To be sick of people saying everything should be means tested

[Neededanewuserhandle]

It's ignorant, ill-informed and shows a lack of consideration given to the costs and complexities. Just saying "x should be means tested" as if it's a magical answer is stupid.

I'm all in favour of certain benefits being universal, but I also happy to pay for these via higher taxation.

A lot of things are offered universally because the cost of means-testing and the administrative burden that goes with it far exceeds the cost of just offering to everyone.

For example, in Wales prescriptions are free. Partly, because this was a popular policy, but also because when you took out all the people who were exempt from paying due to age/ means-testing etc. it actually cost fat more to run the administration than was brought in by those who did pay.

Bus passes are offered universally to pensioners because many people over a certain age qualify for a free bus pass either because of low income or because of health conditions that mean they cannot drive/ cannot drive without substantial restrictions. When youmeans test it for this age group, and take out those people who have enough money to pay but also have no health conditions that would entitle then to a free pass anyway, you're looking at an administrative burden that far exceeds any costs savings by making those who could pay, pay.

A lot of these decisions on universal entitlements are made for good old fashioned cost reasons, not just idealolgy/ vote winning.

Trouble is that the "higher" earners usually have scope to change behaviour/circumstances to reduce the tax they pay, such as paying into a pension to get their earnings under the £50k or £100k thresholds, not taking on extra shifts/promotions which push their pay over such thresholds, and ultimately, retiring early (such as GPs and dentists to avoid the penal tax charge on pensions), or emigrating.

That's why most tax increases over the past 20 years have been paid mostly by the "squeezed middle" who are less socially mobile and have fewer opportunities to change behaviour to pay less tax as they need to earn to pay their mortgages and other ever-increasing living costs.

The lower earners pay little tax anyway, the higher earners have opportunities to change circumstances to avoid tax hikes, but the squeezed middle are trapped.

One thing I do think is that child maintanance should be factored in when calculating UC etc. a lady I know with 2 kids of primary age and renting a pretty nice HA flat gets £1670 plus she is in the lucky position of getting around £780 maintenance. So around £2400 a month. Her rent isn't high. I'm not saying she has the life of Riley on that but she gets by nicely without working at all- I can see this isn't exactly fair when balanced against some young couples not in HA paying for nursery and both working and just on the limits not to get any help at all. She probably has more spare cash than they do.

I agree with you to an extent, but I like to think most people should have a reasonable standard of living despite their circumstances. I think the issue is wage stagnation and that people who work have had their living standards reduced due to this, so this is why there is no benefit perceived from working. It should be that people are supported adequately by welfare and working in a professional job means you have financial benefit (not just enough to get by).

The reason this issue is divisive is because wages have not kept up with the cost of living and the housing issues in this country have been hugely, massively neglected for decades. Working feels like a mugs game if you aren't earning above 60k.

@Deathbyfluffy But at the moment the government don't help other than pay basic PIP. From that we pay for services but already have more expenses because of my disability and will have more in the future. At the moment I can still work as can my husband but if/when I get worse I will have to stop working and my husband too to care for me.

Means testing is a very blunt tool and with medical issues it does not cover all the information that it needs to and people will suffer. And the people who suffer already will suffer more because of it.

6k is way more a boiler breakdown. people in genuine need of benefits don't even have 1k. yes I am saying all that.
Why would you be back paid benefits unless you were unaware of entitlement or given bad advice or appealing in which case it's different and you know that damn well. it's unreasonable to have rainy day savings but expect tax payers to pay for your when you have your rainy day. It's unreasonable to save for imaginary washing machine breakdown but then raid the food bank.

@Nat6999 and I see what you are doing because you purposefully excluded the sentence where I said people in genuine need of benefits should be given more. Benefits are not there for you to save up for a rainy day if you have savings you have too much to claim benefits full stop as benefits are not a saving up or budgeting scheme.

The key one is pensions.

The old age pension is NOT a benefit. Workers have paid in their NI over many years, on the basis of a social contract.
Yes the terms of the contract can be varied over time but winning the lottery a week before you retire does not mean you are any less entitled to your old age pension. You have paid your dues and are owed it.

Other stuff - bus passes, prescriptions, winter fuel payments, child benefit are extras and I have no issue with those being means tested. They weren't agreed in a contract 50 years ago.

The other two I think should be universal are basic disability payments and free school meals. I'd happily pay an extra 1p in the £ to cover the cost of EVERY school child having access to a hot meal 365 days a year. For the simple reason, they cannot provide it for themselves.

