just stop all benefits.

ukcarper

mazza111 wrote: »

I don't think it would be that expensive, the software should be there to do it. Just get everyone to apply, set limits for one, change limits for another. Ok, granted if they were going to check every one's paperwork, then yes I could see it. But if they made it a benefit that had to be applied for rather than an automatic right.. I don't know. I really don't have all the answers. I just find it really unfair that again the under 25s are being targeted, who may have worked for several years and then find themselves out of work, can't get HB, when well off pensioners still get this allowance every year.

I don’t know what the cost would be but that is the argument normally put forward. I am not quite a pensioner but like you it seems to me that single people under 25 are being treated badly, admittedly the £56 jobseekers is ok if they are living with their parents but for various reasons a lot can’t do that.

dori2o

If it is going to be taxable then the simplest, cheapest and easiest thing to do is add it to the state pension. It can still be paid in a lump sum but all HMRC would have to do is increase the value of the state pension in every recipients tax code by £200.

mazza111

Totally ukcarper.

Totally agree that £56 is ample when living at home with parents. Thinks it's very hard running their own home.

grizzly1911

dori2o wrote: »

If it is going to be taxable then the simplest, cheapest and easiest thing to do is add it to the state pension. It can still be paid in a lump sum but all HMRC would have to do is increase the value of the state pension in every recipients tax code by £200.

Politically unacceptable to call it a pension increase though and then index link it.

Agree it should be taxed.

These universal benefits have been left in place so long they will be politically very difficult to just remove too. On their own quite small so means testing would obliterate any saving.

concerned43

and so it begins.....
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4249633
watch out pensioners!! they've dipped their toe in the water....

grizzly1911

concerned43 wrote: »

and so it begins.....
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4249633
watch out pensioners!! they've dipped their toe in the water....

Hopefully this will be kicked into the long grass.

Apart from the obvious issues It would remove much needed NMW paid jobs, can't see the rise in unemployment/welfare costs being welcomed.

roysterer

THE_ WHITE_HORSE
Claims to have worked with the deaf and blind in post 3 on this thread.

I guess these are the fortunate people who cant hear or see the the garbage he comes out with!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trot on, or gallop away from the board please.

Gracchus_Babeuf

mazza111 wrote: »

I don't think it would be that expensive, the software should be there to do it. Just get everyone to apply, set limits for one, change limits for another. Ok, granted if they were going to check every one's paperwork, then yes I could see it. But if they made it a benefit that had to be applied for rather than an automatic right.. I don't know. I really don't have all the answers. I just find it really unfair that again the under 25s are being targeted, who may have worked for several years and then find themselves out of work, can't get HB, when well off pensioners still get this allowance every year.

Not sure if I agree. Most under 25s can still live at home with parents and those who cannot should be considered special cases, so I think it should depend on the individual concerned. This obsession with 'one rule fits all' is causing a lot of injustice.

Gracchus_Babeuf

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Hopefully this will be kicked into the long grass.

Apart from the obvious issues It would remove much needed NMW paid jobs, can't see the rise in unemployment/welfare costs being welcomed.

Not only is it plainly evil, it's also stupid. Just as it was stupid to increase the state retirement age and link it with life expectancy. Since when does life expectancy have a bearing on ability to work and general health issues? Doctors are good at dragging us through old age and delaying the inevitable for as long as possible, but it doesn't follow that this means we should be working longer. I certainly won't. If the government wants to cut the pension budget then means test the damn thing and stop paying it to the likes of Richard Branson.

grizzly1911

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

. Just as it was stupid to increase the state retirement age and link it with life expectancy. Since when does life expectancy have a bearing on ability to work and general health issues? .

I agree and it also doesn't take into effect that there will not be the jobs available to do anyway even if you could find somebody willing to take you on.

It may have escaped their notice that the number of non working, across all age groups, has grown markedly over the last 30 years.

There are many more lifestyle illnesses that I am sure will start factoring into the figures and I wouldn't be surprised to see the average age of expiry plateau and fall in years to come. Not to mention the growing numbers of the poorer in society not being able to obtain life enhancing treatments with the state of our economy.

There will always be exceptional cases of longevity to help the soundbites.