Ex-pats to lose benefits.

[For Us All]

Ex-pats to lose winter fuel allowance saving £17m.

 

Views and opinions please.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/457423/Winter-fuel-payments-to-100-000-expat-pensioners-to-be-scrapped-saving-almost-17-million

[philpvfc]

Totally correct decision.

[timvalefan]

100% agree, my parents live in Spain, and they agree, that why should you get benefits from a country, that you don't live in.

[bycars rob]

On the face of it a good decision, but only a small saving in the great scheme of things and I wonder how much it will cost to administrate. I read recently that the bill for pensioners is £85 billion dwarfing the cost of the unemployed. They will have to start making smoking compulsory.

[For Us All]

Before the political class attempt to steal the state pension from those who contributed for decades through National Insurance,they would do better to look at extravagant and unjustified items of public expenditure.International aid is an obvious candidate and the Taxpayers' Alliance has listed many more examples of obscene sums of our hard earned money being frittered away by our politicians.What is obvious,is the continuing cowardice of our politicians in failing to make hard choices and sanction real reductions in wasteful state spending.Don't penalise those who have contributed all their working lives,to subsidise all those that do the opposite.

[valefanintean]

It's a correct call, I live in Spain and wouldn't expect or need a winter fuel allowance. Any chance I could have it summer though to power the air con, it gets a bit warm!

[geosname]

Is the payment triggered by temperature? If so is it a area specific temperature or an average overall temperature?.. ie -2 in stoke payment triggered... +2 in crewe no payment... does the temperature have to be low over a period of days before payment is triggered?

My understanding.. the rules governing the above benefit state that you receive payment if the temperature where you live drops below a certain point for X number of days, if that is the case I dont see a problem... the article mentions the average national temperature which suggests thats how payments are triggered.

If people live in an area that triggers the payment it should be made, if they live in an area that doesnt trigger the payment it shouldnt be paid, the area they live should be defined as where they are living at the time of the event... an administrative nightmare whichever.... which only applies to EU countries that have reciprocal agreements... I think

[davidatpreston]

Is the payment triggered by temperature? If so is it a area specific temperature or an average overall temperature?.. ie -2 in stoke payment triggered... +2 in crewe no payment... does the temperature have to be low over a period of days before payment is triggered?

My understanding.. the rules governing the above benefit state that you receive payment if the temperature where you live drops below a certain point for X number of days, if that is the case I dont see a problem... the article mentions the average national temperature which suggests thats how payments are triggered.

If people live in an area that triggers the payment it should be made, if they live in an area that doesnt trigger the payment it shouldnt be paid, the area they live should be defined as where they are living at the time of the event... an administrative nightmare whichever.... which only applies to EU countries that have reciprocal agreements... I think

 

No, you are thinking of the cold weather payment of about £10 a week if the average temp is zero or less for a week, which is rarely paid anyway. Where I live in lancs has not qualified for this in the last 3 winters, though I know some parts of Yorkshire, the Midlands and a lot of Scotland would have.

 

The Winter Fuel Payment is a non-means tested about £200 a year which was for 60-year olds and over (one payment per household though, not each 60-y-old) though the qualifying age is rising and it may now be up to 61 or 62, but the main point is it is universal - Alan Sugar would get it if he is old enough or even the Queen, it is not means tested and this annoys some people.

 

It was always lunacy that ex-pats in Med countries or Australia or anywhere else hotter than here got it so I suppose this is sensible although somehow I bet they spend more administering it. Get rid of road tax and put it on petrol next, please - will stop those who have no tax disc from making the rest of us pay more.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

It sets a potentially dangerous precadent IMO

 

What next..get rid of free bus passes for those pensioners that have a car, removal of NHS care for those pensioners that can afford private health?No social help for those that have family who can help. Thin end of the wedge for me

 

As a nation we should suck up the cost for the greater good..people who don't want it can always give it to charity or something

[geosname]

No, you are thinking of the cold weather payment of about £10 a week if the average temp is zero or less for a week, which is rarely paid anyway. Where I live in lancs has not qualified for this in the last 3 winters, though I know some parts of Yorkshire, the Midlands and a lot of Scotland would have.

 

The Winter Fuel Payment is a non-means tested about £200 a year which was for 60-year olds and over (one payment per household though, not each 60-y-old) though the qualifying age is rising and it may now be up to 61 or 62, but the main point is it is universal - Alan Sugar would get it if he is old enough or even the Queen, it is not means tested and this annoys some people.

 

It was always lunacy that ex-pats in Med countries or Australia or anywhere else hotter than here got it so I suppose this is sensible although somehow I bet they spend more administering it. Get rid of road tax and put it on petrol next, please - will stop those who have no tax disc from making the rest of us pay more.

 

Fair enough.....

Although if its a universal benefit it shouldnt be restricted because it wouldnt be a universal benefit if it was... but isnt all benefit restricted to areas that have reciprocal agreements... ie the EU [or at least some member states if not all] mainly?

[geosname]

It sets a potentially dangerous precadent IMO

 

What next..get rid of free bus passes for those pensioners that have a car, removal of NHS care for those pensioners that can afford private health?No social help for those that have family who can help. Thin end of the wedge for me

 

As a nation we should suck up the cost for the greater good..people who don't want it can always give it to charity or something

 

I tend to agree with that stand in principal.

[smithie]

No social help for those that have family who can help

 

I honestly can't see what's wrong with that. It might go some way towards halting young people leaving school with no job to go to, if they know there is no longer a something-for-nothing option. If the parents know they will be expected to feed and clothe a loafer sitting around doing nothing, I'm sure that will not be too appealing.

 

As for "sucking up the cost for the greater good".....what greater good is that?

 

It's time child benefit was means-tested as well.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I honestly can't see what's wrong with that. It might go some way towards halting young people leaving school with no job to go to, if they know there is no longer a something-for-nothing option. If the parents know they will be expected to feed and clothe a loafer sitting around doing nothing, I'm sure that will not be too appealing.

 

I meant no help for pensioners cos the state deams there are family around to help; the state cannot make assumptions about a family's situation and ability/willingness to look after elderly relatives

 

As for "sucking up the cost for the greater good".....what greater good is that?

 

The greater good of the whole elderly/pensioner community; suck up those who get it who don't need help to protect services for those that do need help

 

It's time child benefit was means-tested as well.

 

But it's a dangerous precadent to punish those that have worked hard to be able to support their kids in favour of the ****less who just rely on the state, isn't it??

[smithie]

Currently, child benefit for the first child is £20.30 a week. Over a year, that's well over £1k. If you're wealthy enough to just put it in the bank and leave it there til the kid is 18, that's a pretty decent lump sum accumulated for that child.

 

Someone on low income meanwhile spends that money week-to-week because they have to.

 

I'm not really into politics but doesn't that sound wrong?

[geosname]

Currently, child benefit for the first child is £20.30 a week. Over a year, that's well over £1k. If you're wealthy enough to just put it in the bank and leave it there til the kid is 18, that's a pretty decent lump sum accumulated for that child.

 

Someone on low income meanwhile spends that money week-to-week because they have to.

 

I'm not really into politics but doesn't that sound wrong?

 

I think child benefit as an individual benefit should be scrapped and possibly incorporated into other benefits.