Universal benefits

Jenksie

Well-Known Forumite
shoes said:
The idea of a universal benefit is absurd in the first instance.
So you don't agree with the Old Age Pension?

Almost everyone here is missing the point or not grasping what is happening.

It's not about NEED it's about ENTITLEMENT.

Of course someone being paid (I won't say earning) £46k per annum does not need child benefit - but they are entitled to it if they are paying more Tax and NI.

We are all buying into a universal system - some bits of that system we will not agree with- from the Neo Nazi suggestions of containment camps for the poor from some members to my aversion to funding the Royal Family doing such things as travelling the country on a train that costs £55,000 a day.

Christ we have not even got onto Public Sector Pensions yet!
 

shoes

Well-Known Forumite
shoes said:
The idea of a universal benefit is absurd in the first instance.
Jenksie said:
It's not about NEED it's about ENTITLEMENT.
And you're telling me I'm not grasping it?!

Jenksie said:
So you don't agree with the Old Age Pension?
Since when was pension a benefit for everyone? Last time I checked you had to be of a certain age to claim pension, much in the same way you have to have children to claim child benefit admittedly, however I can choose not to have kids - I cannot choose not to get old.

Jenksie said:
Of course someone being paid (I won't say earning) £46k per annum does not need child benefit - but they are entitled to it if they are paying more Tax and NI.
Surely NI alone should cover this? Just because you pay more into the system doesn't mean you should get it back, it negates the entire point of having a system which is there for the wealthier to help the needy.

Jenksie said:
We are all buying into a universal system - some bits of that system we will not agree with- from the Neo Nazi suggestions of containment camps for the poor from some members to my aversion to funding the Royal Family doing such things as travelling the country on a train that costs £55,000 a day.
It's argued that the royals pay for themselves. The poor shouldn't be put into work camps, just those who deem it acceptable to live off the state - i.e. do absolutely nothing whatsoever to change their situation, or even have any wish to do so. Those people are taking away funding from the needy and forcing a sparse set of resources to be spread increasingly thinly. Likewise the £44k+ earners are just as bad claiming child benefit.


Jenksie said:
Christ we have not even got onto Public Sector Pensions yet!
Or the public sector alone in all fairness, but surely that's for another thread?
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
**** entitlement, the country is up shit creek and has sold the only paddle for a magic bean. Spending MUST be cut, no matter what Brown thought you can't actually spend your way out of a recession unless you have massive reserves of wealth. As Brown used all we had (and more) testing his theory, we now have to cut back.

So, **** entitlement, who actually NEEDS child benefit for the sake of their childrens health and wellbeing?
 

Jenksie

Well-Known Forumite
The usual half baked provocation and mangled sophistry that I'm getting used to doesn't really deserve a response but the joy of forums is that you can be quoted and thus provoked into responding.

Plus it seems others do not want to chip in so:

Yes you haven't grasped it.

'Universal' in the context of welfare support means entitlement if specific criteria can be confirmed without the need for individual means testing.

I'm struggling to think of a benefit that that last sentance would not apply too.

Old Age Pension if you are old, Maternity pay if Pregnant, Incapacity Benefit if Incapacitated, Child trust fund payment if you are a child, TV Licence if you have a telly, Blue Badge etc etc.

The 'universality' refers to meeting the entitlment criteria. If Shoes knows of some benefit that this rule doesn't apply too then I'd love to hear about it. If He does not why make his absurd statement in the first place?

You cannot choose to get old true but you can choose not to claim the Pension or campaign for it's abolition.

The principal , to reluctantly use a Blairite phrase that actually is appropriate in this case - is based on us being Stakeholders. - We are all paying in so should all be entitled to what is available. It's a simple contract between State and Citizen. Doesn't mean every one needs it - and in the example we are discussing, people (£45k earners) do not - but the contract is being broken.

Its not fair that a household getting £80k gets this allowance and one getting £45k does not.

I'm guessing you would abolish the single occupancy allowance which exempts lone dwellers from paying full Council Tax - if they were earning above average wages (and of course paying above average Tax).

The State is not a formalised Charity. Wealthy and Needy have both to benefit. I might not be 'entitled' or 'need' certain benefits, privilages or concessions etc but I can expect certain standards, facilities, utilites to be provided if a Goverment raises Tax from me.

The Royals Pay for themselves do they? Then lets have the Homes, Castles, Yachts, Trains, Aircraft, Staff and Civil list allowence back then shall we and build more Libraries, Hospices and Parks.

But if we had no Royal Family no one would visit the UK would they? Like no one goes to America or Europe!

Glad you think that not only the poor should be put into Camps - get the Doctors, Teachers, Dentists, Firemen and Military Officers in there too.

