Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
[url= http://www.cityam.com/forum/austerity-can-t-have-hurt-uk-growth-because-austerity-hasn-t-yet-begun ]Excerpt from City AM[/url]
The opposition to the coalition have been bleating loudly about austerity cuts, but my take is that we haven't really had any significant cuts so far. This article articulates what I have been thinking.
One big cut that will soon begin to hurt people is the reduction/loss of the children's allowance.
Until this month, my now ex-wife was receiving around £1760 per annum for our two children. As she earns a few grand over £50k, she will get next to nothing. This comes at a time when she is about take out a big mortgage to buy me out of the marital home. She will also have all the bills I used to pay, so her era of austerity is going to hit her like a steam train. Means testing is so crude, not that I wish to defend my wife's predicament - she chose that route and without any discussions about how how we might have mitigated the situation for the benefit of our kids - very upsetting, but I've a clear conscience!
What an individual earns is only half the equation. The other half is about your non-discretionary commitments. Two people earning the same money will have vastly differing amounts of disposable income. So the means testing system is fundamentally unfair.
I conclude that this particular benefit should never have been paid in the first place.
Benefits are an overhead to the tax payer and this restricts growth. In the case of child benefit, if you can't afford children, don't have them, unless you are happy to take full responsibility for them. If we did so, Jeremy Kyle would be out of a job!
Err, most Western European countries are trying to encourage people to have kids, we need people to pay our pensions when we retire. Low birth rates are a real problem long term, so subsidising parent hood is in all our interests.
Single universal benefit paid on that basis. No bit for this some for that.
Pensions can't keep getting paid by ever increasing levels of population. Western Europe is already overpopulated. Greater financial equality is the only rational solution.
Benefits are an overhead to the tax payer and this restricts growth
I don't buy into this logic either, benefits can be a boost to the economy, lowering taxation is not the only solution, investment in the future is more important.
She'll only lose a bit of it . It's taken away on a sliding scale between £50K - £60K
Not entirely sure what you are saying other than your ex-wife (who earns more than £50k a year) might feel a bit of a pinch because she has been used to receiving this benefit?
My heart bleeds - that’s about double what my wife and I earn between us.
we need people to pay our pensions when we retire
I've heard this before and I don't understand it.
I mean long term, over several generations ?
Benefits are a way of moving cash away from people who don't spend all of their money to those who do. So, they're good for the economy.
Err, most Western European countries are trying to encourage people to have kids, we need people to pay our pensions when we retire. Low birth rates are a real problem long term, so subsidising parent hood is in all our interests.
Erm , actually that is not true. Britian's population has shot up in the last few years. Your pension may well be being paid by all the poles, bulgarians and Romanians who will work in low paid jobs etc.
The whole discussion is a mine field. Child benefits should have never been paid, but tax bands adjusted. The whole benefist system caost to much to admin. The middle classes should never recieve subsidies. They don't need them.
Having kids is a lifestyle choice not a right. If you decide to have three kids, then it is not up to other (childless) taxpayers to keep you in sky plus subscriptions, Radley bags and people carriers.
We should pay the needy to keep them from starving, we should make sure the children of the needy are feed, educated and clothed. Hopefully, so they will be apsirational and want to do better than their parents.
Pensions can't keep getting paid by ever increasing levels of population. Western Europe is already overpopulated. Greater financial equality is the only rational solution.
Or euthanasia? Jus' saying, like 😉
As she earns a few grand over £50k, she will get next to nothing.
[b]WOOOAAA THERE!!![/b] That's, like, totally inhumane!! She's right at the really, nasty pointy end of austerity eh? Where the cuts are REALLY hurting!! How on earth is she going to cope?!!!!
Have you been living in a cave for the last 3 or 4 years? Seriously? Could I suggest that everything is relative, and maybe you should take a look at the rest of society - seeing as you've concluded....
but my take is that we haven't really had any significant cuts so far.
..... develop an appropriate sense of proportion, and count yourself bloody lucky! 🙄
Having kids is a lifestyle choice not a right
Having kids is [s]a lifestyle choice not a right[/s] the one single reason we are here on this earth - Professor Brian Cox made us do it.
Western Europe is already overpopulated
[img] 
[/img]
I've heard this before and I don't understand it.
I mean long term, over several generations ?
The state pension is a Ponzi scheme. You're not paying in to a fund and then drawing on it. What you pay is handed out and you have to hope the next set of suckers below you in the pyramid will do the same for you.
