25 millions claimants details lost

I don't agree. I think it's far better to have a universal benefit that anyone and everyone can claim and then "reclaim" it in tax from those who don't need/deserve it.

I don't know what the situation is now but additionally, when I was a child, family allowance was paid to the mother when nearly all the breadwinners were men. Therefore it was a way to ensure that at least some money got to the mother.

If the qualifying criteria is "X exists" then it's harder to scam, easier to detect scams and cheaper to administer.

Finally, it avoids the crazy situations we hear about where it just isn't worth people going to work at all.

The government is now talking about forcing all 16-18 year olds to continue at school but IIUC pay them to do this. Why don't we just pay that money to everybody and remove the zero rated tax band (or adjust tax bands however seems appropriate).

IMO the reason governments like means tested benefits is that there are people who are entitled who either don't know they can claim or are too proud to claim.

Tim.

Reply to
google
Loading thread data ...

Next time we have a thread on the state pension, I look forward to reading your diatribes about how all the recipients of this "welfare" are scroungers living high on the hog.

Matti

Reply to
Matti Lamprhey

It's part of moron Brown's plan to be Big Brother and make everyone dependent on his largess. He wants to raise taxes to 100% of income and give benefits to everyone he thinks is worthy. The cabinent is made up of incompetents who know their only hope of progress is to agree with even more mad ideas.

Peter

Reply to
PeterSaxton

I agree that it's better not to means test benefits but instead to have a steeper income tax. That helps low/zero income families to get back into work becasue evey penny the earn is kept. With means testing people can find that when they start earning money they lose benefits. This discourages people from getting started with work and it encourages dishonesty.

Robert

Reply to
RobertL

" snipped-for-privacy@woodall.me.uk" writes

There are also those like myself who contributed to a Company Pension and some SERPS (TGF the government which introduced it!), but were pressured to retire early.

Head above water until the next Tsunami, but no benefit entitlement other than the NHS.

Reply to
Gordon H

Colin Wilson writes

They are saving the taxpayer money. :-)

If I want to send £25 to a grandchild in California (or Australia), I buy dollars and stick them in a birthday card rather than pay the Bank an extra £20 to EFT it.

These guys obviously sent the CDs labelled as Kylie Minogue's comeback tour, which made them an obvious target. Whoever ended up with them will think they are crap but won't dare complain.

No risk whatsoever, and anyway, I don't claim child benefit, so whaddo I care... ;-)

Reply to
Gordon H

I expect it probably was compressed data, but data doesn't compress that much.

Reply to
Jonathan Bryce

It does when it is lots of numbers. But considering the amount of data was not that large to start with and you have no need for very high compression.

Reply to
Alan Ferris

Just like water, then..

Reply to
whitely525

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.