Should all social security 'benefits' be means tested?
I am thinking pensions, pensoner benfits like winter fuel allowance, working tax credits, child tax credits...
My own view is that they should be...especially as £200 billion is spent a year.
Pensions have been paid for throughout someone's life, but the other benefits you mention there is a case to means test them, certainly at the top end.
Something needs to be done to reduce the massive welfare bill. Trimming the abuse and the unnecessary is a good place to start. Simplifying the system will also make it easier to identify unnecessary excess and possible abuse.
Means testing can get complex and is expensive in itself, so can be difficult to implement effectively.
Something needs to be done to reduce the massive welfare bill. Trimming the abuse and the unnecessary is a good place to start. Simplifying the system will also make it easier to identify unnecessary excess and possible abuse.
Means testing can get complex and is expensive in itself, so can be difficult to implement effectively.
I don't know but I would think that before you granted them there must be some forms to be filled in to prove you are eligible.
If that's the case then they are means tested.
Something needs to be done to reduce the massive welfare bill. Trimming the abuse and the unnecessary is a good place to start. Simplifying the system will also make it easier to identify unnecessary excess and possible abuse.
Means testing can get complex and is expensive in itself, so can be difficult to implement effectively.
Alot of benefits are already means tested, so all that would needto be done is to extend it to all benefits. And if as you say trimming the abuse and unnecessary then means tested fits into this area.
If the aim is to save money then the reverse would be better. There is a huge and almost pointless infrastructure of testing which could be replaced by a minimum wage for all with claw back through tapered taxation for those in work.
Not entirely free of bureaucracy but most of this could be done through the existing taxation bureaucracy.
There are two sorts of state pension only one of which is a "Social Security benefit" and is means tested already.
Something needs to be done to reduce the massive welfare bill. Trimming the abuse and the unnecessary is a good place to start. Simplifying the system will also make it easier to identify unnecessary excess and possible abuse.
Means testing can get complex and is expensive in itself, so can be difficult to implement effectively.
Before embarking on any means testing, it would be necessary to identify and quantify what the actual abuse was.
Perhaps better to improve the social situation that makes benefit necessary in the first place, thereby removing the need for the benefit.
No, there are "contributions based" benefits, funded from your NI contributions. After your entitlement ends you go on to "income based" ie means tested.
Contributions based benefits should remain non means tested.
People who have paid in should be covered for short-term unemployment while they are actively seeking employment between jobs, long-term inability to work due to ill health or disability, old age pension.
If you just have means tested benefits most people will end up paying out for private insurance and whatever means tested safety net remains over the years will wither and die because most people will see those reliant on it as feckless people who could not be bothered to make adequate provision for themselves.
I do not want to end up with a system like the USA or worse. With the poor advised to dumpster dive to supplement their benefits so they do not go hungry.
One answer might be to have a guaranteed minimum income and reduce the lower tax bracket by that amount - do this and you do not have to means test it, and you ensure that everyone has a basic minimum. (see http://basicincome.org.uk/reasons-support-basic-income/).
The trouble with means testing is that it creates distortions around the point that the benefit reduces. It is for this reason that under the original tax credit regime - the poorest were looking at marginal tax rates in excess of 90%.
That said there really is no reason why someone on twice the average wage should get one sodding penny of benefits (excluding pensions which have at least been paid for out of a lifetime of working and contributions).
I do not want to end up with a system like the USA or worse. With the poor advised to dumpster dive to supplement their benefits so they do not go hungry.
Just imagine the smirk on Iain Duncan-Smith's face if that happened here... As he sits down to another £39 breakfast on expenses.
Something needs to be done to reduce the massive welfare bill. Trimming the abuse and the unnecessary is a good place to start. Simplifying the system will also make it easier to identify unnecessary excess and possible abuse.
Means testing can get complex and is expensive in itself, so can be difficult to implement effectively.
A good place to start could be to make sure no employer is giving work to an unemployed people and paying them cash in hand (tax free) while they are claiming JSA. And to make sure that unemployed people don't work for themselves and get payments that they don't declare.
