Rather then cut certain benefits why not means test them?

[cadooyahoo]

I know someone who imo does not get enough support for their disability (they are blind) & am aware many disabled people live in poverty so I don't think we should cut benefits. Wouldn't it make more sense to means test PIP, DLA & AA?

And cost more money? The government did suggest a catalogue of aids for disabled people to choose from. But when we all have different needs how will that work?

@LongDarkTeatime why do you think we don't do that?

we already tax higher earners in line with other European countries, it's middle earners who pay less here.

Child benefit is not means tested.

@Punishmentforthis

Of course it is relevant when people are suggesting means testing disability benefits.

why is it relevant that you worked hard?

I’d rather not to be honest, I’m a fan of a minimum basic income with absolutely no top up benefits. But to make the maths work it needs to be set at a very low subsistence level, and then all the whataboutary starts, and very soon it’s unaffordable.

@Ritzybitzy you know what I mean. If you earn over 60k you have to start paying some back

But UC claimants are always told they are better off in work ….

@AirborneElephant Interesting, I do think there would be too much arguing about basic income. I just think means test everything not some things.

Seems that the majority want to protect wealth rather than the most vulnerable in society. You’re only valuable on Earth if you’re an economic asset and contributor !

Why though? What logic is that. PIP / DLA is to offset the costs associated with disability. Those costs don’t change because people are wealthy. But also have you looked at the actual demographic of those claiming. They aren’t earning that kind of money bar exceptional cases. So you’re introducing a costly programme to manage a benefit that’s not meant to be an income in the way you’re describing that won’t actually save money.

I would love to live in a country where income
didn't matter and things like disability benefits and chins benefit were universal but we are not a rich country & are only going to get poorer with changing demographics

I think we’re comparing apples and pears.
The headline tax rate is not what very high earners pay.
There are numerous ways to avoid paying a proportionate rate of tax. One section of my family is in banking (and not the high street kind), and is proud of how they pay next to nothing. It is normal in those circles.

@LongDarkTeatime well we don't tax wealth in line with income but wealth tends to be more mobile and the general public are not fans of increased CGT or IHT.

Because having children is a choice that sensible parents financially plan for. Having a child with a disability isn’t.

People plan to have a child, so set up a family home, and save in order to cover maternity leave and nursery fees. With the view that after the early years theyll be back at work. B it they don’t plan for a disabled child, that means having to give up a career to care for them, they don’t plan for the cost of specialist equipment or for an adapted vehicle.

Not sure whether you are really struggling to comprehend this. I think you are just being goady so I’ll leave it there.

Great contribution!

If you have millions CGT and IHT are easily avoided under current regs.
Start by making Amazon and the other multinationals pay appropriate tax.

@LongDarkTeatime you need global initiatives for that, governments want business investment & jobs in the country. It's unrealistic to think we will change our economic model.

This! I saw somewhere that a proper overhaul of the benefit and tax system would take 10-15 years to be done properly. Unfortunately we have 5 year election cycles which means short term headline “wins” trump sensible boring very long term policies

Why though? That still means the disabled family is disadvantaged compared to the family who is not. The whole point of DLA and PIP is to level the playing field and offset the cost of a disabled family member / disability. Even if person A earns 80k if person B cannot work the household is still worse off. You seem to be missing the point entirely of disability benefits.

Because it would put so many people back into poverty.

I think you are misunderstanding. I understand why disability benefits are not means tested. However in a situation where they are facing potential cuts I think means testing is better than blanket cuts. You don't agree, fair enough.

You’re missing it still. Means tested benefits are in place where it’s a benefit related to income. Clearly you have to means test those.

Non means tested benefits like DLA are nothing to do with income. Disability costs what it costs regardless of what you earn. And in reality disabled families are disproportionately worse off. Not just in the immediate term but long term as well. Why are you advocating going after the most vulnerable members of society for what in reality is pennies?

Because it would put so many people back into poverty.

But so will cuts!!!!

Non means tested benefits like DLA are nothing to do with income. Obviously because it's not currently means tested. We had other benefits that were universal but now aren't eg child benefit, wfa.

Why are you advocating going after the most vulnerable members of society for what in reality is pennies?

But I'm not saying this, if the government does choose this I think means testing is better than blanket cuts. Imo it's the lesser of the two evils. You disagree as I said.