PDA

View Full Version : Debate



highlander
27-Aug-08, 10:01
Listening to the radio this morning they were having a debate about the care of pensioners, one thing that was brought up was, should family allowance be taken away from the higher paid familys and be means tested, it really gripes me that the likes of royality etc are able to claim this money. If this money was withdrawn from them, surely more money could also be given the the carers who have to look after thier familys who many have to give unpaid hours that are saving the goverment by keeping them out of care homes. While typing this i then thought should the allowances be means tested to pensioners, there are many, for example royality and film stars would be able to able to get this extra money, or do we look at the case they have paid thier taxes and are due this money. Over to you......

Thumper
27-Aug-08, 10:19
I think family allowance should definately be means tested,I know that in Canada they do that as my friend was telling me the other day that they dont get it because they earn too much.It makes sense not to give to those who are not it need of it x

Angela
27-Aug-08, 10:30
One of the problems with means tested benefits is they are much more expensive to administer as someone has to consider each case individually.

Another very real consideration is that often folk, especially elderly people, don't like to have to apply for benefits which many still consider a form of charity, and find it difficult and demeaning to go through the hoops of form filling. Many pensioners just do not apply for the pension credit they are entitled to. Once something is means tested it somehow stops being an entitlement and starts to seem like a safety net.

I don't like the idea of means testing for older people - the basic state pension should be increased to a decent level for everyone of pensionable age which would ensure our poorest pensioners were a little better off and it would save the money being spent on dealing with pension credit applications. If people have managed to save some money for their retirement they shouldn't be penalised for doing so or have to use up their savings to claim pension credit.

Having said that, with more and more people living longer, I don't see where the money is going to come from.:( More and more of us will be working until we drop and still be paying taxes!:roll:

Child allowances seem to have got unnecessarily complicated, with child benefit for all AND child tax credit for the less well off. ...so one is means tested and the other isn't -similar to the pension situation.

I would have thought it should be possible to combine these two systems so that a greater sum (than now) of child benefit goes to the families who really need it, the families who don't need it don't get it at all, and the cumbersome and expensive system of child tax credits disappears.

Our whole tax system is in need of a radical overhaul, methinks!

Sapphire2803
27-Aug-08, 10:39
I do agree, but I can't help thinking we need to sort this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483225/1m-child-benefit-paid-month--mothers-Poland.html) out first :(

Tilter
27-Aug-08, 10:46
We have this debate at home. I've always held that child-benefit etc. should only be given to those below a certain income. Allowances for pensioners should also only be given to those below a certain income.

My OH believes if you've paid your taxes, then you should get the same benefits as everyone else. To me this is rubbish - I don't mind paying taxes if it brings those less well-off to a point over the poverty level, especially children. (And if a fraction of it goes to the scroungers and ne-er do wells people bang on about, then that's just life.)

But where do you draw the line? Should people over a certain income level pay for private medical insurance or would they still be allowed to get everything on the NHS? If so, we'd be following along the lines of the American medical system, which works reasonably well.

We have just paid out (more than willingly I assure you) over £400 for glasses for a very elderly relative for whom money is in very short supply. He can now watch television and read the newspaper again. What did the government expect him to do? Just sit there in the dark for the rest of his life? Yet I could go to the doctor's and be treated for a sniffly nose or someone of means and in the best of health could get IVF treatment for free.

I thought all this was why I never voted conservative. Harumph. The whole system is up the creek.

Whitewater
27-Aug-08, 10:49
It is a very difficult question and there is no easy answer. You work hard all your life, pay all your taxes etc. Then you need care, and are put into an old folks home where they take all your savings, even your house (as happened to one of my friends, his wife suffered from dimentia) and in the next bed lies somebody who has never worked in their life, peed it all against the wall and is getting the same treatment.

To reply to the question, I personally don't think that family allowance should be means tested. It is for the child rather than the parents, we had bank accounts for our children and paid the allowance into them. We were lucky enough to be able to do that, but I took the view that nobody knows what lies before them, parents may be well able to look after the children without the allowance, but perhaps at some time in the future they may loose everything even their lives, it at least gives the children something.

I agree that mega rich people shouldn't receive it, many of them don't even have to pay the basic taxes, they can all afford accountants to spin webs around the honey pot. Unfortunately there is no easy answer.

golach
27-Aug-08, 10:51
I do agree, but I can't help thinking we need to sort this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483225/1m-child-benefit-paid-month--mothers-Poland.html) out first :(
Sadly, we the UK and Poland are part of the EU now, and what you have highlighted, is part of the constitution of the EU, the Polish lassie is doing nothing wrong, she is working, she will be paying taxes and NI payments to the UK Treasury.
I am sure every UK citizen that can claim any payments from the UK system, is doing the same.

Angela
27-Aug-08, 10:59
Allowances for pensioners should also only be given to those below a certain income.

My OH believes if you've paid your taxes, then you should get the same benefits as everyone else.



I agree with much of what you say, Tilter, but I don't understand what you mean by 'allowances for pensioners'. :confused I just think there should be one rate of basic state pension that isn't below the poverty line, so it doesn't have to be topped up by pension credit.

If you have paid NI throughout your working life, then your state pension is an entitlement surely? not a form of charity.

When my OH died (under retirement age) I didn't realise that I could claim 'bereavement benefits' because we were both working - the very word 'benefit' gave me the impression it wasn't for me, and nobody told me otherwise. In fact it was money I was entitled to, due to my husband's NI record.

Nevertheless, I had to 'claim' it. Because I didn't know what it was I didn't claim in time and lost a lot of it, at a time I could certainly have done with the money. :(

The government are now going to reduce the length of time pension credit can be backdated for as well.[evil]

badger
27-Aug-08, 11:50
It is a mess and something no govt. seems to have sense to sit down, look at the whole system and sort it out. The argument against people with lots of money not receiving benefits (and I do wish people would not pick on royalty every time - let's just say the super rich) is that there is then no incentive to earn lots of money or save for your old age. I paid NI contributions all my life and have a little capital saved which is supposed to be for my old age or my children to inherit but I know if I have to go into a home it will all be taken. I get the State Pension and that's that. Which means that now, as always, I count the pennies.

There are plenty of people who were born very poor, have worked hard to better themselves and finished up very rich. Why should they be penalised? They have contributed more in taxes and to the economy generally than the poor. Indeed without the rich where would the Govt. get money to pay benefits?

As others have said, what incentive is there to work hard and/or save if when you retire you receive less than someone who has scrounged off the State all their lives?

At the other end of the scale, why should families receive benefit for having more children than they can afford? No-one wants to see children deprived of the basics but there should be limits (we've had this discussion many times).

jay
27-Aug-08, 13:18
I actually agree that there are to many people claiming benefits that they don't need, however in the case of family allowance there are still many, many cases of the wife been "allocated" a pitance of houskeeping and never knowing what the husband earns - at least these people have the family allowance to ensure the kids are looked after