Because means tested benefits are much more expensive to administer than universal ones (which everyone automatically receives and automatically pays for through income tax).
Means testing also lead to significantly more hardship for claimants because of petty injustices inflicted by arrogant and stupid officials.
Also - rather paradoxically - universal benefits are much less susceptible to fraud, since everyone receives them without having to convince the authorities they "deserve" them.
The real question is not "Why are my bus pass and fuel allowance not means tested?". It is: "Why are all the other benefits means tested?"
"There is no reason whatever for him to be claiming incapacity benefit". How do you know? Did you examine him? Do you hold the requisite medical qualifications to assess his case? I should think that the stress of working in a shop is rather greater than that incurred in doing a bit of DIY about the house and that that might be significant for his medical condition. In reality this is just another anecdote that neither you nor I have the information or the competence to judge. So is irrelevant.
Indeed. The 'injustice' of paying these benefits to well off pensioners like Ret must be weighed against the injustice of needy pensioners who would miss out were the benefit to be means tested. And also, as you say, the additional costs of policing a means tested benefit.
"Few politicians in the UK would dare to argue publicly against the principle that those too ill to work deserve help from the the State. Nevertheless, in recent years, politicians have struck a chord with the public by highlighting the disincentives to work that are inherent in the UK disability benefits system. The main disincentive is financial, with the state providing more money to those who can't work because they're ill than to those for whom no job is available. This, coupled with the fact that for some people paid work still brings them within the threshold for receiving income support, means that for some people it pays to be too sick too work."
In fact, the welfare state
Why is there this constant expectation that the state should provide for everyone and anyone who finds themselves in difficulty? What is the problem with expecting people to help themselves? The State can provide help in that direction - but should not continue to pay people to remain idle. If the nature of employment has changed, and old skills become redundant - then retrain and obtain new skills.
Before the days of welfare, these people would have
Rather than re-train and do something useful and productive with their lives?
It would be far truer to say that our free-booting
But many on long term benefits are not 'those least able to compete' - but rather idle beggars who simply do not *want* to compete.
I would be interested to know just how many over sixties actually need these benefits such as the winter fuel allowance. Let's face it - most over 60's are still in work. Who chose the age of 60 to start handing out such largesse?
He has admitted to me himself that there is no reason why he could not go back to working in the shop but, as he puts it, "If the government are prepared to pay me the same money to stay at home, who am I to argue?"
There's no such thing as a "living wage", as what one person needs to live on can be massively different to someone else depending on circumstances. Eg for a single person a living wage might be minumum wage full time, for someone with 4 kids a living wage would be above the average wage!
And such jobs will always be there - the problem is not with the jobs, or the claimants/employees, it's with the benefits system which (as per my other post about my acquaintance with paranoia), is not flexible enough to adapt to such working patterns.
It also doesn't provide the incentive, when benefits such as JSA/IS are withdrawn at 100%, and once over this hurdle HB/CTB/tax credits/tax/NI combine to take as much as 95.5%. If you really expect people to get off their arse and take a low paid job there *has* to be more incentive, they have to benefit from a reasonable proportion of what they earn.
I know my idealistic position of no means testing at all probably too radical, but incentives could be improved by instead of continually increasing many benefits above inflation, the same money should instead be ploughed into reducing benefit withdrawal rates. Benefit rates shouldn't chase some daft proportion of average income (as used for "poverty" targets) but should pay the minimum needed to live whilst aiming for a target of allowing people to keep a decent proportion (I'd say at least half) of what they earn.
Then someone who gets off their arse and takes even a crappy low paid job will find they are significantly better off than their neigbour who sits on their arse all day living off benefits alone.
But seasonal, part time, temporary jobs will always be necessary until people start wanting to see Santa in July, or going to the British seaside in January. We should be encouraging British people to take these jobs instead of relying on foreigners.
What you actually said was "You live in a dream world Alan where every benefit claimant is an honest person desperately looking for work. The fact is that today's benefit system has had an appalling effect upon the country and created huge incentives for many people *not* to seek work." therebye implying that all benefit seekers were scroungers.
For once we agree.
I have yet to receive a winter fuel allowance in spite of having an income just above what the government claims is the minimum required. The letter delivered to my address in this country where we have lived for the last 11 years claims we are not habitually resident in the UK. Several phone calls to an office in Liverpool then Wales resulted in a promise to sort it out. We are still waiting.
Common decency and self preservation. Unless you want to relive the social conditions of the nineteeth century. Of course we don't provide for "for everyone and anyone who finds themselves in difficulty" and such ignorant claptrap amply justifies my trenchant responses in other posts.
I find it a bit much to take libertarianism from the man who extols the leviathan state, ID Cards and social control!
"If the nature of employment has changed"? The nature of employment for those at the bottom has very clearly changed. The millions of low skilled and manual jobs that would have employed such people have mostly disappeared. Because of the nature of capitalist society the benefits of increased automation have not been distributed evenly. If they had been we might have invested rather more in looking after those displaced by these changes. If it were as simple as putting people on crappy courses and YOPS schemes then we would not have the problems we have.
I suggest you read some social history of the nineteenth century. My point is that the welfare state is what has allowed us to escape the worst excesses of devil-may-care capitalism. The cost however has been in the writing off of substantial numbers of people, paid enough so that they don't riot or plot revolution. Idleness is not good for anyone, and I certainly don't advocarte a life on benefits as a good form of existence, but we must be clear about cause and effect. 'Benefits culture' is a symptom not the cause that self-righteous folk like you claim it is.
Which is where we came in, with you making unsupportable generalisations about people.
I totally agree. Stop feeding people and they will eat you. I've often made the comment to those who say the unemployed should get out and get a job that "if they killed you they could have your job"
I've just heard of something else that adds insult to injury. A woman acquaintance in her 40s on incapacity benefit after a serious accident a couple of years ago came in today and asked to use our phone. She has a form to fill in and went to the local DWP office to ask for an appointment with an advisor to assist in filling out the form. There were three clerks sitting behind desks. None would make an appointment. She was told to phone up and ask for one as they could not make appointments at the desk. She has no phone and at the moment no money. The DWP don't supply use of their phones either.
I let her use ours. Took about 10 minutes. Quite an expense for someone on IB.
Got me thinking about all those people who don't have phones and don't have money. How the hell do they manage if they need to make a claim?
Well of course it would. I would put the maintainance of law and order back in the hands of the citizenry. Return to "Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence"
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.