IDS want rich to hand back benefits...

wymondham

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22327335

Interesting article. Although completely entitled to them he is asking richer people to hand back their benefits.

I'm a firm believer that people should always claim what they are entitled to, indeed the Government itself has spent years pumping this message out. Surely if it does not want millionaires to claim free TV licenses then why not be radical and not allow them to be eligible? (of course this should reduce the tax they pay as well if they wont get the benefits?) This way these better off people don't have to feel guilty claiming for something they are legally entitled to.

To me this is a sign of lack of imagination and creativity when forming a policy. I don't agree with lots of instances of people getting benefits etc, but it's not their fault - it is because they are encouraged to claim and have an entitlement to do so, so would be slightly odd if they didn't!

Should people have a conscience and not collect these benefits if they are rich, although they are 100% entitled to them?

grizzly1911

wymondham wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22327335

Interesting article. Although completely entitled to them he is asking richer people to hand back their benefits.

I'm a firm believer that people should always claim what they are entitled to, indeed the Government itself has spent years pumping this message out. Surely if it does not want millionaires to claim free TV licenses then why not be radical and not allow them to be eligible? (of course this should reduce the tax they pay as well if they wont get the benefits?) This way these better off people don't have to feel guilty claiming for something they are legally entitled to.

To me this is a sign of lack of imagination and creativity when forming a policy. I don't agree with lots of instances of people getting benefits etc, but it's not their fault - it is because they are encouraged to claim and have an entitlement to do so, so would be slightly odd if they didn't!

Should people have a conscience and not collect these benefits if they are rich, although they are 100% entitled to them?

I know you have only used TV licences as an example but in my mind that one is a no cost give away. As the license fee funds the BBC it should mean that less money gets spent on the BBC it isn't an actual cost to the exchequer.

Another view is that there is an entitlement culture elsewhere. DO these recipients have a conscience?

The City of London has been affected by a "culture of entitlement" at variance with what others think reasonable, the new Archbishop of Canterbury has said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22313287

Don't lots of people not claim for things when financially they should at the lower end of the spectrum too. I am not saying they shouldn't just that they don't.

Perhaps taxing universal benefits, at an individuals marginal rate, would be a quick and simple solution but that would entail lots of extra work for HMRC, negating the revenue collected.

Generali

The words 'entitled to' go to the very heart of what is wrong with the economies of The West.

People will insist that they are 'entitled to' up until the very moment that the state goes bust. Obama won the Presidency under a banner of letting people keep what they're 'entitled to' despite it being absolutely clear that means that the US Medicare and Social Security systems will go bust.

mcfisco

Maybe those politicians that are a bit flush could give up their housing benefit too?

aliasojo

As I posted on another thread.....

aliasojo wrote: »

Perhaps he (IDS) should show a good example first and hand back all his claimed for expenses. I would wager that he doesn't actually need this 'financial support'.

Seems to me there are rather a lot of groups of people who could easily do without their government handouts.

But yet again, this is just another confirmation that we are most definitely NOT all in this together.

molerat

If all benefits were taxable those that really needed them would receive the full benefit and others would have them reduced by an appropriate amount through the tax system ......... just a thought.

Carl31

Surely this is asking the public to fix government f-ups. Why should people hand them back? Ten years ago they were not being asked to hand them back, and in most cases theyre are only getting back what they put in, if they are regarded rich then more than likely they have contributed more than there fair share in the past

But then, benefits are a helpline, or should be, as with the rest of the efforts being made with welfare, maybe its time this part of the tax pot was kept for those that need it and we removed this entitlement stance

Something has to change in this country, like it or not, our economy isnt going to provide any real benefit any time soon, so we need to make do with what we have

vivatifosi

There was a small bit on this on the news this morning. Someone said that they wanted to hand their benefit back but there wasn't a mechanism to do it. So the suggestion is that it is given to a fuel poverty charity, so not a hand back...

In terms of bus passes and other universal benefits that need to be applied for, do people actually go to the bother of doing this if they don't intend to use them? Seems a bit pointless to me.

zygurat789

If these benefits were handed back then the government would only use them to abolish the additional rate of tax and continue their reverse Robin Hood policy of soaking the elderley who have paid much higher rates of taxation throughout their lives than the current working population have to pay.
Whatever happened to "those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden" David?

Fella

Surprised at all the anger against what's basically a comment saying people can voluntarily give back benefits if they want to. Anyone would think he'd suggested means-testing.

michaels

zygurat789 wrote: »

Whatever happened to "those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden" David?

I see it the other way around - currently those with very broad shoulder but who happen to be beyond retirement age are not being asked to contribute at all because the govt (nor the opposition) dare antagonising a conservative (small c) group of voters who actually tend to exercise their democratic right and vote. Yes such people have worked hard and built up an 'entitlement' but it turns out due to unexpectedly increased longevity that the entitlement was based on a false premise.

I think it would be fair that these people also paid their 'share' in addressing the deficit but it seems electoral arithemetic rules this out so instead the redistribution has to be more surreptitious via negative real interest rates.

In a world without state intervention bankruptcies and write-offs by banks would have resulted in pension and nest egg values falling and housing 'wealth' being redistributed to the point where the proportion of national income going to the elderly became 'affordable' but this is again political too damaging too the party in power to contemplate.