Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Benefits For The Very Wealthy
I don't watch Big Brother but did read this report in the DM:
http://
Do you think the wealthy should get this sort of benefit? She claims it could cost up to £1000 a day but I think that is an exaggeration.
It is fair to say that the very wealthy pay lots of tax (hopefully) but it is equally fair to say that they don't have to claim benefits like this.
http://
Do you think the wealthy should get this sort of benefit? She claims it could cost up to £1000 a day but I think that is an exaggeration.
It is fair to say that the very wealthy pay lots of tax (hopefully) but it is equally fair to say that they don't have to claim benefits like this.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by hc4361. 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.
even the rich don't get to choose whether their children are severely disabled or not. In this respect a state benefit is like a sort of insurance payout, and taxes are the premiums: you pay your tax and it gives you coverage for the unpredictable things like disability. It's the child who gets the benefit, not the mother.
I think the other thing to consider when talking about whether benefits should be means tested is the cost of the means testing procedure and the continual monitoring of it. There is an argument that says that if no benefit was means tested, the system would actually cost less. There would remain of course, the cost of protecting the system from fraud.
There are two type of help. That which is a right due to being a citizen, and that which is part of a safety net for the desperate. (Although there are anomalies too, when there ought not be.
If some help is defined as a right of the citizen, then that right should not depend on individual means; so yes it should be available to all by definition. It should be on offer and their choice if they wish to bother claiming it.
She pays tax doesn't she ? All the more reason not to be barred.
The alternative is costly sorting into 'you can', 'you can't' groups, and the ignominy of means testing. It is probably cheaper and certainly easier to just accept that some benefits are for all citizens not the desperate only.
If some help is defined as a right of the citizen, then that right should not depend on individual means; so yes it should be available to all by definition. It should be on offer and their choice if they wish to bother claiming it.
She pays tax doesn't she ? All the more reason not to be barred.
The alternative is costly sorting into 'you can', 'you can't' groups, and the ignominy of means testing. It is probably cheaper and certainly easier to just accept that some benefits are for all citizens not the desperate only.
I suppose it very much depends on how you view the “benefits” system.
If you view it as a method of robbing the rich to give to the poor then I imagine the answer to your question is “no”.
If on the other hand you view it as a contributory insurance scheme where the misfortunes of the few are paid for by the contributions of the many then the answer is “yes”.
When you take out an insurance policy you pay the premiums and in return you are assured that should you suffer any pre-defined misfortune you will receive a payout. Nobody would suggest, for example, that when Rowan Atkinson’s McLaren F1 car was damaged that he should not receive a payout to have it fixed simply because he was “rich”. He’d paid his premiums(about £30k pa, I believe) so was entitled to payment. I doubt he "had" to claim on his policy and could have afforded to have the car repaired. But he had taken out insurance just to cover this eventuality.
So it is with this. I imagine Ms Price (of whom I’ve never heard) has paid her “premiums” in the form of tax and National Insurance so she should not have to justify her need when she requires help.
If you view it as a method of robbing the rich to give to the poor then I imagine the answer to your question is “no”.
If on the other hand you view it as a contributory insurance scheme where the misfortunes of the few are paid for by the contributions of the many then the answer is “yes”.
When you take out an insurance policy you pay the premiums and in return you are assured that should you suffer any pre-defined misfortune you will receive a payout. Nobody would suggest, for example, that when Rowan Atkinson’s McLaren F1 car was damaged that he should not receive a payout to have it fixed simply because he was “rich”. He’d paid his premiums(about £30k pa, I believe) so was entitled to payment. I doubt he "had" to claim on his policy and could have afforded to have the car repaired. But he had taken out insurance just to cover this eventuality.
So it is with this. I imagine Ms Price (of whom I’ve never heard) has paid her “premiums” in the form of tax and National Insurance so she should not have to justify her need when she requires help.
To return to the OP ...
Firstly you must define "Very Wealthy" - that could keep an army of pen-pushers in business for a good while.
Then you have to find the "Very Wealthy" - they are notoriously good at hiding their actual wealth away (as opposed to the upfront bling).
Most importantly though, this is a very slippery slope. We can't keep saying "you don't need this, so you can't have it" to people who have paid to keep 'the system' going.
If you remove all 'universal benefits' and means-test every single thing then, eventually, that class of people will revolt & say "stuff the system, there's nowt in it for me & I'm not paying in any more" - you need to leave them a few crumbs.
Firstly you must define "Very Wealthy" - that could keep an army of pen-pushers in business for a good while.
Then you have to find the "Very Wealthy" - they are notoriously good at hiding their actual wealth away (as opposed to the upfront bling).
Most importantly though, this is a very slippery slope. We can't keep saying "you don't need this, so you can't have it" to people who have paid to keep 'the system' going.
If you remove all 'universal benefits' and means-test every single thing then, eventually, that class of people will revolt & say "stuff the system, there's nowt in it for me & I'm not paying in any more" - you need to leave them a few crumbs.
In this case the mother is worth £40m and the father is Dwight Yorke who is not short of a few bob. I would define that as 'very wealthy' but I don't know what the cut off limit would be.
I would not be surprised if the Daily Mail leads with the scandal of parents of disabled children who are denied free transport to school very soon. I do know some parents have to fight tooth and nail to get it and some severely disabled children travel to school on a special bus with other severely disabled children. I don't know of any children that also have a council funded nurse to accompany them in the taxi, though, but that doesn't mean there aren't lots.
I would not be surprised if the Daily Mail leads with the scandal of parents of disabled children who are denied free transport to school very soon. I do know some parents have to fight tooth and nail to get it and some severely disabled children travel to school on a special bus with other severely disabled children. I don't know of any children that also have a council funded nurse to accompany them in the taxi, though, but that doesn't mean there aren't lots.
She lives and works in the UK, she pays taxes in the UK and is claiming legitimate funding for her disabled child so legally doing nothing wrong and perhaps thinks of it as a tax refund or working tax credit. However, morally its wrong,she could well afford a nurse and a chauffeur and its tax deductible anyway.If she has a £50k wages bill a year what percentage would that be of her yearly earnings? Probably the same as someone paying for childcare and working full time -she should fund it herself.
What's this I heard about you can't claim any benefits if you have savings over 'n' thousand pounds? Anyone know the limit?
With £40 million, I'm surprised they didn't give her the finger at the outset.
If it is a truly 'universal' benefit then I should shut up. It's just sheer luck that she made that amount of dosh by getting her threepenny bits out.
Her accountant can presumably vouch for how much tax she's paid during her career, to date, although we may need the thumbscrews to extract that kind of data…
With £40 million, I'm surprised they didn't give her the finger at the outset.
If it is a truly 'universal' benefit then I should shut up. It's just sheer luck that she made that amount of dosh by getting her threepenny bits out.
Her accountant can presumably vouch for how much tax she's paid during her career, to date, although we may need the thumbscrews to extract that kind of data…
TTT, do you remember the outcry when Josie Cunningham got taxis for herself and children to and from school every day funded by the council?
http://
http://
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
How it Works10 mins ago
I Am Supposed To To What I Am Told
Body & Soul37 mins ago
