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

ukcarper

N1AK wrote: »

I haven't been shot, and I don't need to to know that it's worth avoiding.

Polls of voting habits and priorities for the elderly show that protecting the benefits they get is critical, and actually get more is important. Protests, actions by pressure groups etc against moderate changes show that they are impractical. Anectdotally, just look at the response here from a lot of posters at the idea of any change to the benefits pensions (even wealthy ones) got.

Obviously there are many pensioners with much more reasonable positions but all the evidence suggests they are the minority.

I’m not sure you are right obviously there is an outcry when the basic level of pension is effected but with respect to wfa and bus passes for better off pensioneers I don’t think there is a mass objections from pensioneers just point scoring from the normal suspects. Take the removal of the additional tax allowance for over 65s after the initial complaining it is all quiet now.

ukcarper

chewmylegoff wrote: »

"have you or anyone who lives in your household received winter fuel allowance"



not very much, and very very few of them are checked. the incremental cost of checking if someone has checked one box correctly would be so low as to be not worth bothering with.

furthermore, most people who expected to be higher rate tax payers wouldn't bother registering to claim WFA in the first place.

Reclaiming wfa from higher rte tax payers might be relatively easy but how many higher rate tax pensioneers are there.

grizzly1911

chewmylegoff wrote: »

not very much, and very very few of them are checked. the incremental .

Sorry my question was more the cost of checking any return rather than OAP/wfa.

So if I hypothetically filled one in "error" the chance of being caught is slim?

Graham_Devon

So no one wants to suggest what other benefits should be cut then?

chewmylegoff

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Sorry my question was more the cost of checking any return rather than OAP/wfa.

So if I hypothetically filled one in "error" the chance of being caught is slim?

yes, the chances of an error in your tax return being identified are tiny, as the likelyhood of anyone reading it is very low, and the chance of them finding out that information in it is incorrect is even lower.

obviously if there was a proper joined up benefits and tax system, it could just look up automatically whether you had received wfa or not, but there is no proper joined up benefits and tax system.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So no one wants to suggest what other benefits should be cut then?

Child benefit for 3rd child and over, working tax credits, housing benefit, IVF on the NHS, etc. etc.

At the very least I'd like to see benefits not rise as much as inflation for a few years.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Child benefit for 3rd child and over, working tax credits, housing benefit, IVF on the NHS, etc. etc.

At the very least I'd like to see benefits not rise as much as inflation for a few years.

I think cutting child benefit for the third child is a good suggestion, one I've stated many times before.

But in context to this thread, I'm wondering if that too, is seen as venemous and inhumane, or more acceptable? I guess, in context to this thread it's already been cut for the wealthy, and that was seen as the right thing to do, though of course the cut off caused controversy.

chewmylegoff

ukcarper wrote: »

Reclaiming wfa from higher rte tax payers might be relatively easy but how many higher rate tax pensioneers are there.

i found some rubbish yesterday which said that there are 100,000 pensioner households with a combined income of more than £100,000, all of which must, by definition, contain at least 1 higher rate tax payer.

i don't know what the figures are, but i expect there are several hundred thousand.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So no one wants to suggest what other benefits should be cut then?

just cut all benefits by 10% (or pro-rata by whatever % is needed to produce the cost saving required).

no doubt this would seem "fair" to everyone, except for the recipients of a certain benefit who want someone else's benefit to be cut instead.

coastline

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So no one wants to suggest what other benefits should be cut then?

Sorry haven't read through but theres £7bn here that could be saved out of the £10bn quoted earlier..no idea if its on the government radar but you never know..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/8584227/George-Osborne-plots-7bn-pensions-raid-on-better-off.html