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

ukcarper

Where would people put the cut off point judging by the child allowance farce they would want to put it at an existing point.

My mother gets a slightly higher state pension which is just above the pension credit limit and is probably worse off than people just below when you take account of the benefits that claiming pension credit gives you. If she then lost the universal benefits she would be a lot worse off.

olly300

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

But regarding the bus pass - could someone please explain in words of two syllabubs (yes, I know it's syllable), what the problem is? If people have cars they tend to use them rather than walking to the bus stop, and then queuing in the rain for a bus. If people don't have cars or are too old and doddery to drive, then they use the bus pass. Surely, by it's nature, it's only used by people who need it?

The problem with the bus passes is how the money is distribute from councils to the bus companies.

The sum is given on the amount of people who have the bus pass rather than those who use it.

And quite a few famous people found out 2 winters ago that they couldn't refuse the winter fuel allowance even if they didn't want it.

So they gave it to charity and continue to.

Ideally they should just tax people for it as it's cheaper to tax wealthier people (regardless of age) for the universal benefits they should be receiving than to means test everyone.

This means if you are a higher rate tax payer with a family you will be taxed for child benefit and if you are a wealthier pensioner you will be taxed for winter fuel allowance etc.

PaulF81

Loanranger wrote: »

How is it that pensioner bashing is acceptable yet any other kind of bashing isn't?
I worked full time for 42 years, paid tax and NI and paid into a private pension pot. Also paid for all my university fees and no grant, studied part time while working. Yet am begrudged a bus pass and a fuel allowance to which I am entitled!
May I suggest that younger folk who are envious of my position in society take on my aches and pains, my insomnia, my husband's painful hip and deafness and then decide who they'd rather be?
There is nothing so good in life as to be young. The young will sadly only appreciate this sentiment when it's too late and, like me, they're old.
Who said, youth is wasted on the young? Can't remember, that'll probably be the dementia rearing its ugly head.

Look a the national deficit. You didn't pay enough.

chewmylegoff

Generally people will say "don't tax me, tax the rich instead". But for some reason they want to see benefits paid to rich people who are old. My parents have a few million in assets, but also receive winter fuel allowance - that is !!!!!!.

We don't pay unemployment benefit to people who have a job, why then do we pay winter fuel allowance to people who will never ever have any problems paying their fuel bills.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Generally people will say "don't tax me, tax the rich instead". But for some reason they want to see benefits paid to rich people who are old. My parents have a few million in assets, but also receive winter fuel allowance - that is !!!!!!.

We don't pay unemployment benefit to people who have a job, why then do we pay winter fuel allowance to people who will never ever have any problems paying their fuel bills.

Because they have "earnt it" apparently, and it would be viscious of the young people to take it away.

Don't understand it.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Because they have "earnt it" apparently, and it would be viscious of the young people to take it away.

Don't understand it.

I wonder how many would complain, I would willing give up my winter fuel allowance if I though itwas going to help unemployed youngsters and my income is probably alot less than yours. But if they just said anybody above the currentpension tax credit allowance would lose their universal benefits I wouldcomplain.

A._Badger

chewmylegoff wrote: »

We don't pay unemployment benefit to people who have a job, why then do we pay winter fuel allowance to people who will never ever have any problems paying their fuel bills.

OK, I'm in agreement that it is fundamentally wrong to take money from tax payers and give it to those who don't need it.

But let's make it really fair, shall we? We should also stop subsiding people for having children. We should stop subsidising immigrants by providing health care before they have contributed a certain amount, we should stop housing them, too. Housing benefit should be restricted to the genuinely needy and on the plan could roll until only those really in serious need got any benefits at all, of any kind.

I wonder, though, how many of the complainants would be willing to live in a society like that? If they wouldn't, then I'd suggest there's a touch of hypocrisy at work.

ukcarper

PaulF81 wrote: »

Look a the national deficit. You didn't pay enough.

Seeing as it has more than doubledsince 2005 perhaps it's not all down to them.

PaulF81

Erm, the growth is due to state intervention protecting their failed financial model. But house prices only go up, innit?

ukcarper

PaulF81 wrote: »

Erm, the growth is due to state intervention protecting their failed financial model. But house prices only go up, innit?

but was the failure of the banks got to do with pensioneers and what made you say "house prices only go up innit"