Having kids is a lifestyle choice not a right. If you decide to have three kids, then it is not up to other (childless) taxpayers to keep you in sky plus subscriptions, Radley bags and people carriers.
[IMG]
[/IMG]
Spongebob - Member
Excerpt from City AM
Government consumption spending is, alas, still going up. But it’s scheduled to start being cut seriously now. Spending cuts are a potential cure for this economy, like an operation is a potential cure for a man with cancer. Our economy is like a man that fears the operation, so keeps putting it off. When he gets worse, people say: “Ah, what’s making him sicker is that he has an operation planned. To get better, he should cancel the operation.” No. What’s making him sicker is that he keeps putting it off. And if he cancels the operation, he may well die.We need to cut government consumption spending so the UK economy can grow faster, so that households can in turn service their mortgages, so they don’t default and bust the banks. It doesn’t help public support for that when respected economists attack those correctly pointing out that such spending cuts haven’t happened yet.
[b]Andrew Lilico is a columnist for ConservativeHome[/b]
What a load of absolute bull!
johndoh - Member
Not entirely sure what you are saying other than your ex-wife (who earns more than £50k a year) might feel a bit of a pinch because she has been used to receiving this benefit?
Beat me to it. Earning £50k and austerity aren't predicaments i'd put together.
{EDIT] How is that picture so huge!?
I've heard this before and I don't understand it.
State pensions and benefits are paid out of the taxation received each year. So if you have a population of X million who then retire, having only had X/2 children, you have a problem. You don't necessarily need to keep expanding, but having the population contract makes things hard financially as the retired are effectively a burden on the non retired. As long as the ratios are OK, it's not a significant problem.
WE population growth has been reducing over the last few years, and populations are being boosted by immigration (which isn't too popular with some), so governments tend to want to encourage people to have more kids to keep the books balanced.
Think about it this way, £20 / week for a 16 years child benefit vs 40 years potential tax on earnings - it's not a bad long term investment.
The state pension is a Ponzi scheme. You're not paying in to a fund and then drawing on it. What you pay is handed out and you have to hope the next set of suckers below you in the pyramid will do the same for you.
and just like a Ponzi scheme, if there are too many wanting money out and not enough 'investors' the whole thing implodes
You could always offer to pay the difference?
OK, you need expanding populations to pay pensions.
But for every other problem, climate change, water shortages, food shortages, even down to houses being unaffordable, the elephant in the room is overpopulation. Pensions are a rather insignificant issue in comparison.
As she earns a few grand over £50k, she will get next to nothing. This comes at a time when she is about take out a big mortgage to buy me out of the marital home.
WHY OH WHY WILL we not help people struggling like this ?
Its tragic I mean only x2 the national average and able to get a mortgage at this time on one income. Something needs to be done about this ..I am outragde...if it carrie son like this she may need to retire to France where it is cheaper or something
She will also have all the bills I used to pay, so her era of austerity is going to hit her like a steam train.
That is not austerity that is the consequences of geting divorced and having only one income.
what testing to see if you actually need the money is crude.Means testing is so crude,
Your argument here seems to be I have so much more money than poor folk so I spend it on a big hourse, an expensive car and ipad and holidays abroad and on the childrens horses stabling fees so in reality I am actually poorer than them - its a daft argument, really daft.What an individual earns is only half the equation. The other half s about your non-discretionary commitments. Two people earning the same money will have vastly differing amounts of disposable income. So the means testing system is fundamentally unfair.
I conclude that this particular benefit should never have been paid in the first place.
Right so means testing is bad and universal is bad
Yes all tax restircts growth - especially the stuff they spend on keeping folk helathy and educating them and providing roads and stuff - the bastard govt restricting natural growthBenefits are an overhead to the tax payer and this restricts growth.
I dont mind right wingers but really each thread you start is a mishmash ofincoherent and conflicting statements with unsubstantiated claims like that thrown in
In the case of child benefit, if you can't afford children, don't have them, unless you are happy to take full responsibility for them. If we did so, Jeremy Kyle would be out of a job!
Is sterlisation your preferred solution ?
OK, you need expanding populations to pay pensions.
But for every other problem, climate change, water shortages, food shortages, even down to houses being unaffordable, the elephant in the room is overpopulation. Pensions are a rather insignificant issue in comparison.
Banks lend more money than they have, which obviously only works with growth. You don't get that with a static population.
We need a new planet, and pretty quick.
OK, so apart from the roads, keeping the pension pot topped up, paying taxes an NI for things like hospitals [to look after the pensioners]
What has procreation ever done for us?
