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

thistledome

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I really fail to see what you are offended about though?

As I stated earlier, it seems most of the offense comes from a basic entitlement mentality.

I really cannot see where the offence is coming from. All I can see is a massive sense of entitlement. THAT may offend, but I'm only stating the truth in what I see.

No, you're stating your opinion of what the truth is and some people find your opinion, or your manner of expressing it, offensive. If you can't see why people are offended then perhaps that is due to your lack of empathy, not their alleged "entitlement mentality"?.

You come across to me as rather rude and inhumane. However, that's jmho. I'm not so arrogant as to confuse opinion with fact.

I hope you are treated with the respect you deserve when you become an old person.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

why is that ?

Do you actually need me to go into the details of the already unsustianable pension system? Or are you just being awkward?

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Do you actually need me to go into the details of the already unsustianable pension system? Or are you just being awkward?

the state pension is about 100 per week
we can 'afford ' that now and we can afford that in the future

BobQ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/15/babyboomers-welfare-politics-tax

This is not the fault of any individuals in the generation about to retire and some will have taken more and some less. Part of the problem exemplified by the comments on the above link is the way so many people seem to want to apportion blame for the disparity that has developed over time, in particular on the generation who have apparently benefited from a failure to match current taxes and expenditure.

I do not feel at all guilty for what little benefits I have gained though my entirely invuluntary decision not to kill myself to avoid benefiting from this system that I did not create. We all play the hand we are dealt and you would have done the same I suspect.

The only issue is what we do about these problems. My difficulty with some of the prooposals are that they seem to be directed at punishing those who have benefited from things we have had no control over.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

the state pension is about 100 per week
we can 'afford ' that now and we can afford that in the future

Which I believe is the lowest in the EU.

Graham_Devon

thistledome wrote: »

No, you're stating your opinion of what the truth is and some people find your opinion, or your manner of expressing it, offensive. If you can't see why people are offended then perhaps that is due to your lack of empathy, not their alleged "entitlement mentality"?.

You come across to me as rather rude and inhumane. However, that's jmho. I'm not so arrogant as to confuse opinion with fact.

I hope you are treated with the respect you deserve when you become an old person.

Could you point out where I have been arrogant or inhumane please?

Actually, especially inhumane as thats quite some insult to be dishing out.

chewmylegoff

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I wonder how many higher rate tax pensioners there are?

Means testing for all would make those "not entitled" a costly exercise.

Why would it? Just continue to pay to all and put a box on the tax return saying "have you received winter fuel allowance" if ticked yes, the computation automatically claws back last year's payment (I.e. dec 2011 payment recovered in jan 2013, but funded by the dec 2012 payment.

Graham_Devon

Anyway, following on from my opening post, if bus passes and the winter fuel payment is to stay as it is now....as seems the prevelant message on this thread so far...

...what should we cut?

The discussion stems from Discussion Time on the BBC. There is a pledge to reduce the welfare bill by 10%. While not solving the problem, the idea of removing these payments to those who don't need it was on step towards achieving that 10%.

But if they are to stay, what do we cut instead?

Child benefit? Income Support? Disability benefits? Winter payments for those below a certain age? Jobseekers? Carers allowance? ESA? Housing benefit?

Maybe one of more of the following. But consideration needs to be paid towards the fact that if we keep winter fuel allowance paid to all over a certain age, we'll need to cut more from any other benefits to achieves the pledge.

On a secondary note, even cuting the welfare system by 10% still leaves it under a growing defecit each year.

I'm a bit annoyed by the inhumane suggestion and certainly don't want to tarnish myself by arguing why I think it's sensible to cut back on giving money to people who don't need it. So I have now accepted I'm in the minority in believing these payments should be cut back. But it still leaves the problem.

wotsthat

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I wonder how many higher rate tax pensioners there are?

Means testing for all would make those "not entitled" a costly exercise.

If there's going to be a flat rate pension that isn't means tested there should be no need to top it up with means tested benefits.

No free TV licenses, winter fuel allowances, bus passes etc. It's not a case of wishing ill on today's pensioners because these changes will take years to implement but in 20 odd years when I retire I expect to get none of these perks.

heathcote123

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Anyway, following on from my opening post, if bus passes and the winter fuel payment is to stay as it is now....as seems the prevelant message on this thread so far...

...what should we cut?

The discussion stems from Discussion Time on the BBC. There is a pledge to reduce the welfare bill by 10%. While not solving the problem, the idea of removing these payments to those who don't need it was on step towards achieving that 10%.

But if they are to stay, what do we cut instead?

Child benefit? Income Support? Disability benefits? Winter payments for those below a certain age? Jobseekers? Carers allowance? ESA? Housing benefit?

Maybe one of more of the following. But consideration needs to be paid towards the fact that if we keep winter fuel allowance paid to all over a certain age, we'll need to cut more from any other benefits to achieves the pledge.

On a secondary note, even cuting the welfare system by 10% still leaves it under a growing defecit each year.

I'm a bit annoyed by the inhumane suggestion and certainly don't want to tarnish myself by arguing why I think it's sensible to cut back on giving money to people who don't need it. So I have now accepted I'm in the minority in believing these payments should be cut back. But it still leaves the problem.

Presumably we're talking about cutting the bill by 10% in real terms, so why not just freeze all benefits for a couple of years, then no-one can moan they are being singled out?