I think more should be offered to everyone!

@Thehonestbadger don't put words in my mouth regarding unhappy or abusive relationships and someone's need or right to leave. Don't dare to even think you know my stance on such a matter.

If you can't see the hypocrisy and irony of your own post, slagging off 'checkout' workers not having any incentive or motivation to work when you're quite happy to consider moving from being supported by your husband directly onto being supported by the state, with no motivation to looking into your own earning power instead, then, as I said, I don't want to be part of this conversation.
So please don't put words in my mouth, don't quote me, don't bring me back into the conversation, I'm really not interested

I agree. It’s madness! I see so many posts on here about how those working should consider themselves lucky as ‘they’ll have a better pension’ and in another thread the same poster will be calling for generous pensions for those who have never or rarely worked as ‘nobody should live in poverty in 2023’

Where is the incentive for anything?

The problem isn't that means testing is a bad idea, but that the cost of it would outweigh the benefits, especially considering it would slow everything down.

Also there's an argument, if someone has paid a lot into a system, shouldn't they benefit from it?

Pretty much all benefits are means tested except for state pensions. This is why state pensions on their own cost about 11% of all government expenditure. It is extremely expensive to have universal benefits. The nonsense that it costs more to means test is crap.

Child benefit isn't means tested.

A separate tax return is required if you earn over the threshold and you pay back based on percentage but the benefit itself isn't as if over it you can still claim it which is wise to do for SAHP anyway as it pays NI contributions as well.

That isn’t true at all. State pensions are contribution based benefits. There is no pot of money nor are they funded by people’s contributions. The contribution’s today pensioners have paid are nothing like enough to fund state pensions.

it is a serious issue as pensioners are the richest demographic and we are paying over 11% if all public revenue in state pensions. It really adds to ingenerational unfairness when the state is giving large sums of money to some of the richest people in society. Of course not all pensioners are wealthy but that isn’t an argument for a universal state pension.

It effectively is as you have to pay it back in tax if you earn over a certain amount

There is a general principle, I find, that many things should be the case according to a lot of people, with no grasp that the process and cost of doing so outweigh the actual benefit.

Mumsnet is so left wing and anti-Tory until it comes to benefits isn’t it?

Try being a neurodivergent person who can’t work, but isn’t considered ill enough for PIP. The safety net in the uk exists (just about) for those with children. Once they go to university all help is withdrawn and we’re expected to magically earn enough money.

@TwoFluffyDogsOnMyBed you are absolutely right- many will have a very large shock at how little help they get with benefits once they have no under 18s

@suevineer 'It really adds to ingenerational unfairness when the state is giving large sums of money to some of the richest people in society. Of course not all pensioners are wealthy but that isn’t an argument for a universal state pension.'

The current generation of pensioners left school at 14, 15 or 16, 90% didn't go to university. They didn't have redundancy pay, unemployment benefit until the 60s, no maternity leave/pay and were too often dismissed for becoming pregnant.

You and I have had many benefits that they could only dream of. The state pension is the one thing they knew they would get. Compulsory work pensions didn't come in until 2018, so older citizens bought into the state pension because that was the agreement, and there was nothing else.

If the universal state pension is to disappear then the agreement with the public needs to change, so people can plan for old age. That is why we now have compulsory workplace pensions. The transition has started and will take a generation to achieve.

But blaming the current pensioners for taking a pension that most have worked 50 years for, is unreasonable.

Nope. The report was 2021. They do it every couple of years. We were 4th behind Norway, Australia and another country. I can't remember which. To be fair, they didn't do all countries, they chose 11 - I don't know the criteria. But the list included France and Germany. Back in 2016, we were 2nd, so we've definitely slipped.

If you are planning to rely on a state pension, which is welfare, then you are planning for poverty. Pensions are benefits. They rely on additional taxpayers making contributions.

People are all very good about kicking the working poor over benefits etc but if you look at pensions, the biggest part of welfare, then they say that is different because they contribute. As discussed earlier, most people are not net contributors for tax and a pension is another example of taking more than you put in over a working lifetime for most.

Any working person now should be planning another source of income than a state pension. The government made that clear over a decade ago.

Pretty much all benefits are means tested except for state pensions.

State pension isn’t welfare though, it’s something everyone contributes to on the basis that they will receive a return on that contribution upon retirement. It’s not something you can opt out of paying either, otherwise many people would divert their NI stamp to a private pension with possibly better returns.