Does anyone know what will happen in a household where one person is over 66 and one isn't please? Cos it used to be that the allowance was per household.

This is how it works now.
From http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/mo...tirement/dg_10018657

"If you have reached the qualifying age you may get a Winter Fuel Payment to help pay for keeping warm in winter. This can be between £125 and £400 depending on your situation. Find out if you are eligible for this payment and how to apply."

I would have thought that a sizeable chunk of those eligible, but not needy, don't apply for it.
I may be wrong.

I'm really opposed to reducing any payments made to senior citizens. A large proportion of the people who have reached retirement age didn't have the opportunities that many younger people have to provide for their old age and are very reliant on their state pensions and other benefits.   But I am very much in favour of cutting Child Benefit, particularly to families who have more than one or two children.  I realise that there have to be provisions in place for people whose circumstances change after their children have been born, but having children is not a right, and I don't think that Child Benefit should be an automatic entitlement.

I believe that children are our future...

Whitney!    Can I just tell you your songs are sh!t?

Teach them well and let them lead the way...



Show them all the beauty they possess insiiiiide...

Blame George Benson!

Karma, put the family photos away!

BLOG FROM THE TORYGRAPH

Stop passing the buck... and before you start blaming Dolly Parton I will re-phrase


Your singing's sh!t.  

Feels like a reunion

THAT's the point I was trying to make but couldn't quite get there (but I thought it)

Very good argument to raise though and again, why I feel this should be means tested based on individual circumstance.

That's more like it!

I used to be brilliant, though.

Shoulda just said 'no' eh?

An awful lot of pensioners between the ages of 60-66 are still in full time work.
Now don't all start pelting me with stuff but come on why should  a person who is 62 is fit,healthy and works full time  get this payment.
It should be means tested - yes there are a lot of very needy pensioners out there, but there are also a lot of well off ones as well.

That's what I said up there somewhere ^^^. I fully support the theory that benefits should only be given to those in genuine need, that it shouldn't be due to age or how many kids someone has. I like the fact that the whole system is being looked at, but I don't like the proposals thus far. The child benefit thing wont come into effect until 2013, not sure about the weather payment, but Cameron insisted he would listen to the voice of 'the people'. Sounds like his flatulence is playing it's own tune to me.

If I ran the country (God forbid), I would have all these lazy feckers who are fit and healthy but don't want to work and are too 'difficult' to handle at the Job Centre, doing some kind of unpaid labour in order for them to keep their benefit. Why should fit and healthy people just get money for nothing for months on end with no intention of ever working? Half the time they use the excuse that society or 'the system' (as they like to call it) doesn't want them, that they are rejects and that's why they have no respect for the system. Get them off their backsides, put them in a working environment, give them the chance they keep screaming that they never get, it may actually benefit some of them to know that they will be accepted and encourage some work ethos and ambition.

I've just had another conversation with the Taliban-style receptionists at my GP surgery so am ranting again.

Karma - I think I love you and what you say makes perfect sense.
There are so many people who do play the system that it makes it bad for those in genuine need.

The problem with means testing everything is that it costs a huge amount just to administer it all.

If we are going to cut universal benefits, how soon will we be means testing for state education, or NHS care?

I know what you are saying Blizzie BUT this country is running out of money.... of course none of us want to see means testing but please tell me how it is EVER fair that someone who really does have "more money than sense" ( its an expression,) should have the same benefits as someone who struggles to make ends meet,

Why should Katie Price for example draw child benefit when she is a milionairess several times over.

Similarly why should a retired company director on a fat pension be entitled to the same amount of cold weather payment as a retired factory worker?

It is the duty of a good society to look after the weaker members - if that means those who do earn more money lose out then so be it.

I struggle month to month because I have a lot of outgoings ATM. I work hard and have 2 jobs.
I am not entitled to any sort of state help at all because I earn too much. But I am fine with that  - it is how it is.
If I have to be means tested in the future then I will be fine with that too,

This country is nowhere near running out of money. It's still one of the top 10 richest nations in the world. What's happening is that we're still allowing the richest to hoard it all. I'm for massive redistribution of wealth, and that includes taxing the bankers to within an inch of their lives. If we did that and stopped tax dodging, there's be more than enough to pay for universal benefits.

Pete who was getting your clap - me or Blizz? *bats eyelashes*

I hate this government and the Tory party in particular, but this time I think they've more less done the right thing.  It can't be right for the poorest to have their essential benefits cut or be taxed more harshly so those on £44,000+ can have family allowance in these though times. 

In an ideal world universal benefits would be kept but in these times of austerity, sacrifices have to be made by somebody. It would be nice if we could just tax the banks and super rich more, but the Tories will never go for that, so this is the next best thing. 

Doubtless, there will be some hard luck stories but the principle that benefits should be for those who need them rather than a nice-to-have is a correct one. Of course some people coming off benefits are effectively taxed at 95p for each extra pound they earn due to loss of benefits and it is those people's tax concerns that are more important than those on annual incomes of over £44,000..

A single person earning £44,000+ will be doing so for say, 40 hours a week.  £44,000 seems a reasonable salary to claw back benefits.

A couple where both work may be taking 80 hours out of their lives to make ends meet to make the same £44,000+.  It seems reasonable that a couple where both are having to juggle their family life around work, keep more than the couple where only one is working.

