This is true - there needs to be wholesale cuts to benefits across the board - but clearly the State Pension and WFA are seemingly untouchable.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The cost of the welfare state - challenges posed and solutions
- Thread starter Bletchleyite
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
brad465
Veteran Member
There are now proposals for parents to lose child benefit as part of a sentence for crimes committed by their children. Putting aside why this isn't already the case, this is where I think some forms of welfare should actually remain, so some form of leverage could be made out of it, and is why I thinking lifting the child benefit cap has upsides beyond more money for 3+ child families - if successive children misbehave but are not in receipt of child benefit, there's no financial incentive to discipline them:
www.bbc.co.uk
Parents could face prison for child's crimes under justice reforms, minister says
The reforms to Parenting Orders could also see parents losing benefits, Jake Richards MP told the Times.
www.bbc.co.uk
No doubt the more sanctimonious types will be pleased by this, but given the clear link between poverty and crime, I struggle to imagine that it will actually solve the problem or save any money in the longer-term.There are now proposals for parents to lose child benefit as part of a sentence for crimes committed by their children. Putting aside why this isn't already the case, this is where I think some forms of welfare should actually remain, so some form of leverage could be made out of it, and is why I thinking lifting the child benefit cap has upsides beyond more money for 3+ child families - if successive children misbehave but are not in receipt of child benefit, there's no financial incentive to discipline them:
Parents could face prison for child's crimes under justice reforms, minister says
The reforms to Parenting Orders could also see parents losing benefits, Jake Richards MP told the Times.
Tough on crime, not not on the causes of crime.
Doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
I wonder what provisions there will be for parents to argue they've done what they can but effectively have no control over their children any more. There is a local business I know of which was targeted by Facebook posts from someone saying this business is run by X, mother of Y, who you can see here nicking phones on his unlicensed motorbike he's not even old enough to ride. The business had to put a post on their page to say X has done everything they can to get Y under control, including social services, reporting him to the police, and everything in between. But he's a teenager and when he heads off to school I've got no control over him then going to nick phones and he doesn't keep the motorbike at home so I can't even take that off him. Penalising that parent would in my view be unfair. He turned 16 a couple of days ago and has moved out apparently so there really is nothing she can do now.
WFA is 100% reclaimed by HMG from anyone earning above £35,000 so is hardly untouchable and is effectively means tested. There is also the option to simply opt out.
Personally, I’m happy to pay more tax. What are you prepared to sacrifice?
Last edited:
Merle Haggard
Established Member
Because I also have a rail pension, my state pension is included in the income for tax purposes once the total income is above the personal allowance. This is unusual for a benefit, as far as I can see - for instance child benefit isn't taxed until possibly £100,000.
For WFA it's considered that if your income is over £35,000 you don't receive it - it's means tested. But the level at which means testing cuts in for child benefit is £100,000.
It also seems to me that 'Motabilty' is neither means tested nor taxed.
Which approach is wrong?
For WFA it's considered that if your income is over £35,000 you don't receive it - it's means tested. But the level at which means testing cuts in for child benefit is £100,000.
It also seems to me that 'Motabilty' is neither means tested nor taxed.
Which approach is wrong?
Egg Centric
Established Member
Means testing is always wrong imo. At the high end because it removes incentives to get rich and at the low end because it's demeaning and often bites the most vulnerable.
"Because I also have a rail pension, my state pension is included in the income for tax purposes once the total income is above the personal allowance. This is unusual for a benefit, as far as I can see - for instance child benefit isn't taxed until possibly £100,000."
Your state pension isn't a benefit it's a pension, a part of your income, and for some people most of their income and so it gets taxed. You can't have a welfare state without tax.
And we could save a lot of argy-bargy about the triple lock if we took a lot of the stuff that's nothing directly to do with energy out of standing charges in energy bills and let it go into general taxation where the better off would pay more than the poorest. At present the widow with her mite (the state pension) pays as much as whoever you care to mention with a lot of money. This would save an awful lot of faffing too.
Your state pension isn't a benefit it's a pension, a part of your income, and for some people most of their income and so it gets taxed. You can't have a welfare state without tax.
And we could save a lot of argy-bargy about the triple lock if we took a lot of the stuff that's nothing directly to do with energy out of standing charges in energy bills and let it go into general taxation where the better off would pay more than the poorest. At present the widow with her mite (the state pension) pays as much as whoever you care to mention with a lot of money. This would save an awful lot of faffing too.
Rather like the care abroad thing above, Motability is not a benefit as such but rather a way of using mobility allowance (an existing disability benefit) toward a car. There are some tax advantages but these are relatively minor.
The issue is not the existence of these schemes per se but rather the number of people receiving disability benefits in the first place. When people used it to buy BMWs it obviously raised eyebrows; now that's been stopped but it hasn't saved any money since those same people still have a mobility allowance (or other package of disability benefits) that is presumably more than they truly need.
The Times ran a story on the OBR's projection that the amount of payments under PIP will double by 2030:
While some of this is reallocation I feel it's pretty clear the disability bill is increasing in a way that is unaffordable; if something isn't done to try to remove people from this net (whether treatment or tightening qualification), my concern is that the most disabled people will suffer the most, as disability benefits will be squeezed across the board to make the sums add up. I'd much rather those who are most disabled get a far more generous package than broadening the eligibility and diluting the support.
Last edited:
Merle Haggard
Established Member
Section (1) (1) of the Pensions Act 2014 disagrees with you. It defines the State pension as a benefit.
It also adds considerable complexity... (Which the most vulnerable are often the least able to cope with)
But a simplistic view likes means testing. There were those who wanted the 2022/23 fuel subsidy to be means tested even though the admin cost would have far outweighed the saving (energy companies administered the subsidy and they don't know the income or savings of their customers)
"Section (1) (1) of the Pensions Act 2014 disagrees with you. It defines the State pension as a benefit."
I think it's your interpretation that gives rise to the disagreement. The statute doesn't define the state pension as a benefit it describes it as a benefit which it is. As is free education, healthcare and various other things. But the state pension is chargeable to tax and that's not the case with what we generally understand as benefits. PIP, for example. Interesting argument but I don't want to find myself way of topic.
I think it's your interpretation that gives rise to the disagreement. The statute doesn't define the state pension as a benefit it describes it as a benefit which it is. As is free education, healthcare and various other things. But the state pension is chargeable to tax and that's not the case with what we generally understand as benefits. PIP, for example. Interesting argument but I don't want to find myself way of topic.
Some benefits are taxable, contribution-based JSA and ESA for example.
But I think the main thing that makes it a benefit is that what you get out of the state pension has no relation to what you paid in. You could have paid in hundreds of thousands of pounds of NI over your working lifetime, but you’d get the same state pension as someone who has been on benefits their whole life.
Whereas a ‘proper’ pension there is generally a fund that you have paid into and if you pay in more you will get more out. (This is a general principle, I know there are exceptions)