I'll say this to TEK MONKEY in answer to "F*** Entitlement" - Do you think the bankers were 'entitled' or 'needed' £700 billion of Taxpayers money?

They gambled away your savings and pension paid themselves bonus's of treble their salary, sold millions of toxic mortgages on the world markets - argued for LESS regulation, laid off low paid counter staff and asked you for a handout which you will pay back in VAT and christ knows what else.

Why is not every employee of Northern Rock on an equivalent pay scale to a Public Sector organisation?
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
Jenksie said:
I'll say this to TEK MONKEY in answer to "F*** Entitlement" - Do you think the bankers were 'entitled' or 'needed' £700 billion of Taxpayers money?
Nope, if you read past posts you'll see I thought the bankers were even bigger thieves than the Labour party. I've never made a secret of it, thieves are thieves. I still say **** what you see as entitlement goes though, benefits are for those in need not those who can afford.

Benefits are for those who have to have them, anyone who takes any needs to STFU about anyone else who takes them. Don't get me wrong, I hate scroungers, but I hate rich people who feel entitled to government handouts more. If you can afford yet scrounge you are worse than those who can't afford but do too.
 

Jenksie

Well-Known Forumite
Withnail said:
Jenksie said:
the contract is being broken.
This is the one thing that concerns me.
So it should - it will be at the heart of everything said on the 20th and after.
It is all about the erosion of the State. By dogmatic nutters.
 

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
Child Benefit farce...
There are much bigger fish of course, but this is a simple measure to implement that will save a few quid immediately...

Still unfair maybe, but not as unfair as it first seems.

In the old days, you didn't get any Child Allowance for the first one, it only started to be paid from number two onwards...

One third of all government spending is paid out in pensions, benefits, credits etc and when the budget deficit is stubbornly above £100 billion cuts will have to fall in this area...
The one thing that has grown on me in this area, the more i have both read and thought about it - and i lay my cards upon the table as one who understands it but little - is the idea that Jenksie mentioned somewhere above.

I can't even remember what he said exactly, and can't be bothered to look for it, so here goes...

The one positive thing about a universal benefit is the notion that we are, ahem, all in it together. You pays your money, you takes your benefit sort of thing.

Quite apart from the fact that it can be quite easily shown that there are many instances where means testing is so expensive that it cancels out any expected savings, surely the most important aspect of this is that it promotes dissatisfaction with the entire concept of social security.

Everybody pays in to the pot, everybody gets something out of the pot, everybody is connected to the pot.

Everybody pays in to the pot, some are excluded from the pot, some are pissed at the pot.

This is where the expenses of means testing become all the more important. If we are to spend many man-hours deliberating upon whether Citizen A is properly declaring all of his income, if Citizen B hasn't properly declared all her assets, and what on earth is the story with Citizen C & D's set-up? - we risk spending money that we apparently don't have , on staff that we definitely don't have, on alienating everybody from the whole concept of paying in to the pot in the first place.

The logical outcome is to increase the gap -to make tax avoidance something that even littleish people indulge in. After all, why pay in when you get nothing out?

It is just one way of looking at it, but it is worth looking at and thinking about. No doubt i will be taught the error of my ways in due course. :)
 

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
She were on the telly tonight - Meryl Streepified - saw only a bit of it but instantly saw how it managed to annoy both sides of the fence.

Probably be on 4od tomorrow.
 

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
Golden...
528.jpg
 

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
The one thing that has grown on me in this area, the more i have both read and thought about it - and i lay my cards upon the table as one who understands it but little - is the idea that Jenksie mentioned somewhere above.

but the contract is being broken...
This is the one thing that concerns me.
So it should - it will be at the heart of everything said on the 20th and after.
It is all about the erosion of the State. By dogmatic nutters.
How Alanis Morissette-ly ironic that the post i couldn't be bothered to look for was the one that sat on my head.

I miss Jenksie :(

I would contrive a sign, but fear it would be to no good.
 

Sk84goal

Well-Known Forumite
The problem with universal benefits is that they do not go far enough!

I believe every man, woman and child should receive a citizens income, a diferent rate for child, adult, senior, to cover the basic living costs. Any income you receive from working then tops up this universal benefit. The huge costs incurred in trying to maintain a means tested, age or work related benefits system could be used to part pay for this system, the rest could come from universal taxation ie all are taxed! The benefits from this type of system are many, for example, the removal of the stigmatisation of benefits and the increased entrepreneurial activities, you might be more willing to take a business risk if you knew you had a basic income. This would create a more dynamic and trusting society. Although I admit, for some, it might be difficult to get their heads round J

 

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
I believe every man, woman and child should receive a citizens income, a diferent rate for child, adult, senior, to cover the basic living costs.
What if everybody then became content with receiving their basic living costs? Where would the original input come from?
 
Top