What are rhe numbers here? I thought the winter fuel allowance, like nost of these things, was not worth means-testing because the administration cost more than the saving. Is it really that far off?
But worth remembering their are several reasons this has been rejected in the past.
1st those on the border of entitlement to benifits are still in difficulties.
2nd this is an age group where a high % refuse or do not have the ability to claim. Refuse os basically pride. As there has been a long history of judging people claiming benifits.
Unable is often due to mental and physical disability that hits with age. And in increased over the last 14 years às many of the people who helped prevent this nonlonger exist.
“Not much additional cost” has to be really low in aggregate. The allowance is 200 quid a year per household. If someone phones twice to check on it that’s pretty much blown the saving.
It’s obviously mostly about perception, and the principle behind the message they want to send is reasonable, but targeting pensioners at the borderline of the cutoff is hardly effective redistributive justice.
What are rhe numbers here? I thought the winter fuel allowance, like nost of these things, was not worth means-testing because the administration cost more than the saving. Is it really that far off?
They are using an existing measure to means test it off so I doubt there is much additional cost
Yep.
But worth remembering their are several reasons this has been rejected in the past.
1st those on the border of entitlement to benifits are still in difficulties.
2nd this is an age group where a high % refuse or do not have the ability to claim. Refuse os basically pride. As there has been a long history of judging people claiming benifits.
Unable is often due to mental and physical disability that hits with age. And in increased over the last 14 years às many of the people who helped prevent this nonlonger exist.
“Not much additional cost” has to be really low in aggregate. The allowance is 200 quid a year per household. If someone phones twice to check on it that’s pretty much blown the saving.
It’s obviously mostly about perception, and the principle behind the message they want to send is reasonable, but targeting pensioners at the borderline of the cutoff is hardly effective redistributive justice.