Winter fuel payment &child benefit to become "means tested"?
Discussion
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-238...
The former would save £2.7 billion and the latter £5 billion.
Could be political suicide but the savings are significant and if the coalition are serious about slashing the deficit then cuts like this are inevitable.
The former would save £2.7 billion and the latter £5 billion.
Could be political suicide but the savings are significant and if the coalition are serious about slashing the deficit then cuts like this are inevitable.
It always sounds well, means testing stuff.
:G Brown:
We are targeting help at those most in need.
:/GB:
However in practice the means testing, such is the nature of civil servants, grows like Topsy and costs can arise out of all proportion to the original intentions.
Points at Childrens Tax Credit & Working Tax Credit.
We still get two sets of papers evey year on Childrens Tax credit, two sets of them, one for the Mrs and one set for me. Despite us not qualifying for tax credit for a few years, have told them so, they owe us nothing, we owe them nothing, and we've told them this situation is unlikely to change. Yet we still get two sets of everything, statements, booklets, explanatory leaflets, un-fricking-believable waste.
:G Brown:
We are targeting help at those most in need.
:/GB:
However in practice the means testing, such is the nature of civil servants, grows like Topsy and costs can arise out of all proportion to the original intentions.
Points at Childrens Tax Credit & Working Tax Credit.
We still get two sets of papers evey year on Childrens Tax credit, two sets of them, one for the Mrs and one set for me. Despite us not qualifying for tax credit for a few years, have told them so, they owe us nothing, we owe them nothing, and we've told them this situation is unlikely to change. Yet we still get two sets of everything, statements, booklets, explanatory leaflets, un-fricking-believable waste.
My first thought: Good idea.
Second thought: But why, for example, should pathetic scrounger with seven kids by seven different fathers and no NI payments to her name receive CB, but my son, the offspring of a couple with a combined total of over 30 years of tax and NI payments, shouldn't?
f
k 'em, reverse means test it and only pay it for the first child, or maybe two if we're feeling generous.
Mwahahahahaha.
Second thought: But why, for example, should pathetic scrounger with seven kids by seven different fathers and no NI payments to her name receive CB, but my son, the offspring of a couple with a combined total of over 30 years of tax and NI payments, shouldn't?
f
k 'em, reverse means test it and only pay it for the first child, or maybe two if we're feeling generous.Mwahahahahaha.
It may save money initially but I am willing to bet the savings get eaten up in the costs of administering it, also with the winter fuel payment a lot of those eligible may not want to apply and will suffer because of it. I know my gran never applied for any means tested benefits even though she was almost certainly eligible.
Timmy35 said:
fbrs said:
Timmy35 said:
Seems sensible.
means testing = further wealth redistribution, punishes anyone who saves and reinforces the benefit trap. just another meddling, idiotic layer of beaurocracyfbrs said:
Timmy35 said:
fbrs said:
Timmy35 said:
Seems sensible.
means testing = further wealth redistribution, punishes anyone who saves and reinforces the benefit trap. just another meddling, idiotic layer of beaurocracyTimmy35 said:
If you are avoiding spending £8bn that would otherwise be spent on an uncessary welfare payment I fail to see how you can not consider that as a saving.
look at it from this point of view; you're taking the 'benefit' off the people who are paying for it. ie you are increasing their net payment. economically it's exactly the same as leaving the system how it is but adding a new tax on working families and anyone who has saved. you can call it a saving if you want..the flip side is its just taking more, net, off the people who already pay for everything.a real saving would be to give less the the people who don't pay for anything... but i guess we're on the same page there..
Edited by fbrs on Wednesday 18th August 15:55
fbrs said:
Timmy35 said:
If you are avoiding spending £8bn that would otherwise be spent on an uncessary welfare payment I fail to see how you can not consider that as a saving.
look at it from this point of view; you're taking the 'benefit' off the people who are paying for it. ie you are increasing their net payment. economically it's exactly the same as leaving the system how it is but adding a new tax on working families and anyone who has saved. you can call it a saving if you want..the flip side is its just taking more, net, off the people who already pay for everything.a real saving would be to give less the the people who don't pay for anything... but i guess we're on the same page there..
Edited by fbrs on Wednesday 18th August 15:55
rich1231 said:
Again we need a big fking war, but this time send the hooped earing adorned slappers to fight. Tell them the enemy have the TV control for the magic Jeremy Kyle box and voila issue solved.
They would just end up shagging the enemy soldiers and coming back pregnant swelling their numbers even more. king war, but this time send the hooped earing adorned slappers to fight. Tell them the enemy have the TV control for the magic Jeremy Kyle box and voila issue solved.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff