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

Graham_Devon

I think what this thread has concluded is that it's all someone elses fault and all someone elses problem.

I gave up after being told I had venom etc towards the older generation simply because the question was asked whether we could save some money by not giving money to people who don't need it.

N1AK

pqrdef wrote: »

Time for you to grow up and become a human being.

I'm perfectly comfortable with my classification as a human being, even though it's a pretty low bar to pass and a pretty embarrasing club. I wouldn't mind not being grown up, alas I haven't worked out a way to go back

I knew nothing that could be said on here would persuade people that the sky isn't blue (which would be a walk in the park compared to saying that pensioners aren't entitled something). I had some time free and thought I'd stir things up a bit! I learnt a few things in the process about views and perspectives so am glad I bothered.

Skinto_7

N1AK wrote: »

If the universal benefit was £100,000 a year would you consider it inviolate? If not, then why take that position without considering it with others.

- If the sole basis on deciding on who didnt get the benefit was based on whether they had worked hard enough to save a bit of cash to have a decent retirement, then yes i would consider inviolate.

Free bus passes and winter fuel allowances are recent benefits for pensioners. They weren't funded via the contributions they made during their working career.

- Of course they were made through contributions they made during their working career, perhaps not directly however its tax money that funds it, regardless of how recent the benefits are, historical tax payments are relevant to today's financial position (good and bad it has to be said)

Finally a universal benefit goes to everyone and it is unbelievably incorrect to act like all pensioners were hard working individuals. Doing so, if anything, encourages the kind of entitlement society you seem so keen to avoid.

- I was in no way acting like all pensioners were hard working, however it is you who seems to want to only punish those who were, and reward the ones that were not

.........................

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I gave up after being told I had venom etc towards the older generation simply because the question was asked whether we could save some money by not giving money to people who don't need it.

You should have seen it coming Graham hell hath no fury like a pensioner who hears his free tv license may go.

chewmylegoff

The NHS does fully fund medical care, including nursing home provision which is required for medical reasons. The government pays state pensions out. The government is keeping its promises.

The argument appears to be that we must keep paying benefits to people who don't need them because they have paid a lot of tax in the past. The trouble with this argument is that we have a redistributive tax system which is intended to transfer money from the "haves" to the "have nots". The effect of paying benefits to people who are already rich is that you are using the tax system to redistribute from poor to rich - or more accurately reducing the extent to which it redistributes from rich to poor (plus you cannot afford to pay as much to the poor people in receipt of the benefit as you have inefficiently given a big chunk of the money to people who do not need it). This, as Johnny Cochrane once said whilst standing next to a picture of Chewbacca, "does not make sense".

I don't think that removing WFA for higher rate tax payers would make a whole lot of difference to the deficit, it might save a few tens of millions. However, I am simply uncomfortable with the concept of tax payer funded benefits being paid to the rich. I would be equally happy if it was removed from high rate tax payers but the money "saved" redistributed to poorer pensioners with lower incomes / few assets.

N1AK

Skinto_7 wrote: »

I was in no way acting like all pensioners were hard working

That was my mistake Skinto. I misunderstood your comment

wotsthat

McKneff wrote: »

I like my bus pass, its the only blumming perk (apart from 60% state pension and heating allowance) that I get from the government

Another example of why we live in such an entitlement culture.

Borrowed money being used to pay perks to people that would manage perfectly well without them.

N1AK

chewmylegoff wrote: »

However, I am simply uncomfortable with the concept of tax payer funded benefits being paid to the rich. I would be equally happy if it was removed from high rate tax payers but the money "saved" redistributed to poorer pensioners with lower incomes / few assets.

I've actually heard some quite compelling cases made (mainly about the american equivalents) for making as many benefits universal as possible. The main points are:

• Universal benefits are cheaper to administrate as everyone can claim.
• More people take advantage because they know they are entitled. This is especially true with the elderly.
• People are more protective of benefits they get. In other words the wealthy will protect a benefit they can claim more than a benefit they can't.

The ideal situation is to change taxation to cover the cost of providing benefits universally in a way that takes the money off those who can afford to pay it.

I can see the logic. I pay a considerable amount in tax to fund healthcare yet don't get free healthcare. Someone who never works (by choice) gets free healthcare :mad:. I'm not that fussed, but I can see why I'd probably be even less fussed if I wasn't paying more for 'less'. Oddly paying 'even more' for the same would seem better.

CLAPTON

previous taxation and spending in an economy have enorous effect on the current economy;

spending on education, health, infrastructure, transport, justice and policing has an ongoing benefit that is hard to under-estimate

indeed a reasonable argument could be contructed to say that high level of spending now will allow greater wealth in the future

in the same way high spending on pensioners today doesn't preclude high spending on pensions in the future unless such spending crowds out investment in infrastucture

McKneff

N1AK wrote: »

You voted in governments that massively overspent and undertaxed. You voted in governments that didn't fund pensions but promised to fund them by taxing future generations (thanks). Maybe they lied to you; maybe everyone was just really stupid or over-optimistic. Either way you wrote cheques that you're now asking your kids to pay.

I worked damn hard for the £2,500 I spent paying your pensions last year; you want me to pay another £150 so you can leave your house to your kids? Good luck with that :rotfl:

And to you sir I say 'Thank you very much'