people had made contributions throughout their working life. As far as State pensions go there needs to be a clear differentiation made between the payments made to those who have made sufficient NI contributions and those who have not. The pensions paid to the former are NOT benefits any more than a private pension is. They are the agreed sums payable for agreed contributions. Those paid to the latter ARE benefits in the same way as non-contribution based Jobseekers’ Allowance is. The agreed sums to be paid include such things as Winter Fuel Allowance and Bus travel and to remove or reduce those is breaking the agreement. As far as who should receive the Winter Fuel payment (who have qualified to receive their pension) it should be of no concern to the government what the recipients spend it on so it should not matter where they live.
Child Benefit was introduced when the income tax allowance for children was abolished. The idea was that it would be paid predominantly to mothers. The tax allowance was made to recognise that parents have additional expenditure when bringing up their children. It was provided mainly to fathers and it was felt that a sizeable number of children were not seeing the benefit of the allowance made for them. Once again it was not means tested, nor was it only for poor people (as the income tax allowance was not). If there is any justification to remove Child Benefit from anybody it should be removed from those who pay no Income Tax because, under the old scheme, such people would not have benefited from the Income Tax allowance.
The country needs to decide whether the State pension scheme is worthy of the name or whether it is simply another wealth redistribution scheme which removes money from those who have some and gives it to those who have somewhat less. If it is to be the latter then people should have the opportunity to opt out of the State scheme and make their own arrangements.
There also needs to be some clarity about whether these payments should only be made to those who “need” them. Once again, for those who have contributed to the scheme, the question of need should not arise. Nobody asks a private pension recipient whether they “need” the cash or perhaps the travel benefits that are provided. By all means make such a test on those who are receiving the payments having not contributed, but those who have paid for the full package should receive the full package whether they need it or not.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
Could Labour Learn From The Donald?
News8 mins ago
