Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
General Things That Annoy You thread - part 2
Comments
-
Which has no bearing on whether or not a universal benefit should be given to millionaires.ross1 said:
And when we go, who will be happy that we worked hard all our life and manage to save a nest egg for our old age ... our children who are supposed to be the richest generation when we are gonecantersaddick said:
If I can provide a counter point. The current generation of pensioners are the richest cohort of people in our countries history. 29% of them are millionaires higher than any other age group or any cohort in the past, they hold over half of the housing wealth in this country and nearly 60% of all wealth. Many of them are excessively rich.KBslittlesis said:
Pensioners, so over 67 Smudge.arny23394 said:
Can’t say I’ve noticed a sudden hatred of old people? What reasons do these people have for hating them?KBslittlesis said:The sudden hatred of old people.
Actually, it doesn’t just annoy me, it boils my piss.
It seems a fair amount of folk don’t think they’re entitled to be warm in winter.Honestly, it’s sickening how some treat old folk.
Means testing was the right decision, a universal benefit forbthat cohort is clearly wrong. The threshold set for that means testing was the wrong decision.
I do not hate pensioners (though one of my grandmothers is pretty hard to like).
Either way this whole thing is simply a wedge issue designed to stop us talking about how the mega rich and large corporations are screwing us all.
It is not hating on old people to say that those who clearly dont need it should not get winter fuel payments.6 -
Household income of £35K and below, so unlikely to be many cash millionaires.cantersaddick said:
Which has no bearing on whether or not a universal benefit should be given to millionaires.ross1 said:
And when we go, who will be happy that we worked hard all our life and manage to save a nest egg for our old age ... our children who are supposed to be the richest generation when we are gonecantersaddick said:
If I can provide a counter point. The current generation of pensioners are the richest cohort of people in our countries history. 29% of them are millionaires higher than any other age group or any cohort in the past, they hold over half of the housing wealth in this country and nearly 60% of all wealth. Many of them are excessively rich.KBslittlesis said:
Pensioners, so over 67 Smudge.arny23394 said:
Can’t say I’ve noticed a sudden hatred of old people? What reasons do these people have for hating them?KBslittlesis said:The sudden hatred of old people.
Actually, it doesn’t just annoy me, it boils my piss.
It seems a fair amount of folk don’t think they’re entitled to be warm in winter.Honestly, it’s sickening how some treat old folk.
Means testing was the right decision, a universal benefit forbthat cohort is clearly wrong. The threshold set for that means testing was the wrong decision.
I do not hate pensioners (though one of my grandmothers is pretty hard to like).
Either way this whole thing is simply a wedge issue designed to stop us talking about how the mega rich and large corporations are screwing us all.
It is not hating on old people to say that those who clearly dont need it should not get winter fuel payments.4 -
Read what I said.Covered End said:
Household income of £35K and below, so unlikely to be many cash millionaires.cantersaddick said:
Which has no bearing on whether or not a universal benefit should be given to millionaires.ross1 said:
And when we go, who will be happy that we worked hard all our life and manage to save a nest egg for our old age ... our children who are supposed to be the richest generation when we are gonecantersaddick said:
If I can provide a counter point. The current generation of pensioners are the richest cohort of people in our countries history. 29% of them are millionaires higher than any other age group or any cohort in the past, they hold over half of the housing wealth in this country and nearly 60% of all wealth. Many of them are excessively rich.KBslittlesis said:
Pensioners, so over 67 Smudge.arny23394 said:
Can’t say I’ve noticed a sudden hatred of old people? What reasons do these people have for hating them?KBslittlesis said:The sudden hatred of old people.
Actually, it doesn’t just annoy me, it boils my piss.
It seems a fair amount of folk don’t think they’re entitled to be warm in winter.Honestly, it’s sickening how some treat old folk.
Means testing was the right decision, a universal benefit forbthat cohort is clearly wrong. The threshold set for that means testing was the wrong decision.
