[News] Winter Fuel Payments Are Back

[maffew]

The problem is at what figure do you set it. If they’d done it at £25K then some would have said it’s too high.
Apparently it’s set at £35K as that is the average income in this country, but I don’t know whether that is the correct average income or not

I think it is about the right average income but 70 plus percent of people earn less than the average. And most of those will likely be paying a rent or mortgage

Hence why I don't think a pensioner earning higher than 70% of the working population and owning a property should get a couple of hundred quid in heating subsidies. 35k income is a couple of grand a month plus. If you haven't got to pay 100s or thousands in mortgage or rent that's plenty without being subsidised by younger tax payers trying to make ends meet

 

[maffew]

Oh and this u turn us quite obviously due to Runcorn and Reform votes, it's not about the elderly, or the stabilising of the economy. Suggest if it was about vulnerable people and there's spare money floating about then perhaps Labour could look at the damage that inflated employers contributions on national insurance is doing in social care and to small businesses barely able to pay a living wage

 

[BenGarfield]

The boomer generation (born between ~1946 and ~1964) are notorious amongst young people today for being selfish and self-entitled.

They had what are now 'luxuries' such as affordable housing, free higher education, decent pensions and competitive wages... yet they are the first to argue, sitting in their mortgage free houses, that even the 'triple-lock' pension is not enough - they still want more, neglecting to appreciate how dire things are for young people today.

Young people today, having to try to save the planet that the boomers have effectively destroyed, while being unable to afford houses to live in, or to start families they can't afford. Crap wages, astronomical student debt, pathetic pensions and so on.

Yet boomers NEVER accept how lucky they had it and how they continue to deprive the young people of today from living any kind of life that they did. This is why young people regard boomers are selfish and self-entitled.

If they had any kind of decency, they would surrender their wealth and give young people a real chance in life.

The biggest tragedy of all is that when the reality of what they have done to this world and to the generations of young people today comes into fruition - they'll all be dead and not around to see it.

I agree with you in large part housing market is a nightmare for younger people. In Brighton £200k flats, £24k wages, £900 rent, and student debt? Boomers had it easier with affordable homes and free uni. The “triple-lock” pension debate and the environmental mess adds insult to injury. But the real issue is the system, not just Boomers. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) says the UK government can fix this by spending smarter, since it controls the pound and doesn’t need to borrow. Here’s how:

1. Build Homes: Fund tons of social housing in Brighton. More homes = lower prices (a £200k flat could drop to £180k) or cheaper social rentals (£500–£700/month). MMT says pay for it by creating money, not taxing, unless resources run short.
2. Raise Wages: A Job Guarantee would pay £25k–£30k/year for jobs like building homes or green projects. Employers would have to match it, so your £24k could hit £30k, letting you borrow ~£180k for a flat.
3. Tax Speculators: A Land Value Tax could stop investors jacking up Brighton’s prices for Airbnb. This keeps flats affordable, using taxes to curb demand, not fund spending.
4. Wipe Student Debt: MMT says cancel debt or make uni free again, freeing up £50–£100/month for savings or rent.

The system’s rigged because politicians cling to “no money” myths, protecting landlords and banks. MMT shows we can afford housing and wages, like when Harry Wilson`s namesake built homes in the ‘60s, but without his budget fears.

 

[HillBarnTillIDie]

Agreed. But at least they seem to have arrived at a sensible point now - political damage done though.

Yhep… but if it wasn’t for the fear they have of the Reform party, I very much doubt they’d of back tracked.

I’ve always believed a political system like ours relies heavily on a strong opposition.
Weak political opposition = bad outcomes for the country. The last 20 years or so has proven that.

 

[The Rivet]

For clarity the payment is on £35k per household, whether occupied by one or more.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I don't regard myself as selfish and entitled, and I know my family and friends wouldn't describe me like that either, but dignity prevents me from trying to illustrate that. There are certainly older individuals -- probably quite a few -- who could be called those things, just as there are plenty of younger people around who also deserve that label. But entire generations, whether old or young, can't be dismissed like that, and don't deserve to be.

You seem to see the world and your life in massive generalisations. Old people are all X while young people are all Y. If you described gay or black or disabled people, or women, in that way, you'd be (rightly) criticised but ageism seems to be the last acceptable prejudice.

I grew up in a totally different era when different standards prevailed. Some better, some worse. When I was a kid, homosexuality was illegal, class and social mobility were almost zero, sexism and racism were openly celebrated on primetime TV, almost no one I knew had ever travelled out of the country, many people couldn't afford a car or a telephone. On the other hand, the one massive advantage I had that I'm very aware of was free university education and maintenance grants. IMO those things should never have been abolished but to somehow blame me or an entire generation for that is ignorant and childish. Politicians and educational institutions made those decisions, not some great council of oldies who got together in their millions to wave their pitchforks at young people.

