What other “universal benefits” shouldn’t they get?

I think the whole point of child benefits being a universal benefit is that it’s money for the kids’ benefit not the parents. Unfortunately it seems that in some poorer families the money doesn’t get spent on the kids. Universally providing 2 or 3 school meals a day might be a better use of funds.

Maybe taking just one away is enough Druidh

I always love the way the £x income is earned by the top 10% statistic is brought out. It would be great to know how this is calculated. Is it?

– 90% of income is earned by people earning less than £x
– 90% of people earn less than this amount of £x
– Something else completely different

Can someone clarify?

Someone else mentioned that mud shark. Not much good for the under 5s is it?

– 90% of people earn less than this amount of £x

This generally

Someone else mentioned that mud shark. Not much good for the under 5s is it?

Keep it for preschoolers? Hearing about kids being sent to school without breakfast is just upsetting.

Jamj1974

You could start here:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/comm124.pdf

As I thought. Would love to see the value of each of the remaining percentiles. I imagine there is some significant variance…

Jamj1974

You could start here:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/comm124.pdf

Nb Chapter 3!!!!!

Sorry double post due to adding nb for ch 3

Thanks THM. I will have a read of that.

They managed to base child tax credits on joint incomes ok.

Yeah, that’s a really good example of a nice efficient system which is simple for people to claim, cheap to implement and where they always get their sums right 🙄

Its been implemented in an unfair manner for sure.

Unfair on those who lose CB? Or unfair on those who have neighbours with a higher household income who get to keep it? Because it’s the latter there seems to be the most bleating about.

the later was what i meant – I dont think the loss in general is unfair but the implementation has made it unfair for households which is a more sensible measure IMHO.

I not sure whether GO is being unfair or just stupid. But it makes little sense to mix the receipt of benefits (based on households) and their funding (based on Individuals though taxation). But since little of the hotchpotch that is UK taxation makes much sense after so much bodging by politicians over the years, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that the latest proposal are based on flawed thinking.

An extra 1%, or whatever it would take (less?) on higher rate tax would have been fairer and cheaper to implement but it’s not about fair.

Unfair on those who lose CB? Or unfair on those who have neighbours with a higher household income who get to keep it? Because it’s the latter there seems to be the most bleating about.

Personally speaking the latter is the best way to highlight the cackhanded way this has been implemented. Do you think that it’s right that a family on 99k still gets CB?

I not sure whether GO is being unfair or just stupid

I have this conundrum with all Tories tbh 😀

It’s easy to say ‘oh you should be able to live in £60k blabla’, but if you do earn that much this could still have an impact.

Not everyone is pissing their money up the wall. Some folk might have bought an expensive house for an investment for example or to allow their kids to go to the good school etc. The problem is that this has happened really quickly, and people may have already budgeted for it.

Do you think that it’s right that a family on 99k still gets CB?

I don’t have a big problem with it, if removing it from them would cost more to implement than it would save. Why, do you think the government should waste money on making sure such people don’t benefit?

Clearly I’m just rather more pragmatic and less ideological than most on here.

Why, do you think the government should waste money on making sure such people don’t benefit?

I think the government should be ensuring that families that earn less and get nothing aren’t subsidising families that get more. As has been pointed out, there are other benefits/breaks that are calculated in that way; why is this different?

How should benefits be judged? I would suggest: Are they comprehensive, are they clear, do they avoid stigma, do they encourage high take up rates, are they cheap to administer, are they progressive (in terms of funding)?

Against those criteria, history suggests that universal benefits perform better than means-tested ones. So on that basis I would not take child benefits out of the universal system in isolation unless I was a politician looking for what looks (at face value) like an easy crowd pleaser.

Interesting reading here on how tax is split by income level:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/tax-statistics/liabilities.pdf

(OK I lied about it being interesting).

Worth noting how much of the tax collected by PAYE comes from a small number of individuals.
On £50k a year you pay nearly 15k in tax! So really letting people on these kind of salaries keep child benefit is just a small rebate to reflect the fact they are raising a family. They are still MASSIVE net contributors tomthe tax system. For some this equates to a 5% cut in houshold income…not chickenfeed.

I am sure that everyone affected will manage. Am also sure it will give an interesting bite in the backside to the Tories come 2015.

Why, do you think the government should waste money on making sure such people don’t benefit?

I wonder if, given a bit more time, it could have been sorted out more equitably without excessive cost?

I don’t have a big problem with it, if removing it from them would cost more to implement than it would save. Why, do you?

Yes. I don’t understand how it can be prohibitively expensive to calculate a household income. Everybody pays tax (or is supposed to) so how hard can it be? Smacks of laziness and incompetence to me.

It’s quite possible that since I’m only marginally over the threshold we won’t lose all of ours anyway, and if I put more into my pension we could probably keep it all so please don’t mistake my opinions for sour grapes. I’m sure lots of people will find ways around this. Just because they can doesn’t mean that’s right either.

CHB that is why GO seems to be so stupid. OK the over 55s might like what he is doing, but many typical Tory voters are going to dislike this measure clearly. So probably JY is correct – unfair and stupid*!