I do not hate pensioners (though one of my grandmothers is pretty hard to like).
Either way this whole thing is simply a wedge issue designed to stop us talking about how the mega rich and large corporations are screwing us all.
It is not hating on old people to say that those who clearly dont need it should not get winter fuel payments.
Means testing it is right so we aren't giving a universal benefit to those who don't need it. But the threshold is wrong.0 -
That 29% aren’t the ones who have had to choose between eating and heating though are they?cantersaddick said:
If I can provide a counter point. The current generation of pensioners are the richest cohort of people in our countries history. 29% of them are millionaires higher than any other age group or any cohort in the past, they hold over half of the housing wealth in this country and nearly 60% of all wealth. Many of them are excessively rich.KBslittlesis said:
Pensioners, so over 67 Smudge.arny23394 said:
Can’t say I’ve noticed a sudden hatred of old people? What reasons do these people have for hating them?KBslittlesis said:The sudden hatred of old people.
Actually, it doesn’t just annoy me, it boils my piss.
It seems a fair amount of folk don’t think they’re entitled to be warm in winter.Honestly, it’s sickening how some treat old folk.
Means testing was the right decision, a universal benefit forbthat cohort is clearly wrong. The threshold set for that means testing was the wrong decision.
I do not hate pensioners (though one of my grandmothers is pretty hard to like).
Either way this whole thing is simply a wedge issue designed to stop us talking about how the mega rich and large corporations are screwing us all.
I’m sick of this counter argument.
Warm, well fed pensioners are better for all of us. They stay out of doctors surgeries & hospital's.
I agree it’s a distraction tactic and it appears to be working.2 -
You’re joking right?SporadicAddick said:
Well frankly it's that generations fault for the conditions the poor youngsters have to live in today. They f*cked their kids futures with their lack of appreciation of their impact on climate, and their economic incompetence which means many young professionals now have to work at least 5 days a week and can't afford to get on the housing ladder. I'm not surprised young degree educated professionals are looking to leave this country in their droves.KBslittlesis said:The sudden hatred of old people.
Actually, it doesn’t just annoy me, it boils my piss.
Oh, and they smell of piss (the old people, not the young degree educated professionals).1 -
But means testing should mean that those who need it get it so no one should have to choose between heating and eating. I've said throughout the thresholds are wrong.KBslittlesis said:
That 29% aren’t the ones who have had to choose between eating and heating though are they?cantersaddick said:
If I can provide a counter point. The current generation of pensioners are the richest cohort of people in our countries history. 29% of them are millionaires higher than any other age group or any cohort in the past, they hold over half of the housing wealth in this country and nearly 60% of all wealth. Many of them are excessively rich.KBslittlesis said:
Pensioners, so over 67 Smudge.arny23394 said:
Can’t say I’ve noticed a sudden hatred of old people? What reasons do these people have for hating them?KBslittlesis said:The sudden hatred of old people.
Actually, it doesn’t just annoy me, it boils my piss.
It seems a fair amount of folk don’t think they’re entitled to be warm in winter.Honestly, it’s sickening how some treat old folk.
Means testing was the right decision, a universal benefit forbthat cohort is clearly wrong. The threshold set for that means testing was the wrong decision.
I do not hate pensioners (though one of my grandmothers is pretty hard to like).
Either way this whole thing is simply a wedge issue designed to stop us talking about how the mega rich and large corporations are screwing us all.
I’m sick of this counter argument.
Warm, well fed pensioners are better for all of us. They stay out of doctors surgeries & hospital's.
I agree it’s a distraction tactic and it appears to be working.
Given the constant negative narrative about disabled people getting benefits or working parents (30% of children in this country growing up in poverty many reporting going to school hungry, wearing coats at home to stay warm) when they are on incredibly low incomes I'm surprised that our society is willing to accept a blanket universal benefit for an entire cohort including many many millionaires.
