To think all the targeted pensioner benefits ie bus pass, TV and winter fuel should be abolished...

[Figmentofmyimagination]

.... And the equivalent amount added to the pension credit of low income pensioners. That would overcome the logistical/cost based arguments against means testing these benefits.

Have you read the thread?

People think UB for pensioners are wrong and simply think they need to be means tested like CB.

Taking bus passes off of poor pensioners isn't the issue,it's taking them off of wealthy pensioners that is.

Frankly couldn't care less but they need to pick the same means test for everything.I'm sick of Tories saying x amount is rich for one thing and then changing it for something else.

If we are broke and need to punish the poor then CB,UB for OAPs,free school dinners and help with childcare shouldn't be going to the wealthy.

Judge all households on their joint income and treat them the same.

Sally

I agree with LePetit. Child benefit is now being means tested on a single income of 50k, childcare tax relief is being means tested on a joint income of up to 300k, universal free school meals have just been introduced for infants. Labour are talking about a mansion tax, but only having to pay it if there is one earner on 42k. Why the need for all of these arbitrary thresholds? Why not just pick a figure where you are deemed as rich on a household income and apply to all benefits? (Disclaimer: I will never be in a position where I will pay mansion tax BTW). It gets bloody confusing quite frankly and the tax and benefits system is confusing enough already.

Personally, I would just have all benefits as universal and increase taxes accordingly. The problem is now that they've broken that agreement with the CB means testing, so I guess, you need to use the same figure that they are using for this to make it fair, although I would probably say a joint household income of up to 60k if I was pushed for a figure.

But it's not as simple as income is it? What about wealth for example..... and the relative outgoings at different stages of your life. I'm not quaking in my boots at 300k a year for the childcare relief though I mean how many people even on mn have a household income that high!

No I agree toby, it isn't just income. Wealth should be included somehow, but how do you do it? I think taxing income too highly is a disincentive to work, whereas assets don't create wealth. I think the cut off for CB is far too low as it is, despite the obvious unfairness with the two income vs. single income anomaly. Children are expensive and CB was supposed to be in place to recognise the additional expense of having them. I would have just stuck an extra 2 pence on the higher rate of tax and kept CB universal. That way all HRT payers would have shouldered the burden, not just those with children. I also think that pensioners should have a lower means testing threshold, as they don't have young children to bring up or mortgages / rent to pay. Why didn't the government just increase higher rate tax and leave everything universal? It would have been so much fairer, easier and way less complicated. As it is now, having lost CB in such an unfair way myself, I will not be happy if the next government decides to increase HRT again, as I will feel that we pay enough already and are getting less back than others. If they had increased HRT and left CB universal, I would have been happier. That is just how I feel about it.

It's not just income no - my neighbor is a very part time school cleaner and her husband is something akin to a self employed forest warden but they own an enormous detached house including a separate flat for her mother (and a very large flat they rent out, but that brings in income) and quite a lot of land - all inherited from farming land owners (as a building plot, fields and forest). On paper I bet they earn under 30k between them, probably less, but they are set up with no mortgage or rent and very considerable assets. How wealthy you are is about more than how much you earn.

I know MrTumbles. We have one HRT income, however we have just bought our first house, an ex local authority house. Our mortgage is nearly £1400 a month. That's not far off half our take home pay. We have 3 dc and the remainder doesn't go far. I also know people with more than one house, who are able to earn less through working as they have 3 properties they rent out. It doesn't seem fair to me, but as my husband keeps telling me "life isn't fair so just stop whinging about it"

Labour have missed a trick with this mansion tax. They should have done it on total property wealth. They won't though as they're all multiple property owners themselves. That goes for all politicians.

That's the thing its all rather difficult impossible to work out so benefits are never going to be fair.

My understanding is that to put in place a system of means testing in itself costs . Universal benefits(as Child Benefit used to be) are much cheaper to administer
Yes I have a vested interest in that I am a pensioner. My most valued 'perk' is my bus pass-it means I can travel free to our nearest town (return bus fare nearly £4 , to park for 4 hours more than that-it's less than a mile) to do four hours voluntary work a week.It also means less pollution, less traffic if we pensioner-drivers don't use our cars so much . A widow on my street uses her pass every day to go out for a while - it means she has some social contact every day . I suspect our local bus service would be hugely curtailed if it weren't for
pensioners' use. My Dh and I can also travel on local train if we go to a (reduced price) concert or theatre outing.
Winter fuel allowance-dont forget most pensioners are home most of the day with the heating on (our bills have rocketed since we retired, though we are as economical as possible and try not to put the heating on until about 3pm ) Many pensioners do not move much and feel the cold so have their heating on high .
TV licence .Again, as a lot of older pensioners dont go out much , TV is 'company' ,their window into the world
Free prescriptions .I'm afraid youll find as you get older that your body will start to let you down At £8 (?) a go, lots of medication can make a real hole in your budget.
We are by no means poor but went through a very lean period in our forties . We are very prudent and both made additional voluntary contributions to pension once we had paid for our DDs' Uni expenses. And have always been savers . Should we be penalised now because we did without earlier on to provide for a decent life in our old age ? If we lose these benefits and our current income is eroded , it will be 'the state' that ends up paying our residential/nursing home fees in the end ....

But then surely there would be less pollution if people of any age used their cars less?

Personally, I would just have all benefits as universal and increase taxes accordingly.

But why? Isn't this casting the government as a mandatory filter, taking 1 pound and sending 85p back that you can only use for bus fare? What is the benefit in this?

Post they've managed to find a way for CB so pretty sure they could for WFA et al.

Again not talking about the pensioners who really need the benefits.

Have to say not sure why it's ok for wealthy pensioners to heat their houses to near tropical levels all year round like our sets of parents do whilst families with young children are increasingly having to shiver in the same street.

This sense of entitlement from the older generation is what irks. Poor families,the disabled,children etc are suffering but hey as long as the elderly get their free passes so they can keep the BMW in the garage for their boozy lunches out all is well with the world.The lack of actually giving a shit as regards younger generations is frankly really starting to rankle.

Goodbye, it is a much fairer way than removing one group of people from universality but continuing to increase the taxes they pay. I would have been happier to pay more tax and keep CB. However, now I no longer receive CB, I am not happier to pay more tax. The CB meant that I was included and valued. Now I'm not valued, don't ask for any more as I will be resentful. This is why universal benefits were a good thing.

I have thyroid problems and I have to pay for my prescriptions too. It's really expensive Tough. I sympathise.

Goodbye, it is a much fairer way than removing one group of people from universality but continuing to increase the taxes they pay. I would have been happier to pay more tax and keep CB. However, now I no longer receive CB, I am not happier to pay more tax. The CB meant that I was included and valued. Now I'm not valued, don't ask for any more as I will be resentful. This is why universal benefits were a good thing.

With respect to your view, this is mine (and I think it's fairly rational) - me sending money in just for it to be sent back (a bit lighter and with some restrictions) doesn't make me feel valued, it just makes me think that it's all pointless.

I.e. I'd rather send in 100 pounds to be distributed to groups that do not include me than me sending in 200 and me receive 85 towards childcare vouchers or whatever the government thinks I need.

I'm aware that my position is in some way controversial and I really can't understand why.