David Attenborough is arguing the opposite - fewer kids to save the environment
But, yes the current state pensions are a ponzi scheme that will (most likely) collapse under current demographic trends.
But, yes the current state pensions are a ponzi scheme that will (most likely) collapse under current demographic trends.
Hence the reason some countries are to trying to reverse the demographic trends by offering more incentives to have children.
The biggest problem is longevity rather than population contraction as that is increasing the burden faster than we can pro-create. When antibiotics stop being effective, the situation may correct itself.
I dont mind right w[b]h[/b]ingers but
Fixed it to put it in context of the OP
Or euthanasia? Jus' saying, like
Maybe the youth in Asia are the answer !
Does anyone under the age of 50 seriously believe they're going to have what is presently taken for granted as 'a retirement'?
By the time we reach what is now pension age, the whole concept is going to be regarded as a quaint little late-20th-century anachronism, that was simply mental in its lack of affordability.
There will be no state pension until you're 86 or so.
And private pensions? Ha ha ha. I'm just waiting for the biblical scale mis-selling by the banks etc to be exposed, as they collectively shrug and explain that having taken all your money for 40 years, things didn't quite work out as planned, and there's not much left. And what was left, we paid ourselves in fees. Then a bit more.
How much return do you think they're presently getting on 'our' investments? Compared to the predictions the private pensions were sold on? Reckon they'll have stopped taking their fees and bonuses?
😆 unless you 😥
So footlaps assuming Attenborough is correct, which is more important: the environment or first world state pensions? Ok, slightly tongue-in-cheek, but it is a REAL question (albeit not that simple!).
Does anyone under the age of 50 seriously believe they're going to have what is presently taken for granted as 'a retirement'?By the time we reach what is now pension age, the whole concept is going to be regarded as a quaint little late-20th-century anachronism, that was simply mental in its lack of affordability.
There will be no state pension until you're 86 or so.
And private pensions? Ha ha ha. I'm just waiting for the biblical scale mis-selling by the banks etc to be exposed, as they collectively shrug and explain that having taken all your money for 40 years, things didn't quite work out as planned, and there's not much left. And what was left, we paid ourselves in fees. Then a bit more.
Where the hell were you on my 'Are Pensions Worth it' thread?
[shakes head and mutters]
Torminalis - Sorry. Hadn't spotted it. I shall resurrect it now with my two-penneth 😀
In the case of child benefit, if you can't afford children, don't have them, unless you are happy to take full responsibility for them. If we did so, Jeremy Kyle would be out of a job!Is sterlisation your preferred solution ?
That would work, but people taking responsibility for their own actions would be a nice start.
If you can't afford them, don't have them!
So footlaps assuming Attenborough is correct, which is more important: the environment or first world state pensions?
long term (as in, more than a few human lifetimes), arguably the envt.
short term, maybe state pensions.
therefore, seeing as humans are incapable of looking at the long-term impact of anything, we'll all prioritise pensions because we want a (relatively) nice easy quick-fix.
My pension plan is to stuff the money down a grid and wait for a rat to pick it up and use it to make a nest, hopefully in twenty to thirty years time ill find the rats nest and some of the notes will remain intact so I can buy beans.
It's a lot like currant pension plans but the rats have tails and with luck ill have some beans..
Did I mention we're going to Hell in a bucket..
The pensions situation is rather a case of chickens coming home to roost, for a generation or so we've taken funded retirement from the age of 60/65 as a right. Unfortunately rights are irrelevant if the money's not there. Binners is correct, this will correct itself and we will be working for longer.
As for people on higher incomes like the OP's wife, we do get hacked off at continually seeing our income fall (in our minds at least we've earned it). It does feel like we are getting penalised, however it does rather pale into insiginificance compared to people the system is properly letting down. There was a thread a few weeks back that openned my eyes a little, people living on very basic benefits.
As for the if you can't afford them don't have them brigade, that's a rather simplistic view. There are some people that really should have abstained after the first, I don't have time for people who have kids through multiple partners and live off the state to support them but they're probably a very small perecentage of the population with kids.
my now ex-wife was receiving around £1760 per annum for our two children. As she earns a few grand over £50k, she will get next to nothing.
The inhumanity of it all! Won't somebody think of the children!
Oh... 😕
Seriously, get a grip and look at the rest of society. She's still earning 2x as much as the average person in the street.
Perfect bit of flame bait, well played OP!