Personally if it was down to me I would fund both and more and end poverty in this country. But if disabled benefits are going to experience their 5th cut in as many years then I think the richest pensioners can do without a universal benefit.6 -
You talk like poverty is a new thing?
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Pitting young against old is wrong.3 -
Not at all. I'm simply saying if we are cutting benefits at one end (and have been constantly for 15 years now) then means testing an existing universal benefit is a sensible move.KBslittlesis said:You talk like poverty is a new thing?
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Pitting young against old is wrong.
Child poverty is massively worse now than in 2010.
Not pitting anyone against anyone. Simply saying than means testing is sensible!2 -
No, they do smell of piss.KBslittlesis said:
You’re joking right?SporadicAddick said:
Well frankly it's that generations fault for the conditions the poor youngsters have to live in today. They f*cked their kids futures with their lack of appreciation of their impact on climate, and their economic incompetence which means many young professionals now have to work at least 5 days a week and can't afford to get on the housing ladder. I'm not surprised young degree educated professionals are looking to leave this country in their droves.KBslittlesis said:The sudden hatred of old people.
Actually, it doesn’t just annoy me, it boils my piss.
Oh, and they smell of piss (the old people, not the young degree educated professionals).5 -
To be clear I'm actually a proponent of Universal Basic Income for all, including pensioners - some proposals limit this to the working aged population. AI has put this back in the political conversation across the developed world and there is a real chance a number of countries will adopt this. Its a real opportunity to use tech to create social progresscantersaddick said:
Not at all. I'm simply saying if we are cutting benefits at one end (and have been constantly for 15 years now) then means testing an existing universal benefit is a sensible move.KBslittlesis said:You talk like poverty is a new thing?
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Pitting young against old is wrong.
Child poverty is massively worse now than in 2010.
Not pitting anyone against anyone. Simply saying than means testing is sensible!
But given where we are as a country and the current Overton window, I don't see how including the richest in society on a benefit can be justified. Therefore means testing is objectively the right approach. The only question is where you put the thresholds and I've said since my first post on this that these are too low.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Wasn't the argument that it costs more money overall to means test the benefit, rather than just pay to all of state pension age?5
-
So what threshold would have been right do you think assuming you mean £35k is too high (I also interpret the £35k is inclusive of the state pension of c£12k.)
Your use of ‘millionaires’ is a little disingenuous of course if that includes your property value.
Part of the challenge now with means testing is the extra cost of administering it albeit I do agree it should be means tested.I note that currently all parties seem to support this latest turn of events.It’s consuming too much political time that’s for sure given it now won’t save anything like the sums originally proposed.0 -
No no I dont think its too high at all.valleynick66 said:So what threshold would have been right do you think assuming you mean £35k is too high (I also interpret the £35k is inclusive of the state pension of c£12k.)
Your use of ‘millionaires’ is a little disingenuous of course if that includes your property value.
Part of the challenge now with means testing is the extra cost of administering it albeit I do agree it should be means tested.I note that currently all parties seem to support this latest turn of events.It’s consuming too much political time that’s for sure given it now won’t save anything like the sums originally proposed.
I think the £35k (post tax if I understand correctly) is much more like it compared to the original proposed eligibility criteria which was pension credit eligibility which was dangerously low and clearly put lives at risk. I would have to have a look at the data to determine an exact threshold that it should be set at but there will be a tipping point in post tax income that will be where it should be set.
The argument that means testing costs more than is saved is from a few years ago no when systems relied on a large amount of manual administration. It's not the case any more. We have live and linked data to administer state pensions and pensioner benefits. The marginal cost of tacking the eligibility criteria for this on to existing systems will be negligible.0 -
So actually I think we are aligned on the appropriate level albeit the savings now are much more modest at the £35k level.cantersaddick said:
No no I dont think its too high at all.valleynick66 said:So what threshold would have been right do you think assuming you mean £35k is too high (I also interpret the £35k is inclusive of the state pension of c£12k.)