Funnily enough, I also grew up thinking that other people, usually older, were luckier than me. Other people always seemed to have more money, better jobs and cars and relationships than me. It wasn't until my thirties that I finally realised that I had agency over my own existence and happiness, and that as long as I was able-bodied and reasonably rational then it was up to me, and up to us as individuals, to create our own paths through life. I found that learning not to blame other people for my own situation was very liberating.

Brilliant post.
We either find a way to own our lives or we are simply governed.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The problem is at what figure do you set it. If they’d done it at £25K then some would have said it’s too high.
Apparently it’s set at £35K as that is the average income in this country, but I don’t know whether that is the correct average income or not.

Indeed.
It seems that for some Labour can't be allowed any sort of win.

This largely bypasses me, because the only moaning I see is from a minority of rather exercised NSC posters,
and a glimpse of a tory rag headline out the corner of my eye whilst perambulating.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Yhep… but if it wasn’t for the fear they have of the Reform party, I very much doubt they’d of back tracked.

I’ve always believed a political system like ours relies heavily on a strong opposition.
Weak political opposition = bad outcomes for the country. The last 20 years or so has proven that.

Almost by definition every opposition is weak - because they lost the previous election.
You can blame weak labour for Johnson winning (this is partly true),
But then labour got stronger and won.
Or was did they win because the tories got weak and lost?
If so we have weak government and weak opposition.
Or maybe it is simply the same as it ever was:
People tire of the incumbents eventually and vote for the other lot.

The only strong opposition I remember was Mr Tony, and before that Mrs T.
And both 'changed' when in power. And changing won them both 3 elections.
And half the old buffers like me left alive still hate Thatcher while the rest still hate Blair.

I don't think you have just discovered anything insightful.

Also, by the look of it, we now have a massively strong opposition.
Reform. People love them, apparently

 

[beorhthelm]

I agree with you in large part housing market is a nightmare for younger people. In Brighton £200k flats, £24k wages, £900 rent, and student debt? Boomers had it easier with affordable homes and free uni. The “triple-lock” pension debate and the environmental mess adds insult to injury. But the real issue is the system, not just Boomers. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) says the UK government can fix this by spending smarter, since it controls the pound and doesn’t need to borrow. Here’s how:

1. Build Homes: Fund tons of social housing in Brighton. More homes = lower prices (a £200k flat could drop to £180k) or cheaper social rentals (£500–£700/month). MMT says pay for it by creating money, not taxing, unless resources run short.
2. Raise Wages: A Job Guarantee would pay £25k–£30k/year for jobs like building homes or green projects. Employers would have to match it, so your £24k could hit £30k, letting you borrow ~£180k for a flat.
3. Tax Speculators: A Land Value Tax could stop investors jacking up Brighton’s prices for Airbnb. This keeps flats affordable, using taxes to curb demand, not fund spending.
4. Wipe Student Debt: MMT says cancel debt or make uni free again, freeing up £50–£100/month for savings or rent.

The system’s rigged because politicians cling to “no money” myths, protecting landlords and banks. MMT shows we can afford housing and wages, like when Harry Wilson`s namesake built homes in the ‘60s, but without his budget fears.

you dont need money printing. building homes needs land, regulations relaxed to get permission granted quicker and cheaper, law changed to allow councils to build social housing again. wages are over 25k (about minimum wage), builders will get 35-40k already.

 

[worthingweird]

You don’t pay into a state pension. You make National Insurance contributions which qualifies you for the state pension after a certain number of years (35 for me).
I understand this means it is easier for the govt to change who qualifies. But would be interested to hear from any pension experts whether I’m wrong on this, and whether my first paragraph matters.

Same as...

 

[alanfp]

For clarity the payment is on £35k per household, whether occupied by one or more.

I don't think this is correct. This from MSE...

For couples, it will be individual income that counts – not household income. For those not claiming Pension Credit (or other benefits), the payment will be split, with each person getting £100, £150 or £200 (up to a total of £300).

It'll then only be clawed back from each person based on their income – so, for example, if one person earns £30,000 a year and the other £40,000, one would keep their share and the other would have to pay it back

 

[ROSM]

I do wonder if the position was announced last year to limit the wfp to people earning less than 35 k (and potentially a household of 70k) what people would have said then?

- Badenoch would have criticised it (if she could work out why i.e wrong to have a threshold at all as she seems to be saying now, or the polar opposite that it was set too high as she had advocated up to last july)

- Farage would have criticised

But perhaps it would have been accepted by a lot more people. Problem is that having gone in too low last time and been pig headed about it then they can't easily recover that.

I personally don't now disagree with means testing. I've had it with child benefit since gorgeous george in 2013 where I was working and my wife wasn't and the limit was c50k and tapered down to 60k and others collectively as a couple earnt more than that but didn't pay it back through tax. So this is consistent but at a way lower level and no taper

 

[timbha]

I don't think this is correct. This from MSE...

For couples, it will be individual income that counts – not household income. For those not claiming Pension Credit (or other benefits), the payment will be split, with each person getting £100, £150 or £200 (up to a total of £300).

