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.

That is exactly how universal benefits work - how do you think they work? Equally I think child benefit and dla should be paid to all children and those with disabilities (need), and paid for out of taxation. We should all pay in according to our ability, but we should all benefit according to our need and circumstances.

This is also how state education and the NHS work.

Universal benefits mean we all have a stake and the role of state benefits is not just to provide grudging charity to the poor.

Whether a particular pensioner should have paid more tax previously should depend on tax rates at the time and their income. You can't retrospectively tax people. However, people with the ability can pay more tax now, whatever their age.

I agree with you merry, but in the case of child benefit, those paying more in tax are now not getting it, so the universality isn't working.

I know, but I think they should get child benefit.

Child benefit was supposed to be removed as an emergency measure, but as there is no sign of it being reinstated, I think we can assume it was an ideological measure.

I think you're right merry. I've always thought it was ideological too.

Universal benefits are available to all, not according to need.

The only people this would hurt are those who are just okay. Poor people get more benefits, rich people are well off anyway, but people who saved hard and own their own home, and never claimed benefits will go short yet again. Bus passes encourage people to use public transport and so are good for the environment.

Whether a particular pensioner should have paid more tax previously should depend on tax rates at the time and their income. You can't retrospectively tax people. However, people with the ability can pay more tax now, whatever their age.

My issue here is with your judgement on the permanent-cruise person's tax situation. They pay taxes on their income during their working life, perhaps they invested some money and paid capital gains, perhaps they're drawing from a pension and paying taxes on that. Whatever their source of income is, it's taxed. Now, you say that they should pay more now because they can.

Yes - I think people with higher incomes should pay more tax. I'm not saying a pensioner should pay a special tax.

I am not worried about any comfortable pensioner receiving £250 wfa pa because it can be offset with tax (and I suspect probably is).

No, universal benefits are available to all when they are needed. Perhaps I am confusing things by using the word 'need' rather than 'qualify'.

On the other hand means tested benefits are available when they are needed as long as your income/assets are below a certain amount.

Child benefit was universal when it was provided to all children. Now it is means tested.

Perhaps I am confusing things by using the word 'need' rather than 'qualify'.

Yes, you are.

In any case, I already understand the things you've been trying to explain to me in this thread viz means testing and how the NHS and schools work.

Wha?

Sorry merry. I have lost the plot with that!

Universal benefit = for everyone, regardless of need
Means tested = for those who need

Have you invented a 3rd?

Universal = for everyone that needs/qualifies.... which is just like means tested... which is where I stepped off

I am using 'need' in the sense of needing e.g dla because you have a disability.

I am not using 'need' in the sense of not having enough money.

I need a doctor because I am ill therefore in the uk I can see an NHS doctor, regardless of income.

I have children, therefore I can send them to school.

I am facing the increased costs and mobility problems of being old, therefore I have a free bus pass.

The flip side is paying more taxes.

The alternative to this system is low taxes and the well off looking after themselves. Obviously some people think this system would be better, and that is fair enough.

However, at the moment all this bickering about benefits smooths the way for people who would prefer a low tax, low benefit society, without being challenged.

merrymouse you can carry on using "need" however you see fit, but it doesn't match any definition of "need" that the government would use.

However, at the moment all this bickering about benefits smooths the way for people who would prefer a low tax, low benefit society, without being challenged.

I take issue with commingling all benefits in this context. I think it smooths the way for people who tolerate a huge, corrupt, sluggish government (because it suits their tax bracket or general philosophy or whatever) to cast people who like to keep their own hard-earned money (while providing for the less fortunate in a sensible way) as ignorant Daily Mail readers.

Clearly we don't share an ideological view point.

I find the idea of helping the 'less fortunate' in a 'sensible' way to be chilling.

I am sure the definition if 'sensible' is very open to interpretation, particularly by those who have no experience of being 'less fortunate'.

I can assure you that if I were in charge, the disabled would be cared for far better than they currently are.

But you are correct that "sensible" is open to interpretation, as is "less fortunate".

And you won't get anything done pontificating at enormous length on a forum about what you think should happen. All you are doing is wasting time.

Instead of spewing out your piss and wind on a regular basis, why not engage with the democratic process (ie contact your local MP) or campaign yourself?

I am also very amused at the people ranting on here who don't seem to realise all they are doing are making profits for Mumsnet by writing their content for nothing. They are not changing anything.

Still not understanding all the anger and bitterness directed at the elderly. Direct it at Cameron.

Some mean minded and snide and sneary stuff on this thread. Par for the course on mumsnet, sadly.

I have written to my MP on numerous occasions flash. I met with him once to discuss the child benefit issue. Nothing has changed. All I have left now is my vote in May, only I'm not sure what to do with that now.

Howcan there's a fundamental difference between the NHS/state schools for all and transport/fuel allowance.

I think there has to be a better funding model for the NHS and I'm not opposed to quasi-private health care, but we're all invested in every single child in the UK receiving a great education (although they're not getting it).

It seems to me that there is an epidemic of apathetic parenting in the UK and it is disturbing in the extreme. These kids would be lost forever without a state education.

If you want to tax high-earning parents even further for the schools they're already paying for though their 45% tax rate, you'll just push them into private schools (if they're not there already) and create greater social divisions.

I don't get this 'we can't afford it' argument.

We could apparently afford lowering taxes for the top bracket while destroying the universal benefit principle as applied to cb.

Sometimes I wonder whether threads are started on Mn to use it as a focus group to gauge the reaction of the Mn demographic to significant changes. There've been two on the NHS recently proposing radical reform of a system rooted in a principle.

No aspersions being cast on you, OP.

Goodbye - cross posted - tho' interesting you should bring up the NHS. A better funding model for the NHS could well be spending as much on it as our European neighbours.

Btw - another broken promise - no cuts for frontline services. 'Efficiency savings' they called it.

Merry - I understand what you're getting at and I agree with you.