Your use of ‘millionaires’ is a little disingenuous of course if that includes your property value.
Part of the challenge now with means testing is the extra cost of administering it albeit I do agree it should be means tested.I note that currently all parties seem to support this latest turn of events.It’s consuming too much political time that’s for sure given it now won’t save anything like the sums originally proposed.
I think the £35k (post tax if I understand correctly) is much more like it compared to the original proposed eligibility criteria which was pension credit eligibility which was dangerously low and clearly put lives at risk. I would have to have a look at the data to determine an exact threshold that it should be set at but there will be a tipping point in post tax income that will be where it should be set.
The argument that means testing costs more than is saved is from a few years ago no when systems relied on a large amount of manual administration. It's not the case any more. We have live and linked data to administer state pensions and pensioner benefits. The marginal cost of tacking the eligibility criteria for this on to existing systems will be negligible.My point about admin is that I think it will require the £35k to be identified from tax returns in part ie you will in future have to declare the £200 payment as income and see it taken back in tax. That surely creates some overhead. Not that I immediately see an alternative.Not suggesting the overhead outweighs the saving but it does create an additional element to contend with in terms of process and support as nothing is as straightforward as at first seems.0 -
.0
-
Seeing a picture of a friend's grandchild "graduating" on facebook. The kid is about three, presumably leaving nursery.
"Graduating" - my arse.13 -
You're going to look pretty foolish when you find out the child has graduated with a first in particle physics from Oxford.9
-
Proper LOL at that one IH! 🤣IdleHans said:You're going to look pretty foolish when you find out the child has graduated with a first in particle physics from Oxford.1 -
I would not like to move in the same circle as you, as an OAP and know many others, I have never met one that smells of anything abhorrent to the noseSporadicAddick said:
No, they do smell of piss.KBslittlesis said:
You’re joking right?SporadicAddick said:
Well frankly it's that generations fault for the conditions the poor youngsters have to live in today. They f*cked their kids futures with their lack of appreciation of their impact on climate, and their economic incompetence which means many young professionals now have to work at least 5 days a week and can't afford to get on the housing ladder. I'm not surprised young degree educated professionals are looking to leave this country in their droves.KBslittlesis said:The sudden hatred of old people.
Actually, it doesn’t just annoy me, it boils my piss.
Oh, and they smell of piss (the old people, not the young degree educated professionals).3 -
HMRC data is part of the live linked data already to set eligibility for other pensioner benefits so this is simply running another query based on the new eligibility criteria on an existing dataset. So the costs on that side are negligible. The other side on how much is taken back in tax is a good point and I am less familiar with that part of the system but more and more of it is being automated through tech so cant see it being that administratively heavy or expensive but cant say for sure as I said not as close to that side of it.valleynick66 said:
So actually I think we are aligned on the appropriate level albeit the savings now are much more modest at the £35k level.cantersaddick said:
No no I dont think its too high at all.valleynick66 said:So what threshold would have been right do you think assuming you mean £35k is too high (I also interpret the £35k is inclusive of the state pension of c£12k.)
Your use of ‘millionaires’ is a little disingenuous of course if that includes your property value.
Part of the challenge now with means testing is the extra cost of administering it albeit I do agree it should be means tested.I note that currently all parties seem to support this latest turn of events.It’s consuming too much political time that’s for sure given it now won’t save anything like the sums originally proposed.
I think the £35k (post tax if I understand correctly) is much more like it compared to the original proposed eligibility criteria which was pension credit eligibility which was dangerously low and clearly put lives at risk. I would have to have a look at the data to determine an exact threshold that it should be set at but there will be a tipping point in post tax income that will be where it should be set.
