Affordabilty Checks vs Winter Fuel Allowance.

Very expensive heating a LARGE
HOUSE

Maybe I have to spell it out.

If you have a high net worth but actual income is low, you can only bet at a level the income suggests you can afford.
If you have a high net worth but actual income is low (under £35k), the government will pay your Winter fuel bills.

Both scenarios are completely illogical.

The govt needs to get it's priorities straight - stop investing in the future ffs - and get back to the more important business of bailing out profligate pensioners with more social security hand-outs and benefit payments.

£1M in assets is not "proof of income" for the Anti GC.
The only criteria when trying to place a bet is a simple one.Have you got the money in your A/C for the bet

The problem for us gamblers is that non-gamblers don't view non-liquid assets, such as houses, the way we do. For us, owning a house means that when we hit that impossibly bad run there's money there to bail us out. Increase the mortgage, or rent it out, or sell it and move somewhere cheaper ... whatever, the value of that house is effectively a figure which can be added to our income or account balance.

But non-gamblers simply don't see it that way. I remember 30 years ago a bloke in Castle Cary, Somerset, got made redundant and decided to open a betting shop in the town with the redundancy money. He knew nothing of the game - just assumed that if you rent premises and put "Licensed Betting Office" over the door the money would automatically roll in. A non-gambler in other words. Anyway, after a few months he owed me £3,970 (we knew each other - we drank together in the Horsepond Inn next door - so the bets were on tick), but he showed zero sign of paying up. The shop was losing money, so as far as he was concerned it was a case of can't pay, needn't pay. But he owned two houses outright. I wouldn't have allowed the debt to get so large otherwise. Yet the notion of raising money against his assets was out of the question. Completely alien to him.

In the end I had to use social pressure, threatening him with the story being revealed to everyone else in the town. I'm not proud of it, but what else could I do? if he'd said, look, I can raise the money against my assets, but it's going to take some time to sort it out, months even, then no problem. You know, there but for the grace of God and so on.  But no, that was out of the question for him.

In the end he borrowed cash from somewhere, paid me £3,500 in readies and I settled for that. But it was done with very bad grace, and clearly this was not the way non-gamblers expect their assets to be treated.

Similarly the idea that if you can't afford to heat a £300,000 house, then move to a £200,000 house, is a total non-starter for the vast majority.

interesting story screaming. A big clincher at all time regarding money/assets must be is someone single or married.

Yes, howard. The betting shop owner had a formidable wife. I can see the problem from his point of view now, and how I should have factored that in before letting the debt grow.

Even so, I assumed that paying what you owe takes precedence over everything. Evidently not.

uptheirons Joined: 01 Apr 25
Replies: 133511 Jun 25 15:52 
The only criteria when trying to place a bet is a simple one.Have you got the money in your A/C for the bet.




no it isnt. its proof of income thats needed, nuts though that is. just having a lump wont do. thats anecdotal from punters i have known

and 'only' is singular. 'criteria' is plural. criterion is the word you werent looking for


to follow on from screaming, someone who will be known to some of you won a right few quid on a yankee, gave up his job and opened a betting shop in the most salubrious area he could. it bombed but he escaped when notfair turned up and he changed its use

I remember those shops, they didn't last long.

mitolo I don't think you twig what people mean. No surprise there. He's saying that SHOULD BE the case.

i know full well what was meant. but it was ambiguous

no surprise there? youve got some front. only thing you understand is fascist propaganda. but lets not derail the fred

So you put someone right in deadpan style  when they don't need putting right. You are always looking to correct people but when it's revealed they don't need correcting you say they didn't need your advice in the first place.

I have never been asked when I buy a new car (normally every three years) as to how I am funding the purchase and,why should there be?
Once you let people tell you how you spend your money on whatever you legally want to is the step towards penury

ive certainlty corrected you a few times coward, and you know it as you quickly exit the scene

btw, i was poking fun at ironman. and he knows it. but lets not derail fred

why do you insult people for no good reason ? drink problem ? leaving the forum to not continue with you or anyone else= coward

you dont contnue when your nonsense is challenged. which makes you and your moniker apt and irresistible

i have a go at conspiracy mugs and fascist sympathisers. and youd be surprised (as i was) when i found several pms id neglected for years who are pleased to see it

I've heard pensioners grumbling about this issue. Claiming it's left them cash strapped etc etc etc. Next news? They're buying £20 worth of scratch cards at the Tesco checkout. 

