Universal benefit vs means tested

[Denny Crane!]

Recently there was a political game of tennis in the uk over a proposed scrapping of child benefit which at present is a universal benefit payment irrespective of the amount you earn, if you have a billion pounds in the bank you would still receive it per child. This was rejected by bishops in the house of lords...hang on let's go off track for a second, there are about 25 bishops automatically in the house of lords representing the church of england and they are effecting policy, about 2% of the population goes to coE weekly but they get 25 of 800 in the HoL and can lead a charge against a new piece of legislation. Interesting.

Anyway, so they want to scrap universal benefits for rich people which must mean means testing right? Now who could disagree with the government not giving money to rich people?

Well don't give it to millionaires? Easy? No.

Savings on millionaires means means testing which costs money and there aren't that many millionaires having kids, so the system costs more than the saving but then wait if you are on 100k a year you don't need it in fact if you are on 40 k a year you dont need it? Sounds reasonable and it now makes a big saving so we're cool now? No.

If they do it at 40k then a single person on 40 k doesn't get it but two people on 35k do get the money and according to a former tax minister there is no system that works out with some kind if discrepancy.

But then who cares about fairness? It's just a crap muddy concept and ultimately there must be a cut off so surely if we say 40 k is enough end off and screw fairness then surely now we're cool?

No, the bishops state that some husbands don't allow wives access to funds and this was paid directly to mums and safeguarded children. My response is if they are that domineering they'll control the wife's bank account and this is a separate issue. Ultimately screw fairness, screw other considerations, we can't afford it and there should be no universal benefits ever.

(incidentally I also support the next logical step which is a harmonisation of all benefits into a means tested universal benefits)

Thoughts, any supporters of universal benefits?

[Kanaric]

Well clearly if they want the "rich" not to get benefits the cut off shouldn't be 40k.

I think they should provide evidence as to how much money these rich people are taking. Without that I don't think you can argue with the policy as it is now.

[Denny Crane!]

So rich people should receive the same as poor? Well that sounds like a wonderfully unsustainable system, are we funding this with fairy dust?

[Claudius Gothicus]

So rich people should receive the same as poor? Well that sounds like a wonderfully unsustainable system, are we funding this with fairy dust?

Actually it's called Greek Debt...

[Claudius Gothicus]

Only certain sectors of society are ought to receive benefits, basically on the basis of ''abilities for job insertion'', ''educational level'' and ''current economic position''. This is really hard to implement and definitely hard to measure(especially insertion in the jobs market) but it would be very important to actually save money and pour it where it's most needed.

During a socio-economic emergency however some benefits can be extended to the whole of the population, and the same can be said about special ones that ignore economic or social factors. Like disability, ex-combatant pensions, chronic illness, etc.

The Pros of ''systemic'' universal benefits however, are that they are easy to implement and generate less bureaucratic arbitrariness and manifest dissent among citizens(in general when some people get a benefit and the ones who don't but are only slightly above in the social structure notice it there's some resent and conflict that can turn into actual dysfunctions and political strife).

However an universal benefits system might also generate a huge deficit, lots of latent dysfunctions(like rich people getting richer due to undeserved benefits) and sometimes even lead to some serious populism.

[Phier]

I find it ironic that the people paying the bills are not allowed to directly benefit from the system they pay for.

[Claudius Gothicus]

I find it ironic that the people paying the bills are not allowed to directly benefit from the system they pay for.

Well that's what reality is all about, taking other's peoples money.

The difference lies on who does it, and how does he. The State, with it's nice and polite IRS system? or some crack-head with a gun and a severe case of sexual starvation?

[Phier]

There are not that many rich people, if the system is so unsustainable that it maters, it sounds like the system is simply unsustainable and they are simply looking to cork a few holes before it sinks.

[Denny Crane!]

There are not that many rich people, if the system is so unsustainable that it maters, it sounds like the system is simply unsustainable and they are simply looking to cork a few holes before it sinks.

Striving for efficiency cutting costs etc means a system is unsustainable?

Phier by your logic this means the USA is sunk.

[Phier]

Striving for efficiency cutting costs etc means a system is unsustainable?

Phier by your logic this means the USA is sunk.

Did you just say efficiency in government in the same sentence?

Anyways, yes we are sunk, and so are you.

Well, the idea of generating state granted benefits doesn't derive itself from the idea that ''society should be more efficient'' it derives itself from the reality that benefits help maintaining social cohesion and therefore keep us alive(rich and poor and all that's in the middle).

In the end it's all about survival, just like a few thousand years ago, only with complex demographics and a larger share of conflicting interests.

The idea and the outcome are two different issues...

[Claudius Gothicus]

The idea and the outcome are two different issues...

I'm not a fan of historical comparisons but let's put it this way...

I would much rather have this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

than this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Better to have a few dysfunctional individuals/groups than facing an all-out Class War.

[Phier]

Whats going to happen when the money for the benefits runs out?

[Claudius Gothicus]

There are not that many rich people, if the system is so unsustainable that it maters, it sounds like the system is simply unsustainable and they are simply looking to cork a few holes before it sinks.

Well, the idea of generating state granted benefits doesn't derive itself from the idea that ''society should be more efficient'' it derives itself from the reality that benefits help maintaining social cohesion and therefore keep us alive(rich and poor and all that's in the middle).

In the end it's all about survival, just like a few thousand years ago, only with complex demographics and a larger share of conflicting interests.

[molonthegreat]

Bishops having a say isn't that bad seeing how they're actually representing some people, it's much wore that you also have noblemen who have inherited their position in the house of lords which is something straight out of the middle ages.

Concering the benefits, it's only fitting that all receive it but the best thing would to scrap all the benefits.

[Denny Crane!]

Bishops having a say isn't that bad seeing how they're actually representing some people, it's much wore that you also have noblemen who have inherited their position in the house of lords which is something straight out of the middle ages.

Concering the benefits, it's only fitting that all receive it but the best thing would to scrap all the benefits.

Representing 2% with a massive amount of lords 25 whereas Catholics have none, Muslims none and certainly atheists none. And citing something worse doesn't make it better.

So you are comfortable giving a billionaire child benefit instead of means testing instead of say another 1000 transplants, another hospital or lumbering our grandchildren with more debt? Fitting...making something fitting is a thing worth the consequences, I see.

[AUSSIE11]

I think this is only fair... i don't get this obsession with fairness, life isn't fair else we wouldn't need benefits at all because everybody would be on exactly the same salary paying exactly the same tax. This is also why i believe it increasing tax brackets and taxing the rich more than the poor. The Rich have benefits in earnings, opportunities and lifestyle why should they still receive benefits they don't need from a government who cannot afford them?

[AUSSIE11]

i take it order to receive welfare you need to be means tested before you are entered into the system and receive payment?

[Denny Crane!]

i take it order to receive welfare you need to be means tested before you are entered into the system and receive payment?

With welfare, job seekers allowance yes, with child benefit at present no. They are planning a universal benefit which means everything is amalgamated and that combined benefit is means tested based on household income assets and situation.

[AUSSIE11]

well then why don't you make the baby bonus automatic for welfare recipients or application based for others up to a certain amount. make sure it takes about an hour to fill the application and only those who apply are means tested. those who are to wealthy won't bother applying and for anyone who fits the criteria it would be worth an hour of paperwork.

[Denny Crane!]

well then why don't you make the baby bonus automatic for welfare recipients or application based for others up to a certain amount. make sure it takes about an hour to fill the application and only those who apply are means tested. those who are to wealthy won't bother applying and for anyone who fits the criteria it would be worth an hour of paperwork.

I do believe I mentioned the new universal benefit that is being transitioned towards