The argument that means testing costs more than is saved is from a few years ago no when systems relied on a large amount of manual administration. It's not the case any more. We have live and linked data to administer state pensions and pensioner benefits. The marginal cost of tacking the eligibility criteria for this on to existing systems will be negligible.My point about admin is that I think it will require the £35k to be identified from tax returns in part ie you will in future have to declare the £200 payment as income and see it taken back in tax. That surely creates some overhead. Not that I immediately see an alternative.Not suggesting the overhead outweighs the saving but it does create an additional element to contend with in terms of process and support as nothing is as straightforward as at first seems.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
It surely can’t be that simple as income comes from a variety of sources for some eg ad hoc pension drawdown, variable credit interest etc. and hence the need for annual tax returns to see if you are under or over the £35k threshold.cantersaddick said:
HMRC data is part of the live linked data already to set eligibility for other pensioner benefits so this is simply running another query based on the new eligibility criteria on an existing dataset. So the costs on that side are negligible. The other side on how much is taken back in tax is a good point and I am less familiar with that part of the system but more and more of it is being automated through tech so cant see it being that administratively heavy or expensive but cant say for sure as I said not as close to that side of it.valleynick66 said:
So actually I think we are aligned on the appropriate level albeit the savings now are much more modest at the £35k level.cantersaddick said:
No no I dont think its too high at all.valleynick66 said:So what threshold would have been right do you think assuming you mean £35k is too high (I also interpret the £35k is inclusive of the state pension of c£12k.)
Your use of ‘millionaires’ is a little disingenuous of course if that includes your property value.
Part of the challenge now with means testing is the extra cost of administering it albeit I do agree it should be means tested.I note that currently all parties seem to support this latest turn of events.It’s consuming too much political time that’s for sure given it now won’t save anything like the sums originally proposed.
I think the £35k (post tax if I understand correctly) is much more like it compared to the original proposed eligibility criteria which was pension credit eligibility which was dangerously low and clearly put lives at risk. I would have to have a look at the data to determine an exact threshold that it should be set at but there will be a tipping point in post tax income that will be where it should be set.
The argument that means testing costs more than is saved is from a few years ago no when systems relied on a large amount of manual administration. It's not the case any more. We have live and linked data to administer state pensions and pensioner benefits. The marginal cost of tacking the eligibility criteria for this on to existing systems will be negligible.My point about admin is that I think it will require the £35k to be identified from tax returns in part ie you will in future have to declare the £200 payment as income and see it taken back in tax. That surely creates some overhead. Not that I immediately see an alternative.Not suggesting the overhead outweighs the saving but it does create an additional element to contend with in terms of process and support as nothing is as straightforward as at first seems.No plans I’m aware of for tax returns to be less needed /more automated in the short term as this change is.0 -
The tax return itself isn't automated no, but we are talking about the administration of the benefit on the part of the government in order to means test it not the person submitting the tax return. Once a tax return is submitted to HMRC then the data is part of their automated internal system and is part of the shared live and linked data that is used to assess eligibility for existing elements of state pension and other pensioner benefits. So assessing that same dataset against one further additional eligibility criteria is negligible marginal cost to government to administer. Which is the original point I was responding to.valleynick66 said:
It surely can’t be that simple as income comes from a variety of sources for some eg ad hoc pension drawdown, variable credit interest etc. and hence the need for annual tax returns to see if you are under or Uber the £35k threshold.cantersaddick said:
HMRC data is part of the live linked data already to set eligibility for other pensioner benefits so this is simply running another query based on the new eligibility criteria on an existing dataset. So the costs on that side are negligible. The other side on how much is taken back in tax is a good point and I am less familiar with that part of the system but more and more of it is being automated through tech so cant see it being that administratively heavy or expensive but cant say for sure as I said not as close to that side of it.valleynick66 said:
So actually I think we are aligned on the appropriate level albeit the savings now are much more modest at the £35k level.cantersaddick said:
No no I dont think its too high at all.valleynick66 said:So what threshold would have been right do you think assuming you mean £35k is too high (I also interpret the £35k is inclusive of the state pension of c£12k.)
