Taxpayers' Alliance: Cut pensioner benefits 'immediately'

kinger101

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The Taxpayers alliance on the other hand don't seem to do PR too well. The whole "they will be dead anyway" seems to miss the point that the majority are very much likely to be alive.

The forgetting about it bit though is probably true.

It also seemed to miss the obvious point that although many pensioners will expire before the next election, they'll be replaced by a larger number of new people who become pensioners.

I think it is time to make many of these benefits means tested. I think the argument in the past has been that means tested benefits cost more to administer than universal benefits, which is no doubt true.

But the genie is out the bottle now that this has already been done with child benefit.

NB - based on your posting of the Ponzi scheme comment, I presume you are also in favour of eliminating the structural deficit as soon as possible.

ukcarper

kinger101 wrote: »

It also seemed to miss the obvious point that although many pensioners will expire before the next election, they'll be replaced by a larger number of new people who become pensioners.

I think it is time to make many of these benefits means tested. I think the argument in the past has been that means tested benefits cost more to administer than universal benefits, which is no doubt true.

But the genie is out the bottle now that this has already been done with child benefit.

NB - based on your posting of the Ponzi scheme comment, I presume you are also in favour of eliminating the structural deficit as soon as possible.

I'm not sure it's worth doing it if it's going to cost more, taxing them would be a start.

Mistermeaner

I came up with the answer for this a while ago and everyone got all 'human-righty' on me

kinger101

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm not sure it's worth doing it if it's going to cost more, taxing them would be a start.

Agreed, but I don't think they provided any evidence it would cost more. I suspect it was an excuse for not wanting to lose grey votes.

princeofpounds

No-one said that it was the Conservatives. The BBC reported it as the Tax Payers Alliance. It was merely a meeting with senior Conservatives present held at the Conservative Party Conference.

As to the Coalition's triple lock policies, perhaps the LDs had a little bit to do with that.

As pointed out, the OP absolutely did equate the two groups.

The lib dems absolutely did have something to do with it. That is why I said coalition and conservative government policy. The policy has been adopted by both governments.

For what it is worth, whilst I am not a lib dem supporter, I do think that the lib dems of the coalition era pursued social welfare measures far more sensibly than Labour generally have. And I think some of their better ideas have really influenced the conservatives (such as raising the personal tax allowance to a more sensible level).

I have no idea if Farron will be as sensible.

And to round it off, I happen to think the triple lock is wrong policy anyway. But given that the last two governments have been really rather kind towards pensioners, I thought it was important to correct the conflation of some fringe meeting for a third party pressure group with the real business of government.

kinger101

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I came up with the answer for this a while ago and everyone got all 'human-righty' on me

Was it anything to do this......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USADM5Gk9Gs

FOREVER21

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well I have to say, i completely agree with Liam Fox.



Not sure that his statement about older people accepting the benefit cuts for the greater good would hold quite as true though.

The Taxpayers alliance on the other hand don't seem to do PR too well. The whole "they will be dead anyway" seems to miss the point that the majority are very much likely to be alive.

The forgetting about it bit though is probably true.

Just heard on the news The Taxpayers Alliance has apologised for the "insensitive" manner of their earlier statement. They have not of course retracted the suggestion!

princeofpounds

What would you have them retract?

The idea of pushing through unpopular measures early in the electoral cycle may not be tasteful, but it is the real world. (Regardless of how old the section of the electorate concerned are)

Generali

FOREVER21 wrote: »

Just heard on the news The Taxpayers Alliance has apologised for the "insensitive" manner of their earlier statement. They have not of course retracted the suggestion!

Isn't the proposal generally a sensible one though: that benefits should be means tested? Why should old Pa and Ma michaels get a winter fuel allowance? It's nuts.

Mistermeaner

I agree with means testing.

But I also agree in paying out rewards for doing the right thing.

Too much means testing of pensioners benefits potentially punishes those who provision for retirement vs those who don't by neutralising the difference.

As winter fuel allowance is just paid a cash (I think?) It's a meaningless title for just a 'bit of extra cash'.

I'm not sure what the answer is: something along the lines of minimal fixed payment for all pensioners right on the subsistence line + 25% for being old. This is topped up indefinitely based on working age contributions by some reasonable amount... say 3%/Annum of total lifetime ni contributions.

Non working folk who could be working get subsistence line -25% of minimal payment. The missing 25% can be topped up on basis of prior ni contributions which is then deducted from your pension top ups.


BOOM mistermeaners only gone and solved it!