What an exemplary idea from Martin Lewis in response to plans to limit winter fuel payments (Martin Lewis calls for rethink of plan to limit winter fuel payments, 23 August). If the government were to restrict the payment to any pensioner living in a property in council tax bands A, B, C or D, this would effectively means-test the benefit by excluding wealthy pensioners who don’t need it. It is not perfect, but is far better than relying on people claiming pension credit, which is a benefit not fit for purpose. The income and savings limits are extremely low and many pensioners who have never claimed anything during their lives are unlikely to apply for it.
Upsetting 12.6 million pensioners so early in the electoral cycle is not a good look. The chancellor should consider this option as soon as possible.
Garry Bond
Stoke-on-Trent
• The major injustice with the government’s proposal to limit the winter fuel allowance to those on pension credit is that those just above the threshold for the credit end up worse off than those on it. There’s a relatively straightforward change that could address this anomaly: increase the guaranteed minimum level of income by the amount of the fuel allowance (possibly with an uplift to compensate for lost income tax). The allowance would thus become an intrinsic part of pension credit. More people would then become eligible to claim the credit.
Admittedly, this would reduce savings for the government and it would need to make up the shortfall from elsewhere. But it would remove the blatant injustice of the current proposal without introducing a whole new level of means-testing.
Nicholas May
London
• Martin Lewis suggests winter fuel payments could be paid to those whose houses are on lower council tax bands. A fairer and more efficient way of ensuring payments continue to more needy people is to use tax codes to claw it back from taxpayers.
Those on pension credit (including those who, for whatever reason, have not claimed it) and those on the basic state pension would then all continue to benefit from the payments.
Martin Wright
Otley, West Yorkshire
• “We have to make difficult decisions” runs the mantra. Difficult for whom? It did not take long for the newly elected Labour government to return to the old tried and tested, and failed, ways of the Cameron-Osborne playbook.
So much hope prior to the election and, sadly, we appear to be seeing history repeating itself with the poorest and most vulnerable bearing the brunt of so-called “savings”. What happened to the “we are coming after” the tax avoiders, evaders, those who are deluged with funds (can anyone justify a £43m hike in the income of the Windsors?), the annual £3bn promised to Ukraine indefinitely.
Just how much are the energy companies’ shareholders due to receive, while the poorest fund the payments? The prime minister and chancellor should go for where the money is: there are many billions waiting in uncollected taxes, outnumbering the miserable £1.4bn saved by the cancellation of the winter fuel allowance and the refusal to lift the two-child benefit cap, throwing thousands more children into poverty. Shame on you both. From a totally disaffected lifelong Labour voter.
Mary Hardy
Ealing, London
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