Your use of ‘millionaires’ is a little disingenuous of course if that includes your property value.
Part of the challenge now with means testing is the extra cost of administering it albeit I do agree it should be means tested.I note that currently all parties seem to support this latest turn of events.It’s consuming too much political time that’s for sure given it now won’t save anything like the sums originally proposed.
I think the £35k (post tax if I understand correctly) is much more like it compared to the original proposed eligibility criteria which was pension credit eligibility which was dangerously low and clearly put lives at risk. I would have to have a look at the data to determine an exact threshold that it should be set at but there will be a tipping point in post tax income that will be where it should be set.
The argument that means testing costs more than is saved is from a few years ago no when systems relied on a large amount of manual administration. It's not the case any more. We have live and linked data to administer state pensions and pensioner benefits. The marginal cost of tacking the eligibility criteria for this on to existing systems will be negligible.My point about admin is that I think it will require the £35k to be identified from tax returns in part ie you will in future have to declare the £200 payment as income and see it taken back in tax. That surely creates some overhead. Not that I immediately see an alternative.Not suggesting the overhead outweighs the saving but it does create an additional element to contend with in terms of process and support as nothing is as straightforward as at first seems.No plans I’m aware of for tax returns to be less needed /more automated in the short term as this change is.0 -
Ok.cantersaddick said:
The tax return itself isn't automated no, but we are talking about the administration of the benefit on the part of the government in order to means test it not the person submitting the tax return. Once a tax return is submitted to HMRC then the data is part of their automated internal system and is part of the shared live and linked data that is used to assess eligibility for existing elements of state pension and other pensioner benefits. So assessing that same dataset against one further additional eligibility criteria is negligible marginal cost to government to administer. Which is the original point I was responding to.valleynick66 said:
It surely can’t be that simple as income comes from a variety of sources for some eg ad hoc pension drawdown, variable credit interest etc. and hence the need for annual tax returns to see if you are under or Uber the £35k threshold.cantersaddick said:
HMRC data is part of the live linked data already to set eligibility for other pensioner benefits so this is simply running another query based on the new eligibility criteria on an existing dataset. So the costs on that side are negligible. The other side on how much is taken back in tax is a good point and I am less familiar with that part of the system but more and more of it is being automated through tech so cant see it being that administratively heavy or expensive but cant say for sure as I said not as close to that side of it.valleynick66 said:
So actually I think we are aligned on the appropriate level albeit the savings now are much more modest at the £35k level.cantersaddick said:
No no I dont think its too high at all.valleynick66 said:So what threshold would have been right do you think assuming you mean £35k is too high (I also interpret the £35k is inclusive of the state pension of c£12k.)
Your use of ‘millionaires’ is a little disingenuous of course if that includes your property value.
Part of the challenge now with means testing is the extra cost of administering it albeit I do agree it should be means tested.I note that currently all parties seem to support this latest turn of events.It’s consuming too much political time that’s for sure given it now won’t save anything like the sums originally proposed.
I think the £35k (post tax if I understand correctly) is much more like it compared to the original proposed eligibility criteria which was pension credit eligibility which was dangerously low and clearly put lives at risk. I would have to have a look at the data to determine an exact threshold that it should be set at but there will be a tipping point in post tax income that will be where it should be set.
The argument that means testing costs more than is saved is from a few years ago no when systems relied on a large amount of manual administration. It's not the case any more. We have live and linked data to administer state pensions and pensioner benefits. The marginal cost of tacking the eligibility criteria for this on to existing systems will be negligible.My point about admin is that I think it will require the £35k to be identified from tax returns in part ie you will in future have to declare the £200 payment as income and see it taken back in tax. That surely creates some overhead. Not that I immediately see an alternative.Not suggesting the overhead outweighs the saving but it does create an additional element to contend with in terms of process and support as nothing is as straightforward as at first seems.No plans I’m aware of for tax returns to be less needed /more automated in the short term as this change is.But to my point there will be an increased overhead to adjust tax codes / deal with queries / retrospectively claim back over payment of benefit / adjust tax returns to declare this category of income etc.
