Isn't It Good To Hear That Another...
ChatterBank1 min ago
I Wonder How Many Wealthy Pensioners Would Be Prepaired To Hand Their Benefits Back?have Handed Their
58 Answers
http://
Should all such benefits be 'means tested', and where would this end, should 'rich' pensioners also be made to pay for NHS health care etc?
Should all such benefits be 'means tested', and where would this end, should 'rich' pensioners also be made to pay for NHS health care etc?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Here's a deserving charity:
https:/
https:/
I am not wealthy, and I would not give my winter fuel allowance back. If they want to claw some back, start on the monies they give to pensioners who live permantly abroad, most in warm climates. I also have never claimed a penny from the state, and now receive my state pension (which I paid a full stamp for) and the winter allowance.
As I have said many times before, there needs to be a distinction made between pensioners. Firstly there are people who have worked and made contributions to either the State pension scheme or a private scheme or both and who receive pensions according to their contributions. Then there are those who have made little or no contribution but still receive what is incorrectly called a pension based simply on the fact that they have no other income. Unsurprisingly, in the main people in the first group are likely to be more wealthy than the second - sometimes substantially more so.
Proposals to restrict benefits of “wealthy” pensioners will hit this first group. Despite having made substantial contributions to both the State pension scheme and probably a private scheme they will benefit least from the monies paid to the State scheme. They will not be eligible to so-called “pension credits” like their poorer contemporaries and will receive overall far less from the State scheme having paid the most in. In fact, because of their level of contributions they should be entitled to the most from the scheme including the fringe benefits such as winter fuel allowance and free travel. There needs to be, as with all pension schemes, an established direct link between contributions made and monies received. The various top-ups which various “pensioners” receive because they do not qualify on the basis of contributions should not be termed a pension.
I heard that nice Mr Clegg today prattling on about multi-millionaires having free bus passes and fuel allowances. These benefits have to be claimed and I cannot imagine too many multi-millionaires applying for a bus pass or £200 for fuel (although, of course, they should be perfectly entitled to do so). No, Mr Clegg is making his point in this way to appeal to the masses but in fact if these benefits are means tested the cut-off point will be far lower than multi-millionaire status. It’s far more likely to encompass people on modest private pension incomes of, say, around !5k. These people, having done the right thing and provided for their future will be considered filthy rich and lose the benfits for which they have paid. Meanwhile those who have paid sod all will reap everything that's going. That's what Mr Duncan-Smith terms "fair".
Proposals to restrict benefits of “wealthy” pensioners will hit this first group. Despite having made substantial contributions to both the State pension scheme and probably a private scheme they will benefit least from the monies paid to the State scheme. They will not be eligible to so-called “pension credits” like their poorer contemporaries and will receive overall far less from the State scheme having paid the most in. In fact, because of their level of contributions they should be entitled to the most from the scheme including the fringe benefits such as winter fuel allowance and free travel. There needs to be, as with all pension schemes, an established direct link between contributions made and monies received. The various top-ups which various “pensioners” receive because they do not qualify on the basis of contributions should not be termed a pension.
I heard that nice Mr Clegg today prattling on about multi-millionaires having free bus passes and fuel allowances. These benefits have to be claimed and I cannot imagine too many multi-millionaires applying for a bus pass or £200 for fuel (although, of course, they should be perfectly entitled to do so). No, Mr Clegg is making his point in this way to appeal to the masses but in fact if these benefits are means tested the cut-off point will be far lower than multi-millionaire status. It’s far more likely to encompass people on modest private pension incomes of, say, around !5k. These people, having done the right thing and provided for their future will be considered filthy rich and lose the benfits for which they have paid. Meanwhile those who have paid sod all will reap everything that's going. That's what Mr Duncan-Smith terms "fair".
I have been paying £40 a month by direct debit for my gas. Just got my six-monthly bill which of course goes through the very cold winter (for gas central heating, a gas fire and a gas hob). I owed over £400, nothing for it but to pay an extra £200 out of the debt and up my monthly payment to £80. Not an easy thing to do and have cut down on my usage straight away. Bit of a shock, by the way!
Quite, atalanta, what's a 'bus' ? The take up by those who are wealthy is unlikely to be high; they are unlikely to be regular users who wish to continue without paying, and the rest are simply unlikely to.But the cost to the government would be small compared to the extra tax they have paid by virtue of being higher earners. The heating allowance is only £200 which , while of value to normal pensioners, is a small sum to the wealthy (however defined), who are probably living in houses where the cost of heating is vastly higher than that.
The difference between a state pension now and 1970 is that the elderly are the majority. There's a wealth of people out there who have been getting it since the 70s, then they were only expected to live for 8 years or so after retirement. Its harsh but I agree that all benefits should be means tested. The NHS should remain free but given the intensity of care needed I believe that nursing home fees should be a lot higher :S
Or Soylent Green?
Or Soylent Green?
Means testing should be avoided wherever possible. it is not only demeaning it makes things more complex. Probably questionable saving anyway. In any case there is a difference between payment/services considered a right (probably paid towards throughout the recipient's tax paying life) and those benefits only there to provide aa safety net to those unable to support themselves. If someone doesn't want something they are entitled to then let them give it to charity.
It is a truism though that the "fringe benefits" - Winter Fuel Allowance, Free Bus Passes, Free TV Licence etc - Are appeciated and welcomed most by those who have the least, rather than those that are comfortably well off. Society is not solely about proportionate returns on contributions - that really is a recipe for devil take the hindmost.
I know personally many retired folks who are drawing their pension (s) - and who are well enough off that they would happily forego their free entitlements - would be happy to waive them. Indeed, some have tried - but as I understand it, all of these allowances appear to be triggered automatically and there is no official mechanism for opting out.
The argument for universal benefits over some means tested allocation is that means testing is more costly to implement and administer.
I thought I had seen several reports estimating these benefits as costing between 2-3 billion a year. How much of that would giving up Universality actually save?
I know personally many retired folks who are drawing their pension (s) - and who are well enough off that they would happily forego their free entitlements - would be happy to waive them. Indeed, some have tried - but as I understand it, all of these allowances appear to be triggered automatically and there is no official mechanism for opting out.
The argument for universal benefits over some means tested allocation is that means testing is more costly to implement and administer.
I thought I had seen several reports estimating these benefits as costing between 2-3 billion a year. How much of that would giving up Universality actually save?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.