Do you think present non-means tested benefits could become means tested?

Murphybear

Perhaps all benefits should be given on a "need" basis rather than an "entitled" basis. We've seen many stories on this and other forums about people who claim so many benefits that they can save large sums of money. That would mean that every single payment is means tested but according to the Government means testing is too expensive.

The Government could also save money by reducing the savings limit on benefits but I've never seen that suggested

tea-bag

thorsoak wrote: »

I'm in receipt of state pension (I'm 71) - but I'm still working - part time, 21 hours a week at just above nmw . Some of my colleagues at work are in receipt of WTC, HB and CTC, but whilst my pension is taxable, their benefits are not - so I pay more tax than they do.

I'm not whining about it - but I can see the day coming when all benefits such as these do go against personal tax allowances.

A guy at my work in the same position has just quit for this very reason. He is fit as a fiddle and is now working on a voluntary basis elsewhere.

tea-bag

Murphybear wrote: »

Perhaps all benefits should be given on a "need" basis rather than an "entitled" basis. We've seen many stories on this and other forums about people who claim so many benefits that they can save large sums of money. That would mean that every single payment is means tested but according to the Government means testing is too expensive.

The Government could also save money by reducing the savings limit on benefits but I've never seen that suggested

I don't think means testing is as expensive as it used to be. No computers are becoming more connected and software getting better it is time for Change

rogerblack

10pence wrote: »

I disagree with you, rogerblack about ESA (WRAG) regarding the employability of people with health conditions - according to the descriptors I would qualify for ESA as a sufferer of Manic Depression for nearly 20 years. Yet, I am still employed and have found jobs over that period. Furthermore, there are many people that are employed with health conditions far worse.
For me, allowing people to wallow on benefits for ill health is a national disgrace - in many cases it makes matters worse. I kind of feel that this government have noticed this and are doing something about it - whilst it might not be implemented in the best way it needs to be done.

The problem is that all are assumed to be able to work by policy intent, and decisions made on that basis.

For example, that it's reasonable to limit 'higher level' permitted work to a period of one year comes with the implicit assumption that you are fit for doing that most of the time.

It is arguably reasonable to stop this for people able to do 15*NMW consistently.
The current regulations do this, but also stop anyone intermittently able to work from trying to start up a buisness, as any time they earn 21 pounds in a week, they can't then earn anything over 20 pounds a week in weeks 53-104.

ESA is not given to those unable to work.
The support group is not given to those who are unable to work, or to those who will never get better.
It's rather more arbitrary than that.

billywilly

cbrown372 wrote: »

Yes Andy, you have told this story many times about your father :beer:

My father??? What are you on about?

FBaby

I think Child Benefit should be means-tested, because it's a choice to have children, whereas getting old or being disabled are not.

I know what you mean, but in reality, it is more complex than this. It is a choice to have children when they cannot be afforded, however, society does need children, so I wouldn't say that for the benefit of society, having children is a choice. I also think they are economic consideration to take into account, ie. if everyone waited to be able to afford kids, it might mean a less fertile society resulting in more cost pressure on the NHS possibly?

Similarly, can you really say that someone suffering from COPD as a result of smoking 40 cigarettes a day for many years isn't a choice? I think that it would hard to argue that many of those affected didn't know in at least the last 20 years that this was a high potential risk of their decision to continue smoking.

I think both 'choice/non choice' can be valid, it's a question of moderation, ie. 2 kids rather than 10, some disabilities that could not be avoided through better choices.

GaleSF63

thorsoak wrote: »

Taxing all benefits would make it fair - I'm a 71 year old widow with DWP pension, and I work 21 hours @£6.65 per hour and receive no other benefits. My colleagues who work the same hours at the same hourly rate as I receive also receive WTC and HB. My pension is set against my taxation personal allowance and consequently I pay more tax than my colleagues who receive benefits which amount to the same as my pension but which are not taxed.

At one time I was receiving almost exactly the same income (earned income) as a friend who received various benefits and state pension. However I paid tax and full council tax - he paid neither, so he was about £2 - 2,500 a year better off - and got other fringe benefits like cold weather payments, free spectacles etc. .

Mersey_2

tea-bag wrote: »

Hope so! Why should you get public funds if you can afford it without?

Precisely because they are contributions-based ie JSA etc hence the name.


To the OP - legislation cannot usually be retrospective, so I doubt it; but, it may be possible - as with the pension age changes - for a Budget to change things in future, 'say' from 2018 or 2020, NI Conts won't count towards JSA etc.