it’s not cost free was the only point I make not that it is not appropriateThe benefit of a universal credit is that it takes less admin.I’d compare to child benefit where it became a part of the tax return when linked to income.I don’t however know a better way.0 -
Apologies, my comment was in jest, related to "boiling piss", and in the context of people hating pensioners (or blaming a whole generation for subsequent issues) being a nonsense.ross1 said:
I would not like to move in the same circle as you, as an OAP and know many others, I have never met one that smells of anything abhorrent to the noseSporadicAddick said:
No, they do smell of piss.KBslittlesis said:
You’re joking right?SporadicAddick said:
Well frankly it's that generations fault for the conditions the poor youngsters have to live in today. They f*cked their kids futures with their lack of appreciation of their impact on climate, and their economic incompetence which means many young professionals now have to work at least 5 days a week and can't afford to get on the housing ladder. I'm not surprised young degree educated professionals are looking to leave this country in their droves.KBslittlesis said:The sudden hatred of old people.
Actually, it doesn’t just annoy me, it boils my piss.
Oh, and they smell of piss (the old people, not the young degree educated professionals).
I know lots of OAPs and I agree they don't smell of piss (always).1 -
my financee asked me for a lump of cash to secure a wedding photographer last night.
As a response I muttered (as a joke) under my breath that proposing was the worst thing i'd ever done.
Now i'm getting the silent treatment.
Can't make a joke these days.11 -
Let that be a lesson to you... Hope that the sofa is comfortable.cafcnick1992 said:my financee asked me for a lump of cash to secure a wedding photographer last night.
As a response I muttered (as a joke) under my breath that proposing was the worst thing i'd ever done.
Now I'm getting the silent treatment.
Can't make a joke these days.5 -
When you go out of your way to give feedback to a company and the response makes no attempt to address the issue you raised.
Maybe I don't explain myself clearly.1 -
What?Valley Ant said:When you go out of your way to give feedback to a company and the response makes no attempt to address the issue you raised.
Maybe I don't explain myself clearly.6 -
Half past seven mateValley Ant said:When you go out of your way to give feedback to a company and the response makes no attempt to address the issue you raised.
Maybe I don't explain myself clearly.7 -
No, the £35K is not post tax.cantersaddick said:
No no I dont think its too high at all.valleynick66 said:So what threshold would have been right do you think assuming you mean £35k is too high (I also interpret the £35k is inclusive of the state pension of c£12k.)
Your use of ‘millionaires’ is a little disingenuous of course if that includes your property value.
Part of the challenge now with means testing is the extra cost of administering it albeit I do agree it should be means tested.I note that currently all parties seem to support this latest turn of events.It’s consuming too much political time that’s for sure given it now won’t save anything like the sums originally proposed.
I think the £35k (post tax if I understand correctly) is much more like it compared to the original proposed eligibility criteria which was pension credit eligibility which was dangerously low and clearly put lives at risk. I would have to have a look at the data to determine an exact threshold that it should be set at but there will be a tipping point in post tax income that will be where it should be set.
The argument that means testing costs more than is saved is from a few years ago no when systems relied on a large amount of manual administration. It's not the case any more. We have live and linked data to administer state pensions and pensioner benefits. The marginal cost of tacking the eligibility criteria for this on to existing systems will be negligible.
All pensioners will receive Winter Fuel Payment but those individuals with a taxable income of £35,000 or more per annum will have their Winter Fuel Payment amount claimed back via the tax system. There is an option to opt out of Winter Fuel Payment.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/means-testing-winter-fuel-payment-at-35000-taxable-income-per-annum-impact-on-poverty-levels/means-testing-winter-fuel-payment-at-35000-taxable-income-per-annum-impact-on-poverty-levels
1
