Too posh for dosh !!

boyse7en

drc wrote: »

I don't think benefits should be means tested. Why should someone who has worked hard and progressed and paid into the system all their lives be penalised for working? There are plenty of people on over £50k who have paid loads into the system and who have subsidised the benefits of those who have never worked. Rather, the system should encourage everyone to work not penalise those who have been more prudent and worked hard. The welfare state should be the last resort. Not a cushy lifestyle choice of those who can't be bothered or responsible and not everyone who is on benefits is 'vulnerable'.

Well, I've paid into the health system for years, but I don't go to the Doctor just to 'get my tax money back' . I'll use it if I ever get ill

Its the same with benefits. I pay in (as taxes) and hope i don't need it, but hope that should I fall on hard times it is there to keep me and my family going. If i claim for child benifit, CTC, WTC et al. when I don't need it, well, it's kind of like raiding the piggybank.

drc

boyse7en wrote: »

Well, I've paid into the health system for years, but I don't go to the Doctor just to 'get my tax money back' . I'll use it if I ever get ill

Its the same with benefits. I pay in (as taxes) and hope i don't need it, but hope that should I fall on hard times it is there to keep me and my family going. If i claim for child benifit, CTC, WTC et al. when I don't need it, well, it's kind of like raiding the piggybank.

But that's the problem. You won't get your money back in 'hard times' because those who have savings over a certain amount and have been careful with their money are effectively excluded from most benefits. So you might have paid in but it doesn't mean you'll be helped when times get tough. They rely on people like you to pay into the system and save so that others don't have to :rolleyes:.

Masomnia

I hope I never end up on benefits either. On the other hand, I currently get a student loan, grant, and a bursary from my uni, and actually have more than I need. Hence the savings bit in my sig. If I can make some money here and there it helps. I don't feel too guilty, as I'll be graduating with £22,500 worth of debt in a year's time, and so will need to pay that off, and it is pretty daunting to think about. Once I've paid that back I'll hopefully get something out of my degree and pay more tax than average, and if I'm in a position to, donate something to my uni.

Soon as I graduate I'll be applying to everything I can find. I'd much rather stack shelves in Tesco while I find something better than be on JSA. Not that I'll get that much because of my savings! Yes, while my friends spend money on drugs and trainers that cost £100+ I'm being prudent and limiting my ability to get benefits... I suppose it's a good lesson to learn early!

StevieJ

bendix wrote: »

The Welfare State should ONLY be there to prop up those in most dire need, and even then it should only provide a subsistence. For relatively wealthy pensioners to claim their £250 heating allowance or for well-earning parents to claim the £20 a week child benefit simply because they can goes to the very heart of the 'me me me me me' society we live in.

Does that include state pension for 'well off' pensioners?

bendix

StevieJ wrote: »

Does that include state pension for 'well off' pensioners?

Good question.

Personally, in my case, yes. I have no intention of claiming my state pension. If my plans come off, I won't need it and - as such - I won't take it. I would find it a personal compromise. I firmly believe that it is my personal responsibility to fund my own life in ALL its phases, even if I am having to pay taxes and NI in the process to fund other people's. It's a financial v political/philosophical trade off and financially, at least, I lose out. But my principles are worth more to me than £100 a week or whatever it would amount to.

I suppose the logical extension of my argument is some kind of means testing for state pension, yes, although the fact that it is ostensibly from NI contributions rather than tax clouds the issue a bit.

Masomnia

The State Pension is a tricky one. Presumably Alex Fergusson is drawing his, despite his wealth and income from managing United, I don't suppose I think any less of him for it. After all he is entitled to it.

I'm not sure it should be means tested however. When we pay national insurance it is in return for the promise that when we retire the state will provide us with something. If people opt out then even better. Or maybe the term 'insurance' implies that it should be paid out only if it becomes necesary. I'm not sure.

I don't understand the argument 'Oh well, if it's just me what difference will it make' either. Firstly because you are just a drop in the ocean (one out of 6 billion people), so why should you expect to make any more impact than that? but secondly because personal morals should be more important than the overall effect, in that you should only be juding yourself against your own situation and standards, rather than that of other people.

bendix

Good post.

You're quite right. The state pension is paid for from National Insurance. In that respect, one should only take the benefit if it's needed.

If I take fire insurance, I don't expect to get a benefit unless I lose something through fire. Similarly, if I pay insurance to the government to protect myself in the event I can't support myself in my old age, I should only take the benefit if I need it.

Logically, any other position is akin to insurance fraud - taking a benefit when there is no need for it.

michaels

By not taking benefit you are 'entitled' to though you are leaving it with the govt to spend how they see fit - given that I don't necessarily agree with all the ways the current govt spends our money I can see an argument for taking whatever you are qualified to take and giving it to a charity of your choice if you don;t feel that you should be benefiting personally?

boyse7en

drc wrote: »

But that's the problem. You won't get your money back in 'hard times' because those who have savings over a certain amount and have been careful with their money are effectively excluded from most benefits. So you might have paid in but it doesn't mean you'll be helped when times get tough. They rely on people like you to pay into the system and save so that others don't have to :rolleyes:.

That's the wrong way of looking at it.
If I have savings, then I won't be in 'hard times', as I can use the savings to live off of, so I don't need the benefits.
As the savings deplete, then I will be able to get benefits.:rolleyes:

If you spend your life thinking that you have to get out of the system what you pay in, you'll go crazy.

lostinrates

michaels wrote: »

By not taking benefit you are 'entitled' to though you are leaving it with the govt to spend how they see fit - given that I don't necessarily agree with all the ways the current govt spends our money I can see an argument for taking whatever you are qualified to take and giving it to a charity of your choice if you don;t feel that you should be benefiting personally?

I sort of get where you are coming from with this. I always feel a vote for mid/low taxation doesn't stop people paying higher rates in volutary contributions to what they believe is right if they see fit.

Sadly most people would see themselves as a suitable depository yet still feel able to take from the shared pot . I'd love to put my tax money to where I would like: like PR version of the green token Waitrose scheme! (yeah, yeah, cost of administration etc etc)