[Closed] I agree with Nick

I agree with Mcboo.

I agree with Betty Boo

Hoodlum, that what you called me
Rebellious, you can't ignore me
But never mind 'cause I know that I'm sweeter
Your time is up so put more money in your meter
You say I bully though I know I'm no goody-goody
But what do I know is that I'm fully in control
You're on a roll, (ah) fat as a rolypoly and on the whole
You think that I'm a threat 'cause I'm the best you could ever get
I never make the teachers' pet
And ease yourself, I know you despise me
You criticize and override me
But I'm better and a whole lot cleverer
A go-getter, you know, a trend setter
I'm all the rage and all the craze
Come on, change the record, gotta turn the page

I watched the Peston programme having seen the two Nick Robinson shows "Yor Money and How They Spend It". Winter fuel allowance started out as a £20 gesture by Brown, eventually got to £200 whether they need it or not. Madness, we just have to start means testing benefits.

I know a couple of older friends who just donate their winter fuel allowance to charity as they have no personal need of it.
I guess one of my concerns would be if means testing could save any significant money once the administration costs have been taken into account. Of course a guess a counter to that would be that the administration would then be to create much needed employment.
And at that point things might get interesting..
The government clearly wouldn't want to be seen to be expanding the public sector, so would be sorely tempted to outsource it to capita / group4 or whoever put the lowest tender in. No doubt that company would be given targets and incentives to work to, and inevitably they'd cut corners and make dreadful mistakes. And no doubt the press headlines the following winter would be along the the lines of "Starving pensioners pay to line the pockets of industry fat cats". Given that the older generations are the ones who consistently turn out and vote on election days, I'd imagine the government would have to think very long and hard about how it implemented such a policy. They'd also have to think carefully as to why they've let energy supply companies increase consumer costs at a rate higher than the raw energy costs.

As for the free TV license, well the government could remove it, reduce it, or get the rest of the licence payers to subsidise it.

mcboo, my Dad, who works full time in a well paid job gets a £200 winter fuel allowance, he does not need it and has already commented what a complete an utter waste of money it is.

However, you take it away and you are walking right into a "I've paid taxes all my life and I should get it" style rant.

I watched Nick Robinsons programmes "Your Money....." on the BBC then the Peston one on the bust. I challenge anyone to watch them and not come to the conclusion that we just have to stop pretending we can go on spending like this.

Means testing anything costs millions, so you can easily end up not saving anything at all.....

I challenge anyone to watch them and not come to the conclusion that we just have to stop pretending we can go on spending like this.

Well we could spend on the important stuff a bit more if Vodaphone, News International, Lord Ashcroft, Phillip Green, Goldman Sachs, George Osborne's family, etc actually bothered to pay any tax. That might be a starting point.

Its called civilised society. Most of us seemed to have grasped it. Though the obscenely rich seem to be increasingly struggling with the concept

Means testing anything costs millions, so you can easily end up not saving anything at all.....

Millions.....that much eh?

Well we could spend on the important stuff a bit more if Vodaphone, News International, Lord Ashcroft, Phillip Green, Goldman Sachs, George Osborne's family, etc actually bothered to pay any tax. That might be a starting point.

Easy targets.

If the government want to ensure that more tax is paid, they need to change the law. Don't blame people or companies for minimising their tax bill, so long as what they're doing is legal.

Fair enough, we need to find the [u]extra[/u] 41 million for the Olympics opening ceremony from somewhere.

I agree with Boo Boo

[img] [/img]

Do you have a figure for how many pensioners would not be eligible for these benefits with means testing - maybe 5%? Not a big saving. The number of pensioners with good pensions is small compared to the number who depend on the state pension and other benefits.

the 'extra' £41m is coming from existing Olympic budgets.

and I agree, by and large, with Yakubu

[img] [/img]

binners do watch the programmes, they are very good. whether or not you believe there is an eternal money tree of tax that we can keep shaking, the Robinson shows are a real eaye opener. Iron chancellor Brown does not come out of them as a straight shooter.

[i]Fair enough, we need to find the extra 41 million for the Olympics opening ceremony from somewhere.[/i]

If we all donated a pound each we could easily cover that and give Seb the salary he so desperately deserves.

If the government want to ensure that more tax is paid, they need to change the law. Don't blame people or companies for minimising their tax bill, so long as what they're doing is legal.

I didn't apportion any blame. I merely pointed out that maybe if the people who could most afford it didn't contribute the least, there may be an alternative to slash and burn.

So I'll look forward to the government changing the law to benefit the general population rather than their rich friends. Sometime after hell freezes over 🙄

McBoo. I'll catch up with them on the iplayer. I'm not remotely surprised Brown comes out looking bad. There's simply no distinction between parties on the way they prostrate themselves before the banks, and corporations. At least with the Tories it was blatant self-interest. The Labour position is inexplicable

Would you rather that the elderly gave up their bus passes and started driving?

my gran lives with my parents, they're all over 60, i don't know how much money they get for 'winter fuel' - but my mum confessed that they don't really need it.

it seems a bit silly to me giving them even more money that they don't spend.

new house, well insulated, wood burner* on constantly = toasty house.