I shouldnt be annoyed as none of this effects me at all... but what really pisses me off is how they said they would not make child benefit cuts a while back. Theres also talk about them making cuts to those with disabilities. Had they mensioned this before the election I wouldnt of had much of a problem, I watched it earlier when he brought up the child benefit cuts... he didnt sound too popular with the audience.

Its complete horse sh*t all of it It annoys me how its actually legal for politicians to state what they will and won't do... then come the time when their party gets into power they do exactly the opposite.

Basically, because it is easier and cheaper to pay it to all and then use the tax system to get a hell of a lot more back from the rich.

This will hit those on middle incomes and those households with only one parent working. The rich won't miss it.

If it is because the country is running out of money and it is a desperate measure to pay off the deficit , why is it only coming in during 2013. £1 billion saved in three years time? It doesn't make sense.

IMO, it's another ideological cut dressed up as an unavoidable need.

Depends how middle incomes are defined.  £20,000 (£25,000 full timers only) is the median income in 2009, so £44,000 is almost double the average median salary. 

I think the problem is that when papers such as the Daily Mail (and the media in general) talk about the middle and the middle class, they're usually refering to salaries over £40,000.  Someone can be described as middle class and a middle earner when they're on £70,000. £70,000 is a quite high end middle class salary but not a middle income salary. The richer earner is frequently represented as the every-man earner.

Clearly someone earning £50,000pa has considerably more disposable income than someone earning £25,000, yet they are treated in the media as if they are one and the same.

I work in a bonus-related environment (with an ok basic) and I know this will be a complete mess when it comes into effect. I can only presume that they will look at people's earnings for the previous tax year and make their calculations on that information. Fine, but then when it comes to the next tax year they may see that middle income/single parent has exceeded 44k in overall earnings, has already paid the 40% mark-up and will automatically lose the child benefit. This is what happens with Working Tax Credit and it's a mess. Why Working Tax Credit don't means test for those on bonus-related salaries every quarter I don't know. It would save a lot of headaches on both sides.

This new system is fine for those on flat salaries, but not so great for people like me and I envision an argument or three with the pen pushers come 2013 (which isn't like me at all )

Actually thinking about it, what am I moaning about?! (That's unusual for me too ) But seriously, if, come 2013 I'll be earning in excess of 44k, then I'll be very lucky, cos who knows what state the country will be in by then?

I can live reasonably comfortably on £43,998 pa, so as long as I don't go over that I'll be ok

wasn't there some mealy mouthed faff from from government or other a few years back, initiating the winter fuel payments to pensioners because , in the face of public outrage they weren't increasing the state pension in line with prices?  so  the winter fuel payment was a sop to keep the great unwashed quiet?

I was going to shake my fist at Cameron as I wizzed past the NIA where the conference is being held but the bugas blocked off the road and diverted us round the back, so I shook my fist there and gave him a two finger salute for making me late for my Latin lesson 

I was giving Blizzie the clap

I think we would all love that Peter - poetic justice and all that.

Shame we can't trust the Tories to do it though. They'd much rather hit the not so well-off.

Well sod this for a game of soldiers. *unbats lashes if there's such a word as unbats but I don't really care if there is or not cos I've just used it anyway*

Totally agree with this. Other benefits are.
And i wonder how many millions all these changes are going to cost?

The deficit IMO comes from the 2 unnecessary wars we are fighting abroad. Funny how the deficit seems to stem from when Labour took power and Iraq was invaded. These wars are costing millions - and to what end? Loss of livesand still no end to the terror campaign.

 What nonsense. The wars were funded way before the financial mess we are now in.

What are the two 'wars'? The UK is withdrawing in large part from Iraq and Afghanistan now.. leaving them to the chaos we have visited on them.

The deficit seems to me to be due to over-borrowing from the banks by us truly. And their giving it without sufficient examination of the ability of the loan-taker to pay it back! 

The banks are patently guilty of getting us into the mess we are.

 Xochi I agree with your post I believe over borrowing from the banks has caused the biggest part of the mess this country is in, there will always be people who live beyond their means bank loans credit cards who have not got the income to pay what they have borrowed back YES  the banks have got a lot to answer to in my opinion..

More specifically, American banks and the government of the US, pushed mortgages onto people with very bad credit ratings. The mortgages had very low interest rates, making the prospect of owning their own property all the more attractive to the borrower. These mortgages became known as 'subprime'.

The huge number of these morgages sold, created an inflated housing market, leading to a huge house price bubble that ignored the ability of the householders to pay the mortgage, and ignored the realistic values of the properties borrowed against.

These subprime mortgages were not kept by the banks involved, but put together with other similar mortgages in packages of debt, which were given fancy names and sold off around the world, to other banks. These other banks did not look carefully at what they were buying, but looked at the fancy names of the packages, assumed that the American bankers had done their homework and assessed the risk of this lending, and happily took on what were, basically, worthless investments. As soon as homeowners in the US started having difficulty paying the mortgages, the truth gradually started coming out that banks, globally, had taken on a vast amount of bad debts and would never see their money returned. The housing bubble had burst and they owned a load of unsellable property.

This led to banks no longer trusting each other. They stopped lending to other banks, which the banking industry had come to rely on, and even banks with relatively safe mortgage lending policies started running out of cash.

Banks started to fail and governments felt that they had to step in and save them, costing tax payers, around the world, a fortune.