It's a lot like currant pension plans
No, I'm not raisin to that bait
your ex wife is bloody loaded, she'll never have anything to genuinely worry about.
All she needs to do is sell the house and buy something more apportioned to her (above average) salary
And if you feel so bad about it and would rather the children stay in that house then pay the difference
1700 PA when earning about 2700 a month take home is nothing really, I suggest a troll or get a grip 🙄
Edit just done the sums it's about 3k per month net
**** me - at over £50k a year she's minted. Our combined gross income is much less than her net income and we are ok. TBH she's looking at the gov't subsidising her big house. Cuts should start at combined income of 40k as that's plenty.
OP. get a grip mate. your wife is on 50k a year and enough disposable income to get a large mortgage. basically **** off with your first world problems. Try thinking about other peoples problems trust me some people have to choose between food and heat.
seriously get a grip! you can clearly afford to pay for your children your self so stop moaning and get on with it. is £20 a week really your main concern?
some on on this site really do not have a clue. not a ****ing clue
I'm quite quite tempted to send some of the families on our estate round to eat your wife and kids..
although I suspect that the meat would be very fatty, and bitter and tinged with an acrid aftertaste of lofty delusion
😉
@ Yunki big lol!
suck it up richy ex-husband guy. force your wife to buy a smaller house or move somewhere not as nice, it's that simple.
My wife and my combined income is about half your wifes.. With sensible management we dont live too badly.
This comes at a time when she is about take out a big mortgage to buy me out of the marital home
That's her problem. Move somewhere cheaper. Negative equity? Tough **** .
Is the OP about austerity or the bitterness he feels towards his ex?
this post would almost be funny if it was an attempt at humour, the fact that people actually think like this is frankly terrifying.. only on stw eh..
Actually ex-wife will get to keep it if her current pension contributions take her below 50k. Hurrah!
Something to ponder on....
The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud of the fact it is distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.
Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals."
Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.
Ha! 😕
The conservatives haven't won an election since 1997, and with thinkers like that working for them, I can't see that changing any time soon.
My pension plan is to stuff the money down a grid and wait for a rat to pick it up and use it to make a nest, hopefully in twenty to thirty years time ill find the rats nest and some of the notes will remain intact so I can buy beans.
It's a lot like currant pension plans but the rats have tails and with luck ill have some beans..
A point to note is Rats are incontinent, and almost contiuously urinate and leave a trail, and sometimes it does smell.
After 30 years down a grid many rats will have urinated on your cash, with a rats life being about 2 years.
Best to just send me envelopes of cash to invest in CRC vouchers, and bike bits.
oldnpastit - MemberThe conservatives haven't won an election since 1997, and with thinkers like that working for them, I can't see that changing any time soon.
er..I think you'll find 'New Labour' won that, but an easy mistake to make.
A point to note is Rats are incontinent, and almost contiuously urinate and leave a trail, and sometimes it does smell.
After 30 years down a grid many rats will have urinated on your cash, with a rats life being about 2 years.
So it's nearly as risky as paying in to a normal one then?
At least they won't charge me for the privilege...
slackalice - MemberSomething to ponder on....
The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud of the fact it is distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.
Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals."
Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.
Ha!
What is there to "ponder on" ?
That hungry children in the world's wealthiest and most obese country should be compared to wild animals ?
That they should perhaps be forced to fend for themselves or simply allowed to perish ?
It's things like that viral email which reminds me just how unpatriotic some Americans are towards their fellow citizens. And of course they invariably tend to be right-wing republicans. Hurricane Katrina was a headline-grabbing object lesson to the world in that respect.
Tax funded free health care, tax funded free schools, tax funded police and fire service. When will this free loading end. People with money should pay for these services. I was thinking that the real thing that drags the economy down is the cost of land and housing. Massive cheap social housing building program that everybody would not mind living in to reduce the stupidly expensive housing in the UK.
People with money should pay for these services.
People with money are paying for these services.
Yes they were paying for child benefits as well. That's the whole point of a welfare state. Everybody pays in and everybody gets something out. Now though if the people paying in don't get anything out why would they support it?
Surely we should restrict, or increase, benefit payments to the smarter, middle classes as they are more likely to have smarter kids, who will become higher rate tax payers, which will be better for our pensions.
There's no point sponsoring Wayne and Waynetta to raise a load of future dole seekers...
Surely we should restrict, or increase, benefit payments to the smarter, middle classes as they are more likely to have smarter kids, who will become higher rate tax payers, which will be better for our pensions.
you mean the people who have decided to delay children until there 30's anyway, who have decided kids can wait until they are financially stable, until they have a house?
