[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Savings above £6,000 start to affect the majority of means tested benefits, with them being withdrawn completely if they are over £16,000, which I don't think are substantial sums.

Your argument for means testing them has been considered by various Governments, but rejected time and time again. Not only for the political, social and financial reasons that I previously stated, but because it's unfair to penalise those who are prudent.

Person A drinks, smokes, regularly buys a new car and goes on holiday more than once every year. They have no savings as a result.

Person B doesn't drink, smoke, makes their car last as long as possible and only goes on holiday occasionally. They have savings over £16,000 as a result of their thrift.

Why should person B be penalised for being careful with their money and saving (as the Government want us to)? It's for this reason that Pension Credit (savings) was introduced as a way to reward those who had saved and were subsequently not entitled to the mainstream means tested Pension Credit scheme.

Attendance and Mobility Allowance were introduced in 1976 as a way to help the disabled meet the extra costs of disability. This concept is as strong today as if was 42 years ago, even Cameron did not consider changing this part of the concept with the introduction of PIP.

Half of eligible pensioners don't apply for Pension Credit, not because they are not entitled, don't need the money or can get by without it, but because they find means testing to be intrusive, humiliating and embarrassing. Remember, these people will be able to recall the days when they had to queue for basic food supplies and have someone from the National Assistance Board coming round to check things like how many chairs they had. Any excess for their needs meant they had to sell it and when that had run out, they had to go cap in hand to the National Assistance Board again.

Precluding pensioners from claiming help with mobility when this need arises after pension age was brought in by the Thatcher Government in 1993. I always thought this to be odd after the stated intention of social security reform was said to be to target those most in need.

One of Thatchers reforms was to stop Housing Benefit for many pensioners from April 1988. This caused such an uproar from these (many Tory voting) pensioners that a supplementary scheme had to be introduced- Housing Benefit Supplement.

---------- Post added at 14:46 ---------- Previous post was at 14:41 ----------



It used to be the case that Carers Allowance stopped when pension age was reached. As part of his reforms to help carers, the Blair Government scrapped this regulation. However, most carers still cannot claim Carers Allowance from retirement age due to the 'overlapping benefit' regulations. These say that anyone entitled to more than one benefit can only claim the one that pays the highest amount. As the State Retirement Pension is usually more than the rate for Carers Allowance, most get their pension instead.

It can still be useful for those only entitled to a very small pension or no pension at all.

In both of your analogies Person A and Person B have lifestyles over and above the minimum that the welfare state should provide.

Establishing savings of £16 000 at say, £20 a week, would take 15 years. Someone on benefits, in these times of austerity, able to do so is likely to be committing benefit fraud.