Is it about time the word "benefit" was redefined?

PhylPho

In view of the condition of national finances, is it about time that "benefit" was redefined -- or more properly understood?

Yes, anyone whose financial situation is improved thanks to State aid (i.e., thanks to money sourced from other taxpayers) can be said to have "benefited".

Yet surely, the qualification for receiving financial help must be basis of need.

We were recently in the Canary Islands where we know a number of Brits who though resident over there still receive the winter fuel allowance. One couple in particular said they were looking forward to "our £500", this because every year the couple receives, in error, £250 each. The error has still not been rectified.

The couple live in a climate where the average October to March daily temperature is 70F. Their heating bill is less than £100. . . for an entire year. As to the £500, they said (a) if "the government" was too stupid to make an accurate payment, then that was the government's fault, not theirs, and (b) they were delighted to get their "benefit" because of "all the years" they'd "paid into the system".

So what seems to have happened is that payment on the basis of need has become pay-back. These people -- and there must be many hundreds like them outside the UK -- do not live through an English winter and have no need whatsoever for cash help with their winter fuel bill.

Similarly, there must be thousands who do live in the UK but with substantial household incomes who likewise cannot justify any "need" for this cash aid.

Benefit-as-payback seems to characterise senior citizens' bus passes, too: "we paid taxes all our lives, we're *entitled* to have something back".

As for Child Benefit, it's been a ludicrous situation for too long, either as inducement for a certain type of person to lie back and think of England (in the sense of what England will fork out for all the kids that person is now about to breed) or as a bonus to the well-off who're sending their kids to boarding school or into a private education only they can afford. (A situation resolved not one jot by the government's blatantly inept revision announced yesterday.)

Me and mine are proud to live in a country which makes provision to help those in need. But I'm getting tired of hearing folks talk about "benefit" not in terms of money that meets a need, but as pay-back. That's not a sign of a caring Society but of a daft one.

Hauptmann

'Benefit' is what other people receive. 'Entitlement' is what YOU receive. I am sure that all those people receiving bus passes and winter fuel money don't think of them as 'benefits' and will be in for a shock when they are on the receiving end of cuts.

Alan_Cross

I would put forward the current lack of a 95% tax on bankers' bonuses as a considerable benefit awarded to those who have laid our economy low by the rest of us.

Now, far be it from me to suggest an additional burden upon poor souls who are already laden with a condition tantamount to the category of Socially Useless and Talentless Moron, but how about taking a few billions from that source..?

bendix

For me, the concept of universal benefits is an aberation. If it's universal, how is it a benefit? Even a rudimentary knowledge of economics shows that if everyone receives a benefit, then the impact is extra money in the economy which leads to higher inflation, thus wiping out the value of the benefit.

It's just plain nonsense.

PhylPho

Hauptmann wrote: »

'Benefit' is what other people receive. 'Entitlement' is what YOU receive. I am sure that all those people receiving bus passes and winter fuel money don't think of them as 'benefits' and will be in for a shock when they are on the receiving end of cuts.

Beautifully put! Entitlement, not benefit.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

People that are capable of working and earning money to support themselves should receive nothing at all from the state beyond a short term safety net.

End of debate.

The_White_Horse

"handout" would be better. people may have more shame saying " i am waiting for me handout" than "waiting for me benefits".

if you are a tax payer and pay more tax than you recieve back, it should be deemed a "rebate".

FATBALLZ

The_White_Horse wrote: »

"handout" would be better. people may have more shame saying " i am waiting for me handout" than "waiting for me benefits".

if you are a tax payer and pay more tax than you recieve back, it should be deemed a "rebate".

People don't say "I am waiting for me benefits". The clowns outside the jobcentre I used to walk past every morning can usually be heard to say "I am waiting for me wages" or "I am waiting to get paid". They don't seem to appreciate the difference between wages and benefits

Alan_Cross

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

People that are capable of working and earning money to support themselves should receive nothing at all from the state beyond a short term safety net.

End of debate.

And when, thanks to those who are 'in work' but who have wrecked the economy for the rest of us, there are no jobs to be had...?

StevieJ

Hauptmann wrote: »

'Benefit' is what other people receive. 'Entitlement' is what YOU receive. I am sure that all those people receiving bus passes and winter fuel money don't think of them as 'benefits' and will be in for a shock when they are on the receiving end of cuts.

I thought they had promised to ringfence those, oh I forgot Tories don't keep promises, some of the Paxman interviews on their next election manifesto should be fun

Alan_Cross

StevieJ wrote: »

I thought they had promised to ringfence those, oh I forgot Tories don't keep promises, some of the Paxman interviews on their next election manifesto should be fun

Ooh no... wrong target.

It'll be when Paxman asks the Libdems about which parts of their manifesto the electorate should believe will still be there the day after the election - that will be when the belly laughs start...