It'll then only be clawed back from each person based on their income – so, for example, if one person earns £30,000 a year and the other £40,000, one would keep their share and the other would have to pay it back

Thank you. Seems crazy that a property where one of the occupants earns, say £200k pa will still receive help to pay for its winter fuel (if the partner is of pensionable age and earns less than £35k pa).

What’s more is the property could be a six bedroom mansion in Surrey.

Not sure if this was intended.

 

[BenGarfield]

you dont need money printing. building homes needs land, regulations relaxed to get permission granted quicker and cheaper, law changed to allow councils to build social housing again. wages are over 25k (about minimum wage), builders will get 35-40k already.

Thanks for your response. I want to clarify that Apart from the JOb Guarantee Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) isn’t about proposing specific policies like housebuilding or wage hikes—it’s a framework showing how the UK government, as the issuer of the pound, can fund solutions without borrowing or taxing first. These would be some of my preferred options based on MMT thinking. Equally a right winger could come up with a whole different set of prioities but based on the MMT lens.

1. Housebuilding & Land: You’re right—building homes requires land, relaxed regulations, and councils empowered to build social housing again. MMT explains that the government can fund this directly by creating money, not relying on private banks or bond markets. For example, councils could get grants to acquire land and build thousands of homes, reducing Brighton’s £200k flat prices or rents (e.g., social rents to £500–£700/month). Importantly, this shouldn’t just focus on the Southeast. MMT supports funding regional regeneration—think new homes, infrastructure, and jobs in places like the North or Midlands to balance growth and affordability across the UK.
2. Regulations & Councils: Streamlining planning laws is crucial, but councils need resources to act. MMT shows the government can credit their accounts directly, like in the post-war housing boom, without waiting for tax revenue or private loans. This cuts reliance on banks, which profit from bond markets and interest on so-called “government borrowing” (which MMT says isn’t borrowing at all—the government issues the pound).
3. Wages: You mention builders earning £35k–£40k, but most young people in Brighton earn closer to £24k–£27k (national living wage is ~£25k full-time). MMT’s Job Guarantee, its core policy, would offer £25k–£30k for public works like construction or green projects, setting a wage floor that pushes private employers to match it. This could lift local wages, making flats more affordable.
4. Generational Fairness: The original post highlights how Boomers benefited from government spending on homes and education. MMT shows we can do the same for young people—fund housing, infrastructure, or debt relief—without “printing money” recklessly. Spending is limited by real resources (land, labor, materials), not money. If inflation arises, taxes like a Land Value Tax on speculators can cool demand, not “pay” for programs.

 

[The Rivet]

I don't think this is correct. This from MSE...

For couples, it will be individual income that counts – not household income. For those not claiming Pension Credit (or other benefits), the payment will be split, with each person getting £100, £150 or £200 (up to a total of £300).

It'll then only be clawed back from each person based on their income – so, for example, if one person earns £30,000 a year and the other £40,000, one would keep their share and the other would have to pay it back

So one maximum payment per household! Be pedantic how it's split if you like, bothers me none.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

you dont need money printing. building homes needs land, regulations relaxed to get permission granted quicker and cheaper, law changed to allow councils to build social housing again. wages are over 25k (about minimum wage), builders will get 35-40k already.

With protection to stop people hiding behind an isle of man account scatter-bombing with applications outside the local plan, like we have here at the moment.
That's separate to large amounts of decent house building that is proliferating here, part of the local plan.

 

[Denis]

I have the old state pension, a work’s DB pension and another small private pension, all amounting to around 17k. Naturally I pay tax on the two pensions (not SP). 35k cut off seems very generous to me. Or maybe I just had rubbish career choices being a single Mum bringing up three boys. Unlike men that were able to earn more. Needless to say, I always worked, sometimes two jobs, paid off a mortgage and quite happy with life.

 

[bluenitsuj]

Good. It was another huge cock up by Labour when they cut the payments.

 

[Javeaseagull]

Why is a U-turn seen to be some sort of failure of Government? As if every decision they make is perfect and does not need to change? A bit like the Popes infallibility? I’m guessing this comes from Thatcher saying the lady is not for turning because, of course, she was always right. Or so they would have us believe.

It was a mistake and has now been corrected so obviously they have to be vilified. I give up.

 

[timbha]

Why is a U-turn seen to be some sort of failure of Government? As if every decision they make is perfect and does not need to change? A bit like the Popes infallibility? I’m guessing this comes from Thatcher saying the lady is not for turning because, of course, she was always right. Or so they would have us believe.

It was a mistake and has now been corrected so obviously they have to be vilified. I give up.

I think it’s more that they won’t admit it’s a U turn. Reeves is trying to convince us that economic conditions have improved so much under Labour that they can now afford to re introduce the allowance, albeit to slightly fewer people.

NO they got it wrong, are losing support and are trying to stop the rot with bribes.