Yes. A lot more than the cost of just distributing the money.

It seems a remarkable assertion that distributing money to everyone costs less than distributing money only to poorer people.

You haven’t even considered what the allowance is worth an how many would be excluded by a means test.

We dont give the benefit of healthcare to the healthy so why give a benefit to the wealthy

😕 You don’t give healthcare to the healthy and you don’t give child benefit to people without children.

Where’s your problem ?

Ernie – was not Beveridge’s report quite specifically a model of social insurance – the principle of universality was of comprehensive coverage i.e. a universal responsibility and a universal coverage in the event of circumstance, not that everyone should receive regardless of need.

Was it not also quite specifically a model predicated on a single flat rate of contribution, irrespective of means? (paragraph 305 of the report in case you had forgotten it!)

Was it not also quite specifically a model predicated on a single flat rate of contribution, irrespective of means?

That sounds rather like the way my parents explained poll tax to me. I recall that one went pretty well 😀

Nice to agree with you Ernie – not often that we manage that. Z11, you need to read the second part of point 305 because is goes on to make the point that those with more money contribute more to the funding of the scheme via taxation. Its quite specific on that. That was and remains the key – the whole welfare state (sorry I agree with Ernie again that JY’s distinctions are not valid) is based on the idea that funding is progressive but benefits are universal. I still see no valid to change it.

We covered this earler the issue is does he need the money of not wehy are wer goiving it to himm

In order to improve take up amongst those who do need the benefit. Simples.

“SAS getting a bus pass and a winter fuel allowance is an irrelevance in the grand scheme of things”

as is CB to anyone then so why are we debating this

Try getting a sense of perspective. The actual cost to the country of giving bus passes and winter fuel allowances to millionaires is tiny as there are so few of them. Remove it from them and you’d be able to fund a few pence rise in the winter fuel allowance paid to everybody else (if that). Of course that’s always assuming the saving isn’t more than swallowed up by the administration. I don’t really see how you can possibly compare that with the real difference that CB does make to some people (I mean even people earning twice the average wage appear to notice the difference it makes!)

Giving money to millionairres who dont need it [ when we are skint as well] has no impact on the coffers at al

Congratulations on actually getting it (I’ll make the generous assumption you weren’t being incorrectly sarcastic).

It’s not like it’s the first time I’ve agreed with ernie, but I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with him more.

That’s just saying “there’s no point in saving money anywhere because whatever you save will never be significant enough”. You say saving a hundred quid by not paying Alan Sugar to heat his own home isn’t worth doing because it’s only a few pence per legitimate recipient but I say that hundred quid is a hundred quid that could be spent on another x hours of a reading specialist in a classroom, or a social worker in the field, or a cop investigating crime. That’s a hundred quid worth having!

Also a bit weird how this conversation seems to have become centred on the premise that only millionaires would be cut off when the cutoff would have to be much lower than that. Ffs, the early pages were filled with abuse of the OP expecting his loaded wife getting benefits when she’s on 50 grand. There’s a lot more people that earn between 50 grand and a million than there are million plus earners!

n order to improve take up amongst those who do need the benefit. Simples.

its not a good enough reason.
I get your point but it is not fair so we should not do it just because it is easier and cheaper. we have this with CB where it is one income and not household – yes it is simple but it is crap and unfair.

Try getting a sense of perspective.

I will try to agree with you.

The actual cost to the country of giving bus passes and winter fuel allowances to millionaires is tiny as there are so few of them.

There will be lots of wealthy folk who dont need this and CB etc
i have no idea what the saving would be and neither have you but the principle is correct though there may be practical issues

I don’t really see how you can possibly compare that with the real difference that CB does make to some people (I mean even people earning twice the average wage appear to notice the difference it makes!)

I imagine you need to be bloody wealthy before you dont notice a few grand tax free but that does not mean you need it.

Giving money to millionairres who dont need it [ when we are skint as well] has no impact on the coffers at al
Congratulations on actually getting it (I’ll make the generous assumption you weren’t being incorrectly sarcastic).

You know what i meant. If you must do lazy dismmisive ad hom [ its seems you must] could you make them funny?

In order to improve take up amongst those who do need the benefit.

That and other reasons such as the fact that up until the 7th Jan there was no stigma at all associated with receiving child benefit – everyone (with children) received it. But that is no longer the case now.

You must be aware Junkyard that a well used tactic to reduce, freeze, or withdraw, benefit payments, is to stigmatised and demonise the recipients.

…… clearly people have children should either take responsibility and make their own provisions without expecting generous free handouts, or not have children if they can’t afford them.

From earlier in the thread :

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/austerity-cuts-we-aint-seen-nothin-yet/page/2#post-4631362

Also an arbitrary and strictly bureaucratic cut off will always cause anomalies, and some who ought to receive won’t. Plus there is a cost to the added bureaucracy of means testing.

yes they are indeed compelling arguments on either side and you make some good ones.
i dont see this as a slippery slope tbh and hope I am not wrong

However I still maintain that benefit is there for those who need it and giving money to those who dont need it [ though i get why] is not something i wish to do.

Another positive for us to gain independence and leave you lot to your problems taking a large portion of the pot with us

[a jest]
[sort of 😉 ]

However I still maintain that benefit is there for those who need it

Those who “need” it ? I take it you mean “poor” people then – now that we’ve established that it should exclude wealthy people. So let’s have another look at the cut-off shall we, £45k doesn’t sound very poor – let’s restrict it to the genuinely poor, no ? And let’s not be too generous either, otherwise a benefit dependency culture will develop and the poor will do nothing to help themselves.

Yep, scraping universal child benefit must represent one of this government’s greatest success stories so far. Although as I said earlier they had no opposition so it’s hard to imagine how they could have failed. Even people purporting to be left-wing have supported them.

i dont see this as a slippery slope tbh

Seriously, you’re having a laugh …… right ?

This government is on a mission to exploit the unique opportunity which it finds itself in. The crises left by the global credit crunch, and caused by their mates in the banking industry, gives them the perfect excuse to dismantle the welfare state and replace it with a brutal free-market alternative. You don’t have to be particularly left-wing to see that – just awake.