* not in an academic sense!

Some folk might have bought an expensive house for an investment for example

So, we should continue to pay the benefit as its underwriting someones investment?

many typical Tory voters are going to dislike this measure clearly

Overall, its hitting a fairly small number of people, and being honest, are these people swing voters? has GO got to worry about them deserting the party? I would suggest that people in this financial position have probably got more to lose by Labour getting back in, so perhaps its actually quite a ‘save’ move?

Are they comprehensive, are they clear, do they avoid stigma, do they encourage high take up rates, are they cheap to administer,

Not sure why you are ignoring the most important bit – are they fair.

are they progressive (in terms of funding)?

Dont know what this means

Against those criteria, history suggests that universal benefits perform better than means-tested ones

yes its an easy tax to administer that everyone gets. I agree

The winter fuel allowance meets all those criteria
It still does not mean Sir Alan Sugar deserves it or it make sense to do it.

I am not really a fan of universal benefits tbh.
Some folk , even those in “need ” dont need it.
I imagine Professor Hawkings gets DLA – I assume he is a millionaire- I dont know if he claims anything its an example. CMD claimed for his son iirc – he mentioned the forms in an interview. I suspect they could have got by without it. They just create anomalies and benefits are for the poor – we could argue where we draw the line for poor I guess.

winter fuel allowance

Now, we know that would be gone to higher earners if they had not been painted into a corner – back to the ‘swing voter’ example above, cutting this one would likely be a very unsafe move, in fact probably electoral suicide, given the pledge made in 2010

we could argue where we draw the line for poor I guess.

Median wage? maybe adjusted for household size?

What this really highlights is how the whole tax/benefits system could do with a massive root and branch reform. But I doubt that any politician of any persuasion would ever be able to get a mandate for that, unfortunately.

What this really highlights is how the whole tax/benefits system could do with a massive root and branch reform. But I doubt that any politician of any persuasion would ever be able to get a mandate for that, unfortunately.

This (and not just tax/benefits). Alas, I don’t think there is the political will to make any great changes from any of the main parties. What we need is a revolution! But not tonight as I’m a bit tired. Night all.

Are they fair? The ultimate question – define fair!!!!! No single definition but to go back to my op on this thread, the current welfare state designed by Beveridge concluded that the fairest system was one where benefits were available to all but funded (via taxation) in a way that the higher income people paid more to support them. Hence the term ‘progressive’. Remember that it replaced a combination of means testing and insurance. (edit: hence aracer’s point about take up rates which has a historic precedent in the low access to healthcare pre Beveridge)

So in this case the concept of “fair” was wrapped up in being available to all, but paid for more by those who could afford to do so. Of course, there are plenty who would argue that is not fair (Nozick school etc)!!!! Hence economics is best studied in conjunction with philosophy and politics, but sadly so few Unis offer this brilliant combination!!!

Edit: JY this is why druidh asked the best question of all many pages back!

YES we do need more folk with a grounding in PPE in politics.

Define Fair – its a bit late to try something so complex but no one thinks it is this bodge.

But it is interesting to sleep on the basic idea that if we accept the original foundation 1 outlined by Beveridge (now sadly re-written on nHS website) on which the NHS is based and accept that this is fair, how can we not apply this to other benefits including child benefit?

I can see the argument with CB – we are all at our poorest [whatever our income for 90% of us until free childcare compulsory education kicks in ]when we have kids and we all could do with some help so I can get it.

However being ill is not like having a child. You dont choose to be ill as a rule and that is about a safety net. They are not the same but it is an argument with some merit.

I struggle to see any argument with Universal Winter fuel though unless it was not age related

I wonder if, given a bit more time, it could have been sorted out more equitably without excessive cost?

If they spent a bit more time (and a bit more of our money) and found that there wasn’t a way to do it differently without it costing more to implement, presumably you’d happily accept that then? Or would you still be complaining that it’s “not fair”? Come to that, how do you know they didn’t look into alternative ways of implementing this, and this was really the best way to do it?

Not sure why you are ignoring the most important bit – are they fair.

That’s only most important (or even important at all) if you look at things from an ideological rather than pragmatic perspective. Otherwise the reasons you dismiss as being less important are really the only ones which matter.

JY – really!!! That would be a turn up and a weird squaring of a circle of debate . More PPE grads in politics => more privileged Oxbridge (and Warwick) grads => fewer “real” or “representative” people in politics!!!

How could you argue such a thing 😉 !! Good night!!

Agree about the bodge!

if you look at things from an ideological rather than pragmatic perspective

I think its pragmatic to design a tax system that is fair.

Pragmatism is an ideology but we would be here all night with that one

It may have been mentioned, but given that high earners are paying ( in principle) much more tax than others, it seems no big issue that they get some back, the same as everyone else

It may have been mentioned, but given that high earners are paying ( in principle) much more tax than others, it seems no big issue that they get some back, the same as everyone else

+1

It may have been mentioned, but given that high earners are paying ( in principle) much more tax than others, it seems no big issue that they get some back, the same as everyone else

you’ve not really grasped how the state is funded have you, or what the tax is/ should be used for.