(free wood)

I don't see a Rosy retirement for most people:

Age Band Median Income
Under 20 years £ 8,130
20 – 24 years £ 11,800
25 – 29 years £ 17,000
30 – 34 years £ 19,500
35 – 39 years £ 20,100
40 – 44 years £ 20,200
45 – 49 years £ 20,300
50 – 54 years £ 19,300
55 – 59 years £ 17,200
60 – 64 years £ 13,600
65 – 69 years £ 12,600
70 – 74 years £ 13,300
Over 75 years £ 12,400

A small elite are sat on good pensions and huge houses as assets, but for most retirement is about poverty.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom

the 'extra' £41m is coming from existing Olympic budgets.

Ah, well that's OK then! Nice to see we have a spare £41m lying around doing nothing...

I think the total was £217m.

I note the hideous Tessa Jowell is everywhere informing us why we, the taxpayer, should continue to write blank cheques for their ridiculous vanity project.

Tourism is worth £X Billion, blah blah blah
The value to the 'British Brand' is worth £X Billion, blah blah blah

All figures plucked from the air by her favourite consultants and their vested interests. Laughing all the way to the bank, as they trouser another enormous wedge of our cash

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/20/london-olympics-tourism-warning

Hey mcboo - here are some numbers for you:

According to the National Audit Office it cost £87bn to means test benefits in 2009-2010 and an extra £9bn in over payments / errors.

The cost per claim is £14 (pension) for a non means tested benefit and £47 (pension credit) if you means test it...

Not the magic bullet people think it is...

Source: http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1012/means_testing.aspx

According to the National Audit Office it cost £87bn to means test benefits in 2009-2010

I think it's saying that £87bn was paid out in means tested benefits, not that it cost £87bn to means-test them. Even our civil servants aren't that inefficient!

Oh footflaps......

[img] [/img]

Its called a [s]civilised[/s] capitalist society. Most of us seemed to have [s]grasped it[/s] missed that bit. Though the obscenely rich seem to be[s] increasingly struggling[/s] very comfortable with the concept

That's better 🙂

Ah! It all becomes clear now. Cheers for clearing that up yossarian.

So... would you also know how I go about applying this 'capitalism' theory to my own tax affairs?

😀

Well it kind of depends on whether you want to pay tax. You may consider that you already contribute plenty to the economy and then it's all about who you know/how much your accountants charge.

Tax is for little people really, that's why there's so many of them.

So... would you also know how I go about applying this 'capitalism' theory to my own tax affairs?

Quite easy - **** anyone you can over to make a quick buck. Sit back and feel smug with yourself 🙂

I agree, by and large, with Yakubu

😆

Ayegbeni FTW!

Means testing has several unwanted effects.
1) expensive to administer resulting in little savings.
2) you end up with very high marginal tax rates as the means testing kicks in even indeed a eduction in income as you hit the means test threshold unless you use a very slow taper in which case the admin costs are even higher
3) benefits uptake is much lower with means tested benefits.

Its actually most efficient to give low cost benefits as universal benefits and increase tax slightly on the richer folk thus only one complex and expensive administration of money to the government.

What on earth Clegg thinks he is doing by talking about this goodness alone knows - just showing his ignorance again I suppose

I don't see a Rosy retirement for most people:

Age Band Median Income
Under 20 years £ 8,130
20 – 24 years £ 11,800
25 – 29 years £ 17,000
30 – 34 years £ 19,500
35 – 39 years £ 20,100
40 – 44 years £ 20,200
45 – 49 years £ 20,300
50 – 54 years £ 19,300
55 – 59 years £ 17,200
60 – 64 years £ 13,600
65 – 69 years £ 12,600
70 – 74 years £ 13,300
Over 75 years £ 12,400

Where did that come from and what is it saying? If you're 45, you can expecta pension of ~£20k or...? Is that state pension or...? Where's teh confused emoticon?

Median incomes, ie 50% earn less and 50% earn more.

So if you're in the 65-69 category, 50% earn less than £12,600, 50% earn more (in that year - data is a year or so out of date).

Point being - this large number of 'rich' people getting unnecessary benefits are costing the state 100s of millions are a figment of right wing politicians minds....

Sowhat ever happened to that lib dem policy of positive and negative income tax? a proposal for a massive simplification of our tax and benefits system that does away with a lot of the issues we have?

Put very simply - everyone has an income entitlement - earn below that you get positive income tax to increase your income up to that level at 100%, earn above it you get negative income tax to decrease your income and redistribute wealth at a % less than 100%

Your income entitlement can be adjusted to take account of age and disability.

simplifies the system, reduces the poverty trap / high marginal tax rates and stops the stupid anomaly of people getting benefits while paying tax

"Sowhat ever happened to that lib dem policy of positive and negative income tax? a proposal for a massive simplification of our tax and benefits system that does away with a lot of the issues we have?"