Pensions aren't a benefit, they are a paid for entitlement.
If you want to change that model, then I am happy to stop paying any NI contributions and use only private pensions.
Well pensions may not be means tested but state pension are paid based on how many years you worked. Like a lot of wives at the time I stopped working when I had my first child in 1970 to become a housewife and mother,and I never worked again, because of this I do not receive anywhere near the full state pension.
Comments
Pensions have been paid for throughout someone's life, but the other benefits you mention there is a case to means test them, certainly at the top end.
Means testing can get complex and is expensive in itself, so can be difficult to implement effectively.
I don't know but I would think that before you granted them there must be some forms to be filled in to prove you are eligible.
If that's the case then they are means tested.
What about "contributions based" JSA?
Tax credits are not handed out like confetti either, you have to supply income details.
Alot of benefits are already means tested, so all that would needto be done is to extend it to all benefits. And if as you say trimming the abuse and unnecessary then means tested fits into this area.
If you want to change that model, then I am happy to stop paying any NI contributions and use only private pensions.
Not entirely free of bureaucracy but most of this could be done through the existing taxation bureaucracy.
There are two sorts of state pension only one of which is a "Social Security benefit" and is means tested already.
Ditto can I have my money back please
Well tell governments that because they inclued pensions in the figures of welfare spending.
Before embarking on any means testing, it would be necessary to identify and quantify what the actual abuse was.
Perhaps better to improve the social situation that makes benefit necessary in the first place, thereby removing the need for the benefit.
Aren't they all?
http://www.citizensincome.org/
No, there are "contributions based" benefits, funded from your NI contributions. After your entitlement ends you go on to "income based" ie means tested.
People who have paid in should be covered for short-term unemployment while they are actively seeking employment between jobs, long-term inability to work due to ill health or disability, old age pension.
If you just have means tested benefits most people will end up paying out for private insurance and whatever means tested safety net remains over the years will wither and die because most people will see those reliant on it as feckless people who could not be bothered to make adequate provision for themselves.
I do not want to end up with a system like the USA or worse. With the poor advised to dumpster dive to supplement their benefits so they do not go hungry.
The trouble with means testing is that it creates distortions around the point that the benefit reduces. It is for this reason that under the original tax credit regime - the poorest were looking at marginal tax rates in excess of 90%.
That said there really is no reason why someone on twice the average wage should get one sodding penny of benefits (excluding pensions which have at least been paid for out of a lifetime of working and contributions).
Quite. There are many who would quite happily stop paying NI and put that amount into a private pension scheme.
Not on the information supplied from HMRC last year. State Pension were shown separately to welfare.
Just imagine the smirk on Iain Duncan-Smith's face if that happened here... As he sits down to another £39 breakfast on expenses.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fnews%2Fdatablog%2F2013%2Fjan%2F08%2Fuk-benefit-welfare-spending&ei=7shIVZ5bwdJopO6A6AU&usg=AFQjCNF7PThBCsgCgHVar48EWyMMFpKm8w&sig2=gAnAlK53JzW9N9K0nPmQGQ&bvm=bv.92291466,d.d2s&cad=rja. Good break down here. Ask people where that money goes and the assumptions might be on unemployment or incapacity benefit. In fact, 47% of UK benefit spending goes on state pensions of £74.22bn a year, more than the £48.2bn the UK spends on servicing its debt.
A good place to start could be to make sure no employer is giving work to an unemployed people and paying them cash in hand (tax free) while they are claiming JSA. And to make sure that unemployed people don't work for themselves and get payments that they don't declare.
Well pensions may not be means tested but state pension are paid based on how many years you worked. Like a lot of wives at the time I stopped working when I had my first child in 1970 to become a housewife and mother,and I never worked again, because of this I do not receive anywhere near the full state pension.
Why would HMRC be involved with benefits?
HMRC run Child Benefit and Tax credits