Towards the end of November, the Government gave me £250, tax free, in the form of a Winter Fuel Payment. I'm certain that many people really need it, but I don't. Is this an issue that the ConDem coalition is addressing? I don't really know.
Where I live, lots of Mums collect Tarquin and Jemima from school in their big 4WD monstrosities, and they receive Family Allowance. Do they really need it? I mean, if you can afford to buy a £30,000 vehicle, do you really need subsidies from ordinary tax payers?
I'm just having a self-indulgent rant, a la Daily Mail, I suppose. But if HMG wants to save money, STOP giving it to people who don't need it!
BTW, my winter money will go to charities of my choice, and it will qualify for Gift Aid, costing the Govt. even more.
Is intelligent thinking a real possibility in UK government?
Sorry readers, just had to get that omc.
Last edited by bindeweede; 10th December 2010 at 01:20 AM.
I agree with you, but there are certain issues that all of the parties seem to regard as "sacred cows".
More practically, fine-tailoring government support to those who need it has two unwelcome consequences:
1. It can lead to poverty traps, in that people just over whatever height the hurdles are set can end up worse off than those below it.
2. It is very complex to administer, requiring a huge staff and reams of paperwork.
Ideally, IDS's drastically simplified support system should eventually be extended to cover all forms of government support, but of course we all know the track record of huge government IT-based schemes...
Agreed the problem with any attempt to identify centrally the 'deserving' from the self sufficient is doomed to failure - universality is simplist but of course expensive and for many just recycles a fraction of the money removed in the first place.
Perhaps one could argue that if all benefits had to be collected in person and clearly treated as a 'handout' by the state (by the recipient - except those with DLA), then for many it would not be worth collecting. The first issue I suspect would be the cost of running such a system, it may well be cheaper just to give it to everyone. The second issue would be peoples pride - but when you have generations of families who have not worked, there has to be some stick as well as carrot.
Yeah thanks for that Bindeweede. It seems that your words have travelled back in time to George Osborne's ears and he's stopped child benefit for higher earners. A bracket I have just recently crept into. No I can't afford a car, any car let alone £30,000 4WD and losing child benefit for my three little one doesn't help much.Originally Posted by bindeweede
Classic benefit trap. Hard luck Matt. However I suggest he's got it about right - a simple and cheap way of reducing expenditure without hitting the very hard up.
The families who have never worked would have no problem with collecting handouts, it's those who see lack of work as a failure who would be more reluctant to claim them.
I don't agree with Bindeweede's OP or the broad thrust of comments on this thread. As a general principal I oppose all means testing.
I do agree with Tony's two points here:
Means testing doesn't usually even save money until you start excluding very large numbers of people. Once introduced it will invariably slip. Matt gets taken out already, people earning even less than him in a few year's time, and before you know it only a tiny percentage of the really poor are getting anything.
And what else might we apply it to? How about libraries? I saw some rich people using the local library, they could afford to buy their own books, lets stop allowing the wealthy to use libraries? No.
Benefits should be paid to everyone, services should be available to everyone. If the rich don't want to claim the benefit, or want to give it to charity then that is fine. If they want to purchase an alternative private sector option then that is fine, but everyone should be entitled to the same state handouts without devisive cut-off lines.
The point is that the better off should be contributing more by paying more taxes. If they are putting more money into the pot then why shouldn't they take some back? If they aren't putting enough into the pot then administratively it is easier and fairer to raise taxes, not to means test.
I agree with you and Tony in principle but there is a point at which it becomes ridiculous - should we give housing benefit and income support to Richard Branson and Alan Sugar?
Using the cut-off point of becoming a higher rate taxpayer seems simple and effective. It is unlikely that higher rate taxpayers would need benefits, it would surely save money and doesn't involve a vast bureaucracy to implement.
I don't believe that we do. I know that Surallen complained that he couldn't give back his winter fuel allowance, but that's a separate benefit of a fraction of the value of the other two you mention and the argument that it would cost more to means test it that simply dish it out to everyone is well made.
I don't think it should cost too much to administer different benefits to different sections of the population. People already fill in tax forms (online in many cases) which caclulate taxes on many different variables supplied by the claimant. I know government computer systems have been a disaster area in the past but with properly managed IT, direct payments from banks and so on, there really should not be any great overhead implications with a moving away from universal benefits. If there IS then it implies a serious structural problem in existing systems.
No we don't of course. But we would do if we gave universal benefits.
Yes, I agree. I reckon that even the "simple" child benefit criterion recently announced will inevitably be tweaked and twisted, and will end up costing more than is saved. It's a knee-jerk reaction to Daily Mail/Express headlines, and like almost all such moves, it will be counter-productive. Means testing is a temptation that must be resisted.
Surely there must be a way to simplify the tax and benefits systems to ensure that everyone is guaranteed a a reasonable standard of living? As things stand, it's all ridiculously complex, with many not claiming benefits to which they are entitled and the wealthy able to avoid taxation through clever accounting.
It seems there is a general consensus on universality! How do you propose one approaches the familial serial unemployed?
My concern in respect of universality is that for many this is expensive. The state takes your money, puts it through a value removal process and then gives a residual tiny portion of it back to you.
As is so often the case with intractable social issues (justice, for instance) I don't think that there is a right answer - it's a question of trying to find the least wrong compromise.
I am impressed by the principle of the proposal put forward by IDS (from what I understand of it - I've not studied it in detail), on the face of it it seems as fair as such a system can be.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks