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

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

It would be fair, but would also be really harsh to some. For instance a cut of 10% could see some losing their home. Whereas the loss of child benefit to someone on 200k (though this has already been done), or the loss of winter fuel allowance to someone with 200k in the bank wouldn't suffer in the slightest.

Might not like it and may see it as viscious, but they wouldn't suffer a consequence.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Given a long weekend I reckon I could sort out the deficit no problem and then we wouldn't have to worry about what 'the markets' think quite so much.

Then again I'm not looking for votes and don't need to worry about whether my measures would be considered inhumane. Not that I think they are by the way - we should be encouraging people to take pride in being financially independent from the state.

chewmylegoff

coastline wrote: »

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://!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/sunday-telegraph-treasury-in-talks-to-abolish-higher-rate-tax-relief-on-pensions/

from the wording of the link it appears you are advocating an end to higher rate tax relief on pensions.

so basically fund benefits to stay at the same level by taxing people more, rather than cutting benefits.

this will just add to the pensions time bomb, and mean the state has to pay out relatively more to pensioners in the future.

no skin off my nose, because i don't make a contribution into a pension scheme, but it's hardly a forward looking policy.

grizzly1911

coastline wrote: »

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

Certainly go some way to finishing off private pension provision for most, if they push for basic rate relief to be removed too.

Kicking the problem down the road methinks.

coastline

chewmylegoff wrote: »

from the wording of the link it appears you are advocating an end to higher rate tax relief on pensions.

so basically fund benefits to stay at the same level by taxing people more, rather than cutting benefits.

this will just add to the pensions time bomb, and mean the state has to pay out relatively more to pensioners in the future.

no skin off my nose, because i don't make a contribution into a pension scheme, but it's hardly a forward looking policy.

This is the link...just saying its possible for a cut...
I seem to remember the winter fuel allowance was introduced around the time Tony Blair failed to give the pensioners a decent annual rise...maybe this £2.7bn annual bill was a way to get around his failure to lift their incomes above inflation..

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

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It would be fair, but would also be really harsh to some. For instance a cut of 10% could see some losing their home. Whereas the loss of child benefit to someone on 200k (though this has already been done), or the loss of winter fuel allowance to someone with 200k in the bank wouldn't suffer in the slightest.

Might not like it and may see it as viscious, but they wouldn't suffer a consequence.

ultimately though we don't pay £10 billion of benefits to people who earn £200k a year. whilst i agree that benefits should not be paid to people who don't need them, the fact is that getting rid of stuff like the WFA to rich pensioners is just fiddling around the edges.

there is only one way i can think of which you could make real savings without actually pushing a lot of people into poverty, and the posters on this thread are going to like it so little that i am going to EMPHASISE THAT I DON'T ADVOCATE IT - which is to stop paying the state pension to anyone who has independent earnings above, say, £15k or £20k.

coastline

A quick google..and I have got some rough figures of £2.7bn for winter fuel..£1bn for bus passes and £500m for TV licences..
Thats less than £5bn....so if we say 50% dont need the money then theres £2.5bn for the government....then theres the cost of administration to decide who gets what...

CLAPTON

1. what is the pensions time bomb?
2. why is it an issue?
3. who benefits if there is high pension provision?
4. who suffers if there is high pension provision
5. does it matter (for any level of overall pension provision) whether pensions are 'funded' or paid out of taxation ?

N1AK

ukcarper wrote: »

Take the removal of the additional tax allowance for over 65s after the initial complaining it is all quiet now.

The vast majority of pensioners were better off after the budget than before and yet the 'granny tax' was about the only pensioner related story told. It hurt the government and the conservative image as caring to pensioners, even though they gave them more in total.

By the time the government is done increasing the income tax threshold to £10k for everyone those same pensioners will be even better off. Yet that isn't the story told or people's recollection of what happens.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

I think removing child benefit entirely would be a great idea. How about people have kids they can afford... except, I don't really want children to suffer because of their parents stupid choices.

Surely child benefit should be there to stop children from being deprived? If that's the case then why does a single child deserve the support but a third child doesn't?

Either you take children from parents who can't afford them, you give them benefits so they can afford them or you knowing allow kids to live in poverty. A government can't be seen to do the first, or the last, so we pay benefits.

What I think we should do is require people claiming benefits work, or turn up at a job office / training etc for working hours, to remove the insentive to use kids as a get out of work scheme. One of the few things that almost makes me begrudge paying tax is hearing some useless fleshbag talk about how they don't work so they can spend time with their kids when I know couples both working bloody hard to pay for their lifestyle, including kids, who are also paying a lot of tax for aformentioned fleshbag to stay at home.