It was just a smoke screen to get people (like me) to vote for them so they could turn into Tories when they got into government. They now follow the tried and tested economic policy of 'tax the poor to feed the rich'.

reduces the poverty trap

And therefore never going to happen under the Tories

and stops the stupid anomaly of people getting benefits while paying tax

Or 'subsidising your mates, with taxpayers money, who are getting away with paying [s]minimum[/s] subsistence level wage' as its also known

BAck to the topic
Nopt bad idea
Everywher ei go muyy mum gets a discount despite being cash richer thna me.
Lets not forget there are some pretty well off pensioners these days due to gilt edges pensions etc

She gets her winter fuel allowance ..it helps her pay the site fees to keep her 40 k brand new motor home in portugal for a few of the months she is there over winter.

I keep seeing this "it would cost too much to means test" but I still don't really believe it. We are due Child Tax Credits but we've never claimed them as I don't agree that we need them. However, it would appear that things like Winter Fuel Credits are paid out regardless.

Worth a read. May help balance the books.

http://robinhoodtax.org/

We had 11.58 million pensioners in 2008 (1).

It looks like it costs something like £33 per person per benefit claim to means test something (2).

So that's something like £382 million (11.58 million x £33) to means test a benefit across pensioners.

Given than half of all pensioners live on less than £13,600 (3) you are not going to be able to withdraw the benefit for a large proportion of the pensioners, so there just isn't a significant saving to be made overall.

This is why we don't means test TV license and bus passes - it just doesn't save money.

(1): http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/22/population.socialtrends
(2): "£47 Average annual cost of maintaining an existing claim for means tested Pension Credit, compared to £14 for an existing State
Pension claim" from NAO summary
(3):: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom

Could we not put them all in a great big home? Like a big cattle shed? To save on heating costs? And then as they keel over sideways they could have a on-site cremation used to heat said big shed?

Actually, as I'm typing that, I realise that by the time I retire, this may well be the case

Blimey, just watched that program with Nick Robinson about tax, sobering stuff. Thinking that maybe taking taxation and budget out of the hands of politicians may be a rather good idea 😯

Means testing is massively expensive. That is one of the arguements behind the flat rate pension payments. It's cheaper to pay some people more that it is to work out a "fair" amount. It's even cheaper to pay some people less which is even more a danger.

Universal credit could go some way to solving this. It seems daft that there are benefits that are individually means tested. What should really happen is that it is all calculated at once and you receive one payment based on your result. Not a little bit from here and a little bit from there. Could solve a lot of these problem in one go. It'll cost a lot less to administer (Although the build cost will be high). It will also reduce the number of civil servants needed to administer it which is good or bad depending on whether you are one of them I suppose.

Means testing anything costs millions, so you can easily end up not saving anything at all.....

Very true. Y'know, the middle-classes love to bash the "handout culture" of the poor, don't they?

Comfortably off people don't need the government handouts they are "entitled" to claim. If they had the moral fortitude not to claim what they did not need, then means-testing and its associated costs would not be necessary.

Taking more than you need robs those in need; It's greed. It's a sick society, from top to bottom.

One of my in-laws' friends has joked that he'd miss his winter fuel allowance as it pays for a tank of fuel for his plane...

Regardless of whether they need it or not at least the money goes back into our economy.

Unlike this

The government has defended its decision to give £1bn in aid to India, despite the rapidly increasing wealth of the emerging economic giant.

A review of UK aid will maintain aid donations to India of £280m a year until 2015, while withdrawing assistance from countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Serbia and Moldova, the international development secretary, Andrew Mitchell, revealed.

The decision is likely to infuriate some Conservative MPs, who believe it is time to halt aid to India, which has economic growth of 8.5% a year, gives aid to Africa, spends £20bn a year on defence and has a £1.25bn space programme.

This has to be a bribe of some sort????

Sorry about earlier - going off on one. I'm tired.

Nice to know we're funding India's space programme!

footflaps - Member

We had 11.58 million pensioners in 2008 (1).

It looks like it costs something like £33 per person per benefit claim to means test something (2).

So that's something like £382 million (11.58 million x £33) to means test a benefit across pensioners.

Given than half of all pensioners live on less than £13,600 (3) you are not going to be able to withdraw the benefit for a large proportion of the pensioners, so there just isn't a significant saving to be made overall.

This is why we don't means test TV license and bus passes - it just doesn't save money.

Concise, well argued, easy to understand, and backed with solid numbers. Well played.

Isn't the bus pass thing rather self governing? Rich old people won't use a bus much (even if its free) cos its full of scrotes. Therefore the cost of giving them a bus pass is nothing.