Should automatic benefits be cut for those who "don't need them"?

Graham_Devon

One way to bring down the pace at which we add to the debt pile is to stop paying benefits to people who don't need them.

Were talking bus passes, winter fuel allowance, free TV licences, maybe even child benefit.

The claim is that people have worked and paid in all their lives, therefoe why shouldn't they get something now....even if they don't need it, they've "paid for it".

On the other side of the fence, some claim it's irresponsible to be saddling their children and grandchildren with debts just to give freebies to people who don't need them.

The government has pledged to cut the welfare bull by £10bn. However, they have refused to touch pensioners. Therefore this £10bn will have to be cut from working age people. However, Iain Duncan Smith has claimed it isn't possible to squeeze those already most squeezed and they should target the niceities.

So, where do you stand? I'm firmly on the side of the fence that states benefits should be taken from those who least need them so that we can target those who most need them. However, I'm not benefitting from winter fuel allowances etc, and this appears to cause outrage.

Should we continue to give £200-300 a year to everyone over the age of 60 regardless? Why is there such a taboo in removing benefits from people over 60?

martinthebandit

Yes, next question?

heathcote123

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why is there such a taboo in removing benefits from people over 60?

Is that a rhetorical question? You do know the answer already don't you?

Graham_Devon

heathcote123 wrote: »

Is that a rhetorical question? You do know the answer already don't you?

I know my personal answer.

But it's split. Theres no common ground. For instance, on one of the articles I have read, the poster stating "No, we have paid in all our lives, put 1p extra on income tax" has got just as many recomendations as "yes, give it to those who most need it instead of wasting it on those who hold 80% of the wealth".

Normally you get a common right or wrong, and the government dithering. But on this, it seems there is no obvious divide.

drc

Well, you could argue that people who choose to have children don't need benefits, since parenthood is a choice.

I think they need to cut across the board. It does seem unfair to cut benefits to pensioners who have been responsible and are "wealthy" due to prudence and perhaps going without earlier in their lives. I think it sends out a bad message that if you are responsible and prudent, you will be penalised, whereas if you have nothing and have !!!!ed all your money up the wall, you will be rewarded.

Perhaps benefits should be linked to NI contributions over a lifetime and for the lifelong disabled/seriously ill who cannot work and cannot therefore have NI contributions.

Or perhaps they should introduce a LVT and get money from unearned income rather than increasing income tax for those in work.

lazer

I'd be very sceptical about moving these universal type benefits.

Lets say you set the means test at £150, on pesioner has £149 a week, therefore gets free bus pass, fuel allowance etc.
Other pensioner has £151 a week and doesn't - therefore the means tested person is better off.

Its like Child Benefit - the cut off point means people not receiving it will be worse of than the people receiving it.

I would be in favour of doing away with these benefits for everyone and increasing the basic benefit for everyone to a proper living standard, no more HB, CT benefit, free school meals, free prescriptions, free bus passes, fuel allowances etc. Then everyone would have to live within their means and it does away with the outcry about those on benefits getting all the extras that finish up making them better off

MDG

Good luck to any government trying to cut from the pensioners. They're the biggest voters out there, look what happened last time the government tried to cut from them!

Boycott the Buses Round 2.

But in answer to your question, yes, the welfare bill needs slashing and it shouldn't consist of luxuries such as bus passes etc.

It should be a safety net for those most in need.

MrRee_2

Let's get this straight .... it costs MORE to means test than to not - FACT.

I use my Winter Fuel Allowance to heat my swimming pool and the money therefore goes back in taxes and energy charges.

The cost to the Gobernment is minimal, I keep my pool warm and everyone wins.

Pennywise

There are easier ways to deal with relatively "rich" pensioners.

The obvious answer is to scrap NICs and increase basic rate tax accordingly. Probably to something like 25% as NIC is currently only on "earned" income, not pensions, investment income, etc.

Increase the pensioners' age allowance to around £15k p.a. so that pensioners with total income of say £26k or less p.a. aren't affected, but those with incomes above national average pay "the same" rate of tax as workers etc.

Yes, they can keep their pension, winter fuel allowance, bus passes, etc., but they pay more in income tax to compensate.

As I say, change the personal allowance so that the "poorer" pensioners aren't affected. Massive simplification, massive boost to revenue coffers. At a stroke it takes away all the areas of potential abuse for those who "convert" earned income into unearned income to avoid NIC - i.e. dividends, foreign income, etc.

NIC is just another tax. It's not ring fenced, it's not saved for future need. It's just a tax on workers which is the last thing we need when we need people to work to get the country out of the mire.

chucknorris

Don't worry these type of payments haven't got long to run they will stop in about 5 and a half years (just before my 60th birthday).

Mikedkt

The way things are going benefits are being cut for everyone going forward.