There's no point sponsoring Wayne and Waynetta to raise a load of future dole seekers...
you mean the ones who choose to have kids late teens early twenties, who have decided that they have no point that the only way to get a council house is to have kids?
Everyone i have spoken to about neo-natal etc. comes back with the same story.
There are two groups, either very young or older, there are very very few women having first kids in the middle.
I have wondered if average IQ will drop, there was a time when the less intellegent would be sent to war, down the mines, shipyards etc. places where man power mattered rather than out and out academic ability. But as we are told we are a knowledge economy and have outsourced so much heavy industry, it does raise the question of what to do with the less intelligent?
well we either
1. help them
2. let them starve - bit of social unrest i would imagine so probably not the cheapest option never mind the morality.
Now though if the people paying in don't get anything out why would they support it?
If you need to ask you wont understand the answer
Bit troll central or the heartless only come out at night [ not you ernie nice to see you]
Bit troll central or the heartless only come out at night [ not you ernie nice to see you]
some real pricks in tonight. You got to feel sorry for them, its not their fault they where born with a silver spoon wedged up their shitters. Walking around with a blinkered view on life, if only the shoe was on the other foot:TurnerGuy, slackalice and Spongebob.
some real pricks in tonight.
some real gullible types around last night, you have to feel sorry for them...
OP what was the point of your first post? I don't understand. Are you having a bitter dig at your ex-partner? On a side note, why should we expect to receive government benefits if we earn over £50,000?
TurnerGuy - Membersome real pricks in tonight.
some real gullible types around last night, you have to feel sorry for them...
Learn to capitalise before mounting your horse, I thought I told you that the other day. 😆
Hora, I agree with your first question to the OP, but surely the side question is clear, although perhaps "should" would be better replaced by "do"?
The foundations of the welfare state as laid out be Beveridge included the idea that the best way or structure to achieve welfare goals is/was to move away from means testing and insurance to a system where benefits were available to all (universal) but funded more by those who earn more money. So everyone should have equal access to all benefits irrespective of their income, but the wealthy should provide more to fund the system. Of course, this throws up anomalies such as child benefit, wealthy pensioners receiving various allowances etc and they make easy topics for politicians and others to make headlines with. But the law of unintended consequences and other factors warn against tinkering at the margin in order to make the news! The current structure of the Welfare State has endured for good reason. Like democracy, it's not perfect (hence your question) but it is (arguably) better than the alternatives.
Hence the answer to the question is people earning over £x expect to receive benefits because the universal model works better than the alternative however illogical that may seem!
everyone should have equal access to all benefits irrespective of their income, but the wealthy should provide more to fund the system
That's pointless, though. If I'm a wealthy person, paying 350 quid in tax and getting 50 quid back doesn't leave me any better off than paying 300 quid in tax and getting nothing back. (Hypothetical numbers, obviously).
Surely we should restrict, or increase, benefit payments to the [s]smarter,[/s] subordinate middle classes as they are more likely to have [s]smarter[/s] greedy kids, who will become [s]higher rate[/s] obsequious mindless tax payers, which will be better for our [s]pensions.[/s] leaders
That's the whole point of a welfare state. Everybody pays in and everybody gets something out. Now though if the people paying in don't get anything out why would they support it?
Erm... that's not the point of the welfare state at all. Its put there as a safety net for people who fall on hard times, and to care for the more disadvantaged in society. Its this that distinguishes us as a civilised society, as opposed to Barbarians like America.
And also the main reason the Tories are trying to dismantle it. Because all this namby-pamby, pinko 'caring for disabled people' and 'keeping the victims of the economy our rich friends destroyed at a subsistence level of income' is bally well costing me money that could be going towards Tarquins school fees!!!!
The OP seems to share your assessment though. So well done to you both
there was a time when the less intellegent would be sent to war, down the mines, shipyards etc. places where man power mattered rather than out and out academic ability.
There's some rather large assumptions going on there. Are you saying that the only thing that determines the earnings of somebody is their intelligence? And that thick breeds think and smart breeds smart?
Erm... that's not the point of the welfare state at all.
+1
One big cut that will soon begin to hurt people is the reduction/loss of the children's allowance.
