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 wish all children in primary schools got free school meals. Sometimes, means testing is very expensive to do and so simply allowing everyone to access the benefit is simpler. EG all children get free prescriptions. It would cost so much money to try to mean test so best to allow all children to benefit regardless of if their parents are well off or not.

I think if the government changed the way state pension was paid so only those without a private pension could claim it, then many people would simply spend more of their money on themselves and stop paying into private pensions. People would opt to take more holidays etc instead.

Partly. During the 80s and 90s the governments had various schemes to "top up" state pension with enhanced state pension, i.e. S2P and SERPS which were earnings related additional pensions, the idea being you got normal state pension based on years of NIC credits AND a separate state pension based on your actual earnings/NIC contributions. Successive governments faffed around with those schemes and ultimately scrapped them and now we're back to basic state pension. So, a lot of today's pensioners and those approaching pension age would in fact be quite right in thinking they were entitled to pensions based on earnings, not just "credits", as that was what successive governments told them over 2/3 decades of their working lives.

Workers could also "contract out" of the earnings related element of the state pension, and pay a little less NIC, as an incentive for them to pay into private/occupational pension schemes instead. Again, now scrapped.

I do wish successive governments would stop all this short termism, change for change's sake, etc., and just be consistent rather than introducing schemes only to change them and ultimately scrap them.

@caringcarer

I think if the government changed the way state pension was paid so only those without a private pension could claim it, then many people would simply spend more of their money on themselves and stop paying into private pensions. People would opt to take more holidays etc instead.

That's what happened with pension credits. Those with only state pension and a small private pension weren't eligible for pension credits, but those without a private pension got pension credits, and both groups ended up with the same income! A real disincentive to pay into a private pension scheme if you didn't earn much money! I wish policy makers would think through the consequences of their policies!

You post was blatantly mocking and bashing me for having the audacity to ‘research’ my options to leave my marriage with my small children. You were villainising me for my personal observations during that process.

Whether that was your intention or not that’s what you did so your accusation of hypocrisy is in entirely two edged sword 😏

I do enjoy your ‘don’t you dare call me out on this’ rant though, even though you took it on yourself to ‘call me out’ on my original post. I would recommend not giving judgment unless you’re willing to receive a rebuttal.

As for your comment about my unwillingness to work. Again your hypocrisy is a two edged sword as whilst you rant and rave about my not knowing your circumstances or stances on matters you’ve likely completely ignored the part in my earlier comment where I reference my disabled child. I’m actually unable to work due to being their carer 👍🏻 so I wouldn’t be able to work to support us for at least the next few years.

I do receive carer benefit, I do have a generally liberal outlook. I do fully support a welfare system and think everyone deserves a decent standard of life.
I do not, however, think that everyone earning under <£70k deserves a largely similar quality of life. You can call me every name you like tbh and I’ll still never think that.

Checkout workers was just the first minimum wage example job I thought of. I worked checkouts for years. It’s unskilled, low responsibility, it’s usually minimum wage, nothing wrong with it at all but it’s not a job that should ever rival teachers/nurses in terms of income or lifestyle.

I agree all incomes from all sources including child maintenance should be included to determine the amount of benefit received. It always seems strange to me that child maintenance is not included. There should also be a failsafe system where child maintenance is not paid for any reason then UC covers it, but absent parents are chased for payment.

@caringcarer totally agree.

Just because people don't type out a long screed about how they would make things means-tested, doesn't mean they don't understand or appreciate costs and complexities. It probably means they know they don't have the expertise (or time) to advise on an anonymous chat forum, but still have an opinion. Or, maybe they do, but recognise announcing a plan on Mumsnet will have no impact.

But sure, probably all those people are just 'ignorant'

Think of all the staff and systems needed to means test benefits. It’s an industry in itself.

I think means testing is madness for many benefits and the level of means testing goes to far.

People often say “it costs more to means test than making it universal”, but somehow the government means tests everything that working age people get and hardly anything that older people get.

It is either more expensive to means test, or it isn’t.

I’d prefer things to be universal (child benefit, free prescriptions, the tax free allowance, childcare help) and recoup the cost from taxation. The tax rates for those edging over 50k (lose child benefit) and £100k (lose childcare help & personal allowance), as well as withdrawal of benefits when people earn more, drive behaviours that result in less tax being paid.

Are you factoring all taxes into that statement or just income tax?

Yeah

And how they can link a couple for benefits, but not for CB confunds me?
Your income changes
You will not have to pay the tax charge if your or your partner’s individual ‘adjusted net income’ for the whole of a tax year is less than £50,000.
Household ‘adjusted net income’ for £99,999 - thats fine,
Single parent ‘adjusted net income’ for £50,001 - nah, you cant have that

Well maybe they will start means testing bus passes, prescriptions for over 60s, PIP just in time for you to be in your 60s or maybe be seriously ill and then you can complain how it's a disgrace because you've paid in all your life.

I think your housing situation makes a massive difference. Eg a young couple with 2 children who have just purchased a home (with a mortgage) most definitely would not be in the same position if they separated. Let's say mum and children stayed in the home. Any benefits she recieved would not consider the mortgage payments. Let's say they were £600pcm. If she was in rented accommodation she might recieve and extra £800 to cover the rent. Now the challenge is finding a home for £800pcm that you want to live in

If her kids are primary school.age ( assuming no.disabilities) she will.be required to.look for work.

To me, it just wouldn't pass the financial analysis to make it viable - I believe that the cost of means-testing child benefit for example is at least equal to the money that was saved from not giving it to everyone.

Think about it - to means test you have to produce the application forms, process them, then implement a system that only gives people money who meet the criteria, then you have to do that what, once a year? Once every 5 years? To check that people are still liable, you need to have a department to investigate edge cases and to reclaim overpayments etc.

