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

Graham_Devon

A._Badger wrote: »

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.

Regarding the bold part, we have. The richer have had child benefits removed. Yet richer pensioners keep their winter fuel payments...and it seems there would be more uproar if they were removed than those losing their child benefits.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Regarding the bold part, we have. The richer have had child benefits removed. Yet richer pensioners keep their winter fuel payments...and it seems there would be more uproar if they were removed than those losing their child benefits.

Wouldn’t have though it would cost the Tories many votes if they removed bus passes and winter fue lallowance from higher rate tax paying pensioners but I wouldn’tthink it would save them much money.

McKneff

@Thats because everything has dried up and we cant have children to enable us to have council houses and tax credits and benefits and child benefit and anything else that is thrown at the younger generation who have a mind set that the benefit system owes them big time.

The world has gone mad.............

chewmylegoff

A._Badger wrote: »

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.

i certainly agree that other benefits paid to people who don't need the money should be withdrawn. clearly if you means test, you are going to have to be careful about where you draw the line, but it seems to me that you could at least withdraw winter fuel allowance from higher rate tax payers (in line with the changes to child benefit).

A._Badger

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Regarding the bold part, we have. The richer have had child benefits removed. Yet richer pensioners keep their winter fuel payments...and it seems there would be more uproar if they were removed than those losing their child benefits.

You're avoiding the issue. If you really believe in a Spartan benefits system, are you willing to see it all taken to bits and only the really needy get handouts, or are you just in favour of granny-bashing?

chewmylegoff

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.

if that is the argument, it makes no sense. you don't say to a 25 year old billionaire who has paid millions in tax "you know what, you've paid enough tax now, how about we give you some free money", so why would you say that to a 65 year old millionaire who has paid far less tax in their lifetime.

A._Badger

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i certainly agree that other benefits paid to people who don't need the money should be withdrawn. clearly if you means test, you are going to have to be careful about where you draw the line, but it seems to me that you could at least withdraw winter fuel allowance from higher rate tax payers (in line with the changes to child benefit).

It doesn't seem very fair to me to simply remove the WFA while leaving in place all the rest. It's what makes me suspect that what's going on here is the usual intergenerational mosquito whine we get on this forum.

For the sake of clarity, I would personally be quite happy with a completely stripped-down system but I also know how popular that idea is with the nanny-staters..

chewmylegoff

A._Badger wrote: »

It doesn't seem very fair to me to simply remove the WFA while leaving in place all the rest. It's what makes me suspect that what's going on here is the usual intergenerational mosquito whine we get on this forum.

For the sake of clarity, I would personally be quite happy with a completely stripped-down system but I also know how popular that idea is with the nanny-staters..

Child benefit has already been withdrawn from higher rate tax payers (alright its a bit messier than just higher rate taxpayers but you're no doubt aware of the change) so I'm not sure your point is valid.

I would like to see an end to all universal benefit payments regardless of the age of the recipient. Benefits should be based on financial need, not on age.

Can you explain to me why a millionaire should receive benefits payments just because they are old?

As far as I can see, the only reason to make such a payment would be if the cost of means testing was more than the savings that it would yield.

BobQ

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Child benefit has already been withdrawn from higher rate tax payers (alright its a bit messier than just higher rate taxpayers but you're no doubt aware of the change) so I'm not sure your point is valid.

I would like to see an end to all universal benefit payments regardless of the age of the recipient. Benefits should be based on financial need, not on age.

Can you explain to me why a millionaire should receive benefits payments just because they are old?

As far as I can see, the only reason to make such a payment would be if the cost of means testing was more than the savings that it would yield.

Personally I have no problem with removing WFA from a millionaire. But how do you do it legally? Arguments that you can do it easily are often a smokescreen for introducing means testing, a bureaucratic process which often deters the genuinely needy from claimng. You at least are openly advocating means testing.

The Child Benefit fiasco demonstrates that even withdrawing a benefit from relatively affluent people creates an outcry. Doing the same to relatively poor pensioners will in some cases create unnessary hassel for them in claiming and in some cases may contribute to death from hyperthermia. I do not think this is a price worth paying. Do you?

So my question is at what level you would wish to set this WFA withdrawal?

My solution is to accept that a minority of people benefit who do not need it, tax the benefit and reclaim some of the costs and stop creating new jobs for means testing bureaucrats. 40% of the WFA can be easily recouped from HRTPs at virtually no cost through the tax system. This is more cost-effective than means testing.

chewmylegoff

BobQ wrote: »

Personally I have no problem with removing WFA from a millionaire. But how do you do it legally? Arguments that you can do it easily are often a smokescreen for introducing means testing, a bureaucratic process which often deters the genuinely needy from claimng. You at least are openly advocating means testing.

The Child Benefit fiasco demonstrates that even withdrawing a benefit from relatively affluent people creates an outcry. Doing the same to relatively poor pensioners will in some cases create unnessary hassel for them in claiming and in some cases may contribute to death from hyperthermia. I do not think this is a price worth paying. Do you?

So my question is at what level you would wish to set this WFA withdrawal?

My solution is to accept that a minority of people benefit who do not need it, tax the benefit and reclaim some of the costs and stop creating new jobs for means testing bureaucrats. 40% of the WFA can be easily recouped from HRTPs at virtually no cost through the tax system. This is more cost-effective than means testing.

Taxing it would be an option, but then you remove 20% of the money from a basic rate taxpayer. If someone is on, say, £11kpa then I don't think it would be fair to reduce their WFA payment by 20%. I'd just remove it for any higher rate tax payer, and claw it back through the tax return. As your tax has to be paid in January of the following year, the 2012 WFA would cover the repayment of the 2011 WFA so there wouldn't be a cash flow issue caused.