Winter Fuel Allowance

the winter fuel payment is per household so it would be difficult to tax it on an individual basis.
as it is ONLY £200 per year (which is about £4 per week for a household) it is not mega generous to those who need it. I feel the cold and being retired probably use more heating than younger ones and as by definition my heating/utilities is over 10 percent of my income (single pensioner) I am theoretically in fuel poverty. The WFP is very very welcome and my concern is that the powers that be would restrict it those on pension credit and those that fall just outside this would lose it.

I don't really agree with the winter fuel allowance being given to all. I know plenty of pensioners who are far from poor and spend their WFA on treats when surely that defeats the very object of what is was supposed to be about.

I agree with Mishap there are many struggling young families (mine included) who can't afford to keep their home warm in the winter.

I have often thought that there should be a way for people who have reason to thank the NHS for the care they or a loved one have received (and contrary to what you often hear, there are many people with reason to be grateful to them).

I envisaged a completely separate fund, which would accept donations or legacies without identifying the donor to the main organisation which gives care and treatment, so that there could be no question that anyone was buying preferential attention, or giving a reward after receiving it.

The offer of winter fuel payments could include a note that if anyone felt that they did not need it, they could donate it to this fund.

That's a good idea Mishap . We also support ours as much as we can.

We can manage without ours and we spend it on things for the children - they are struggling young families getting a poor deal - I feel it redresses the balance a bit.

Means testing for the fuel allowance would be counter productive, as has already been said, as the cost of implementing it would outweigh that which is saved.

As vampirequeen states - we would all be pleased to see MP's and Lords perks cut. Used to be the time when these sorts of jobs were done by worthy people who simply thought it an honour to serve their fellow men. Now they all appear to be getting out of it what they can.

Lets start the economies by reducing by 50% the numbers in the Lords and Commons.

As for the fuel allowance - don't leave it for the mandarins to spend!!

I agree with AlisonMA. People have paid their dues and now it's time for them to get something back. The Winter Fuel Allowance costs £2billion every year.

Perhaps the government should look at MPs and Lords subsidies before it attacks the pensioners. For example the restaurants in the Commons are subsidised to the tune of £5.8 million and the Lords £1.4 million every year....that's just for food and staff...the buildings, utilities and repairs are covered by another department. Let the restaurants be run as businesses and let the MPs and Lords pay the full cost.

Also did you know that the Lords get an allowance of £300 a day tax free just for attending....i.e. walking into the building.

Food is just one example. I'm sure there are lots of other subsidies too.

Perhaps the logical thing would be to include it as part of taxable income. That way, the poorest pensioners who, by definition, don't pay income tax would benefit the most. That would also have been the easiest way forward with child benefit.

It seems the government are considering the options but when discussed on the radio yesterday they were talking about people with incomes about £100,000 so, if that were the cutoff point I think there are so few penshioners getting that much that it would cost more to administer than they would get back. I suspect it has been floated as an idea to see what reaction they get.

My stance on this is that we all worked very hard and paid our taxes so should get something back when so much is spent on not only the needy but also the feckless. I would prefer a campaign to persuade those of us who don't need it to give to charities who will probably spend it more sensibly than government.

If the fuel allowance becomes means tested in any way there will be a grey area of people who desperately need the help but will be just above the cut off point. I'd rather it was paid to everyone rather than those people miss out.

My DH & I are lucky enough at the moment to have pensions (plus p/t income) so really feel the fuel allowance could be better spent elsewhere. We have given it to charity. If we could opt out year by year that would be good for us so if we got to a point when we needed it we could opt back in. Trouble is some people are proud and may tick the opt out box when they could really use the payment!

I wouldn't give it back to the government. They would only spend it on nuclear weapons! I am in the fortunate position of not depending on a heating allowance but I give it to a charity for homeless people that I try to support when I can.

I think if it were means tested it would cost so much in administration - whole departments would probably spring up to sort it out. I have turned in to an terrible cynic.

Also the trouble with putting a cap on earnings is that what people earn isn't necessarily a guide to how well off they are. Outgoings can vary very widely too.