How much do you think that service costs to run? More or less than just giving every one that benefit?

Also, morally, I feel that in the case of child benefit, means testing the parents, when it's specifically a benefit aimed at children, is wrong.

YANBU. The savings from means testing can be significantly eroded by adminstration. For example, imagine if anyone with a retirement income of over £100k became ineligble for the State Pension. The number of people affected would be a tiny percentage of pensioners but the admin would be horrendous (and of course they'd be paying 40% or 45% back in tax in any case).

Means testing also increases the chance that some people who should be eligible miss out due to the complexities (often the most vulnerable, sadly).

Some people even suggested the energy price support should have been means tested. Last time I checked, the power companies didn't have access to income and savings data for their customers!!!!

I am fully in favour of taxpayers money not being paid to those who don't need it. Let's start with not paying multi- millionaire Sunak £168,000 to fuck up the country.

I don't think it's about the mathematical reality, it's a gut reaction. There's a tendency in this country to find the idea of somebody receiving more than their share - of anything - so abhorrent and outrageous that we'd prefer nobody received anything and the poorest starve in the street just to avoid it.

It's the same pinched, mean-spirited, jealous resource-guarding instinct that leads people to vote Tory in the first place. It will keep people voting Tory even while public services are being suffocated out of existence, elderly and disabled people are dying of neglect and we have an actual oligarch as Prime Minister. It's a psychological sickness, and it runs through this country like Brighton through a stick of rock.

She can still save a few hundred per month after costs which goes into her tax-free ISA.

I don’t see how if her income is below the income tax threshold. How can you save “a few hundred” from an income of less than £1k a month?

What is it you’re taking issue with op specifallh, what benefit is means tested but you feel shouldn’t be?

im a higher earner and I support means testing,I believe below certain thresholds the government should step in to support. Above folks need to pay for what they need and manage their finances accordingly

This might be a very simplistic way of looking at things and I'm sure someone who is more eco savvy will come along and challenge this but if the tax threshold was considerably higher but UB like child benefit were cancelled, in a way your wages would be your UB.
So let's say we didn't pay tax till over £20k then we wouldn't have this ridiculous affair where families on say £25/30k are needing to claim UC or Tax Credits to get by, but being taxed also. What is the 'admin' cost of collecting the tax then giving it back out?
Clearly there will always be those that cannot work. I don't begrudge them benefits, means tested or otherwise.
I think the government has an obligation to reduce this bill so if mum and 2 under 4s are on UC and dad is working I think the state should take child maintenance at source and it should come off the UC. Any addition support should be on top.

I think a lot of people in the 'squeezed middle' feel their quality of life is no better than someone else in a less stressful job, or with only one working parent, but they overlook the fact that they own their own home. Yes, there are some families in some very nice spacious Council Homes. More are in shitty flats or houses. Just over half the rented homes are private. So they really are in the minority. Owning your home is now becoming a luxury again but if you do you are generally fortunate. I don't mean you didn't work hard or go without, I mean you were fortunate to stick with a partner, be educated or well paid, or buy at the right time. I don't think benefits should be used to pay for home ownership no more than you should be offered extra money because you have a loan for a car or school fees.

My MIL is a classic case. She looked at a single mother with several children and glibly said "I'm paying my taxes for that!". She didn't like it when I pointed out that she barely pays any tax at all. She gets state pension and a widow's pension from her husband's pension scheme, no income tax as it's all just below personal allowance. She has around £100k in savings, all in ISAs, so no income tax on the interest/dividends. She doesn't have a car, so no road tax, fuel duty, VAT on fuel/repairs etc - just uses her free bus pass and cadges lifts from us. She barely buys anything, so no VAT on most of the food she buys, no VAT on her Daily Mail, a bit of VAT on her telephone bill and 5% on her electric & gas (mostly covered by the winter fuel allowance she doesn't need), OK, VAT on clothes/shoes etc buy she hardly ever buys anything. It's not as if she "paid in" - she hadn't worked since having my OH in her 20's - just a SAHM relying on her hubbies wage and accumulating credits for state benefits using the "home responsibilities" protection for 16 years! She can still save a few hundred per month after costs which goes into her tax-free ISA. Yet, she's first to whinge when there's any suggestion of OAPs paying for prescriptions, means testing bus passes, etc., even though she can easily afford them, and that's someone on a very low income! She also burst a blood vessel when they took away her free TV licence (which she can afford to pay for!). Despite paying virtually nothing in tax, she still thinks she's personally paying for half the benefit claimants in our town!
Well lovely that you told her how little she contributes to society… sigh …

If it's economically viable to means test, then means testing should be done.

Yes I will definitely concede that housing situation will make a difference.
It is however worth noting that mortgage payments aren’t discounted by UC (as far as my research went) it looked as though they would aid in the interest element but not the capital repayment.

For example; our mortgage is £780. Around £380 or which is actually just interest and UC took that into account as it does rent. Or at least that’s what my calculation suggested. I may be wrong.

I do think your comment around the ridiculousness of families earning lower wages paying tax then claiming back dispensation via UC and such, and the cost associated with running that entire pointless process is actually very on the nose. The only issue is that putting a blanket ‘no one earning under X will pay any tax’ in place wouldn’t take into account situations. So a family reliant on one £30k income with 3 kids and a single person earning £30k would both be living on the same income. Right now the single person would be paying tax whilst the family would be paying tax but receiving this back via the government.

Whilst allowing everyone to keep their earnings might seem the better idea to cut admin costs I suspect that everyone having more would actually systematically push up prices and cost of living anyway.

I think £6k is quite a low limit on savings before it affects how much you receive. If you need a new (second hand) car many are a few grand in price.