Anybody who receives wfa shouldn't be allowed to gamble more than its worth every week through winter - how many of you would suddenly not be angry at losing it if this was so???
Meanwhile some disabled people who may have near worked due to their physical condition will now be forced to work or lose benefits - anyone with arthritis especially vulnerable. Enjoy those holidays that the wfa pays for next year.

Now if only disabled people found it easy to vote in big numbers.........

i had no idea what wfa was and have certainly never been offered it but universal benefits arent a good idea imvho

You make a fair point Blake but this allowance must be designed to filter through to those who need it.  Those who don’t but gleefully take it anyway should be found out by some means.  HMRC maybe. It should be made declarable.

you are avinalaf honcho

hmrc and dwp and all the rest are utterly hopelessand shouldnt be given a nana to dole out. the number of people who have raped the state because of their incompetence is mind-blowing. and sorry say i know several. one owes 600k and is walking around no problem at all

As I understand it you could have millions in the bank will get it if income less than 35k

silly question, but what is the point in being asset loaded but, at the same time, not enjoying any income derived from it?
You can't take it with you.

Of course interest will come into it

Well, there's the other similarity between the winter fuel allowance fiasco and the affordability checks fiasco : the state trying to organise something and turning out to be clueless

The OP is a prick as they are two issues that are not related

steerforth, why should someone who's paid their taxes all their life, lives in a nice house but is now cash poor not get it, whilst someone who's sponged off the state their whole life should?

Surely the big question is - wtf have all these pensioners that can't afford the leccy been up to for the past 5 or 6 decades?

Lived through a golden age with everything absolutely stacked in their favour and apparently 75% of them haven't got a pot to p1ss in? How can three quarters of them have failed to provide a decent income for their retirement?

What does this have to do with affordability checks,the management>

Jun 11, 2025 -- 7:43PM, swiftynifty wrote:

steerforth, why should someone who's paid their taxes all their life, lives in a nice house but is now cash poor not get it, whilst someone who's sponged off the state their whole life should?

Low income in retirement doesn't automatically add up to "cash poor". I was passing no views on entitlement, I was only pointing out that making a means tested assesment needs to look at the whole picture; whether that be in the WFA or in being able to afford a bet. The comment is on the nature of means testing not on who is or isn't actually receiving WFA, or a betting bank.

Why post this regarding the ludicrous affordability checks?

"As I understand it you could have millions in the bank will get it if income less than 35k"

If you had a £1m in the bank (and a pension) you'll be hitting the £35k

But then it's prolly "taxable" income and not income.  If the £1m is in ISAS and earning you £50k a year that's not taxable income

Why it's income and not wealth is because that information is already there.  I think most people realise the difference.  The VERY wealthy need to pay a small annual tax on their assets imo, otherwise lack of government services, poverty and inequality will keep on snowballing.

In a lot of countries I believe they are decreasing the tax rate for young people.  In this country of course it's higher for young people as they have to pay back huge student loans.  Most of them should never have gone to Uni in the first place of course, but Blair encouraged it and successive governments have done the same.  Personally I'd introduce a new higher upper rate of tax for pensioners.

The interest on student loans is ridiculous but the fact is over 50% of them are never paid back. Which tells you that too many courses are a waste of time and money, for the student and the tax-payer. As for the entire tax system it should be completely overhauled but all parties are too scared so they just tinker around the edges.

A tax on wealth is as stupid as a tax on propunters, and for the same reason: asset values go down as well as up. Share prices, property values, bond prices - they all fall as frequently as they rise, and the only people who might benefit would be accountants ensuring that losses crystallise at just that right time to avoid paying the tax.