Until this month, my now ex-wife was receiving around £1760 per annum for our two children. As she earns a few grand over £50k, she will get next to nothing. This comes at a time when she is about take out a big mortgage to buy me out of the marital home. She will also have all the bills I used to pay, so her era of austerity is going to hit her like a steam train. Means testing is so crude, not that I wish to defend my wife's predicament - she chose that route and without any discussions about how how we might have mitigated the situation for the benefit of our kids - very upsetting, but I've a clear conscience
Sorry - zero sympathy. She earns over £50k - over double what I earn.
She does not have to take out a big mortgage to buy you out, you could sell and she could move somewhere cheaper. Cut your cloth, that's what the rest of us are having to do. I resent my taxes going to give benefits to those earning that amount of money. I want them to go to those in most need - she isn't, and neither are your kids, if she's got that size income, plus whatever yours is, then your kids won't be wanting for anything. There are kids growing up in serious poverty here in the UK, whose parents cannot afford to heat their homes or feed and clothe their kids properly.
This kind of middle class woe-is-me attitude bugs the hell out of me - the austerity cuts have hit the poorest and most vulnerable who already had very little far worse. Your ex wife needs to be grateful for what she already does have, and for the fact that she isn't in danger of losing her home due to housing benefit cuts, having disability allowance taken away or having the meagre wage supplementation that is tax credits for low paid workers cut or removed.
Sorry for being harsh, but get some perspective.
Erm... that's not the point of the welfare state at all. Its put there as a safety net for people who fall on hard times, and to care for the more disadvantaged in society.
Well said. And don't forget, there but for the grace of God, Allah, Gaia or whatever, go all of us. People can lose everything in the blink of an eye - an accident, chronic illness, redundancy....today it's your neighbour, but tomorrow it could be you or someone in your family. Would you not want there to be something there to look after them?
Of course, this throws up anomalies such as child benefit, wealthy pensioners receiving various allowances etc and they make easy topics for politicians and others to make headlines with. But the law of unintended consequences and other factors warn against tinkering at the margin in order to make the news! The current structure of the Welfare State has endured for good reason. Like democracy, it's not perfect (hence your question) but it is (arguably) better than the alternatives.
perhaps these anomalies are the unintened consequences and we can better deal with them now. It is also worth noting - the US constitutional righ to bear arms for example - that times change and so should policy.
Its not about radical change it about tinkering iwth the edges to make it fairer and more responsive to the times we currently find ourselves in.
For example I assume most think its odd that Alan sugar gets a bus pass and a state pension and a winter fuel allowance [ no idea if he claims to be fair]. Its obvious money is tight and there are far more deserving cases than him and the OPs wife on 50 k per anum for us to "help".
As for paying in - view it like insurance - do you complain every year because you have not been robbed or had your roof fall down. Someone else has and therefore they got more from insurance than you. Perhaps you should just stop paying to prevent this injustice as it is not like you need it right ?
Isn't there a difference between the "point" of the welfare state and the "optimum design" to achieve it. The point of the welfare state is indeed to provide a safety net for those in need (and mostpeople would agree the this does not include providing child allowances to households (?!?) earning (for the sake of a number) >£50k). But, and it is a big but, the best way to achieve this goal is the system that Beveridge introduced which ironically (?) does include universal access to all benefits as odd as this seems. A key criteria for a welfare system has to be take-up rates and there is plenty of evidence that suggests an inverse relationship between take up rates and means testing.
But at end of the day this is classic BS politics. We are talking of the pimple on the elephant's bottom of the level of UK debt. But the emotive nature of the topic here makes it an easy political goal to score even thought it will have limited impact on the end result (or even the opposite effect). Plus ca change!
X-post there JY. I take part of your point, but isn't part of the reason why the welfare and tax system is such a mess at present the very fact that both have been subject to constant tinkering and interference. Woods and trees springs to mind!
Its the see-sawing of the tax (and welfare) system that's created the present shambles. The labour party, when in power, try to level the playing field through taxation. Th Tories once back in, rapidly shift the balance the other way.
For instance, tax credits to boost incomes of the lower paid, and creating questionable public sector jobs in areas of high unemployment (which coincidentally tend to be in labour voting areas).
The Tories then get in and give tax breaks to their rich friends in the city, and throw some bones to the upper middle class (hence the existence of government benefits being paid to people earning 50k+). All to be paid for by the removal of benefits to those a the bottom.
At the end of the day, the 'benefits' system is the ultimate political football. And so it goes on......
Except Binners that doesn't seem to be what has happened. Under a Tory, sorry coalition, government, lower income families are paying less tax and higher income more tax than they did under Labour. Plus the latest wheeze is actually targeting (negatively) natural Tory voters. The irony of UK politics and economics never fails!