Of course, in reality anyone liable to pay a wealth tax would have transferred those assets and/or themselves abroad 5 minutes before the tax is due anyway.

@bettys

"silly question, but what is the point in being asset loaded but, at the same time, not enjoying any income derived from it?"

You spend the assets.  It's much more tax efficient. 

If you have £500k in a pension pot, you can buy a (taxable) £20k income.

If you have £500k in an ISA, you can withdraw what you like with no tax and spend it.

(and yes, I know pensions have tax advantages on the way in, and that pensions pots can be used more efficiently for drawdown than buying annuities.  Just pointing out that being asset-rich and having no 'income' does not mean living in poverty).

You introduce an exit tax to address the issue of the very wealthy leaving.  Interesting to see how that goes in Norway.

It's besides the point that asset values go up and down.  If they go down to a point where they don't have to pay it or they sell them that's good for society.  The very wealthy are always open to sell their assets instead of stockpiling them, which is essentially the snowball of the last 50 years.  Studies on historical results have shown that the very wealthy asset values will still increase or hold value even with a wealth tax.

Instead we can go on and on with the snowball.  Ever increasing house prices.  Governments having less and less money, no dentists will take you, rivers poluted etc etc.  Tax being paid by young earners and not old hoarders with assets hundreds and thousands times greater than the young earners paying tax, who increasingly will only have assets themselves if they are gifted or inherit them.

The WFAS makes me laugh...
#
When it was removed, some of the older annual members at Southwell were genuinely aggrieved because, to quote, 'that money was paying some of my annual membership here.'

Talk about a country that has gone skewed and UK must top the list!

People leaving education and joining the big bad world better consider their retirement…..retirement age could be 80 in years to come….

or live a life on benefits , it pays better, welfare state out of control.

The slow snowball of the last 50 years has just started rolling faster because the government spent ludicrous amounts of money tackling COVID and now has less money and more interest to pay.  That money has gone somewhere.  My take is it's gone from governments (all over the world) to the super rich (all over the world).  What are the super rich going to do with that money?  Buy even more assets.  They are not going to spend it on tackling river pollution, flood defences, housing, roads.

Well out of control Swifty…

Society full of con artists…

swiftynifty12 Jun 25 10:57Joined: 16 Jan 07 | Topic/replies: 13,074 | Blogger: swiftynifty's blog
or live a life on benefits , it pays better, welfare state out of control.


formoftheace12 Jun 25 11:00Joined: 17 Apr 12 | Topic/replies: 19,076 | Blogger: formoftheace's blog
Well out of control Swifty… Society full of con artists…


The State Pension is a significant portion of welfare spending in the UK. In 2025-2026, it is forecast to be around 42% of total welfare spending. This makes it the largest single source of welfare expenditure.

I get free prescriptions next year (hopefully).  Almost nailed on that my kids don't at the same age.

CB29 is pretty much spot on in what he is saying - but there's little chance of anything changing.

The only people that can make the changes need to get a) elected and b) re-elected. The electorate are getting older and older, so the biggest Ponzi scheme in history will be left to run it's disastrous course.

The UK has had near on 50 years of continual GDP per capita growth.  Prolly somewhere around 40-45 of those years.  The country as a whole has been getting richer and richer and richer.  So why are things in general more or less the same for the vast majority?  Some things are better, some things are worse.  Swifty do you ever ask yourself why so many people are better off (in the immediate term) on the dole, after 50 years of near continual GDP per capita growth?   

There were 4 million on the dole in the early 80s iirc.

GDP per capita has flat-lined for 20 years.

I just checked.  It increased in 41 of the last 50 years, so in my range.  It's increased by 117%.  Who's benefitted from that increase?  Did people need food banks, were they unable to heat their home, unable to get a dentist, working long hours.  And we are apparently 117% better off.  £2.17 per person for every £1 we had in 1974.  So where is that money?  The government don't have it.

We've become a far more unequal society in the last 50 years and it shows.

Just out of interest.  How much did a top thoroughbred sell at auction for in the mid 1970s compared to now?  That will tell you where the money has gone.

Million pound notes pouring out of the ground non stop to thr Arabs

CLYDEBANK, don't disagree with much of that. But the GDP per capita is the truer figure of how individuals are doing, and it's worse, plus the social decline. It can be directly linked to the population increasing by over 7 million during that period, suppressing wages whilst lining the pockets of the big business.

AI will make millions unemployed before they reach retirement age. How it will all pan out I don't know, and I won't see how it develops as I am in my 70's now.

second again, why do you think that AI will cost jobs? We have had a stream of new tech over the past 20 years but unemployment continues to fall in most countries while in UK, we had a million job vacancies until recently. The jobs available might not all be ones that people want but they will be there and many are being filled by immigrants. AI can't replace hospitality outlets which continue to proliferate while the Labour Government have already created nearly a million new public sector jobs in 10 months! Unemployment happens when employers (of every kind) cut back on their businesses or close them. Often they emigrate as well and reinvest in another country.

Food banks are a sign of prosperity for the masses. I would rather live in the UK, with 2,500 food banks, than Venezuela, with none.

Seattle Dancer fetched $13.1 million as a yearling in 1985. That would be unthinkable now. That tells you where the money has gone over the last 40 years, and it's not to rich racehorse owners.

Food banks are fine for those who need them but are they abused? My local village organised a monthly free lunch with all welcome. Locals all made a contribution by bringing food or paying £2 for lunch. A minority just used it as an opportunity to exploit the generosity of others. I only attended once but I was amazed to see 2 women who were filling bags with food from the table and they were NOT poor. They asked me why I was not having dessert and when I said I had had enough to eat they looked amazed and said "but you can take it home or sell it" I don't doubt that some people are in genuine need but give something for free and a queue quickly forms.

Foodbanks are a scourge on society and encourage more scroungers…

Turn up at the foodbank with cigs in back pocket and mobile in other requiring top up to scroll p!ss…

People should get the house in order and learn to budget…

Women who are left high and dry with a few kids by an undesirable should be issued with cards to spend on food and only food and kids essential supplies….

swifty the GDP figures were per capita which are inflation adjusted.  Imagine telling someone 50 years ago that as a whole we'd have £2.17 (AFI) for every £1 we had then

screaming I don't have the knowledge of horse racing that a day to day racing enthusiast possesses, but I was in the bar at Newmarket talking to a fairly significant retired trainer and his friend and they were talking about the prices being fetched for even the most average horse.  I can't recall exactly the historic prices being mentioned, but I'm confident the multiples were nearer 100 than 10

That may have been the 60s tbf so out of my date range.

"Seattle Dancer fetched $13.1 million as a yearling in 1985. That would be unthinkable now. That tells you where the money has gone over the last 40 years, and it's not to rich racehorse owners."   It's gone to the rich but the rich aren't as interested in racing these days.

For some of us the whole point of working is to build up wealth to pay for old age and hopefully pass some on to family.

sageform, I think AI will destroy millions more jobs than it will create, not just in the traditionally working class jobs. Many good professional jobs will go too. It would not surprise me to see strange sight of the Mail Telegraph  and Express lobbying for higher dole payments for home owners to keep house prices stable. I can't prove any of this it is just my opinion. As I said in my previous post I will probably not still be here if it does happen.

There may well be a fall in standard of living as wages fall in real terms for "routine" jobs but there are plenty of things that need doing that are too expensive due to high wages. Try to get someone to do some gardening or decorating. 3 months minimum to come out and £50 minimum to just give an estimate. If AI releases some younger able bodied people willing to do manual jobs they will soon be working 7 days a week if they want to.

Paying people for estimates sageform?
Where do you live?

Somerset. I didn't exactly say paying for an estimate. It is a call out charge whether they get the job or not. There are a few cheaper ones but I prefer a reference and if locals say they are good, they are booked for months ahead. And I always pay immediately on the day or on invoice so no question of it being my fault.

I finally found a good contractor for hedge cutting 2 years ago who usually came within 2 weeks but he has stopped due to health issues.

I thought he was just cutting back.

Good thinking for a Saturday swifty