Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter
Means testing is the most expensive way to administer benefits and results in a low take up rate as people resent the Government asking such private questions eg half of pensioners entitled to Pension Credit don't claim it.
Means testing would also undermine the very reason why Attendance Allowance/Mobility Allowance/DLA/PIP was introduced in the first place, which is that nobody, whatever their means, should lose out on this help towards the extra costs of disability. This is why it's tax free and not means tested.
Contributory ESA is means tested to an extent. Blair introduced a means test where most people in receipt of a private/occupational pension had it taken into account if they were over a prescribed amount. Cameron introduced a system where those not in the support group could only claim it for a year before facing a means test.
There's also the question as to whether taking out insurance should be means tested at all. This is akin to saying that if a millionaire takes out home insurance and then gets burgled, s/he should not be able to claim as they can afford to replace the missing items themselves!
It wouldn't save as much as you think anyway. Short term, savings could be made as benefits are withdrawn, but then people would have to live off their savings. Once these reduced to £16,000, they would be back on benefits again. These means tested benefits would then also attract free prescriptions, free dental treatment, free eye tests and a voucher towards glasses, cold weather payments, Social Fund payments, reimbursement of travel costs to hospitals and prisons, free medical appliances eg wigs, fabric supports etc etc. It would be horrendously expensive to administer as the diminishing capital rule would need to be applied on top of all the other costs caused by means testing.
There is also a belief amongst politicians and the middle classes upwards that taxpayers are happy to support the welfare state because they get a little bit of what they pay in tax back in the form of non means tested benefits. If these were withdrawn, they might not be so keen to support the welfare state at all, which would be a disaster for poorer members of society.
|
If people have savings to live off of then they should do. The purpose of the welfare state isn't to fund the lifestyle of people who have substantial savings in the first place.
Attendance Allowance/DLA as a concept was introduced almost 30 years ago, it was fit for purpose then but it's not fit or purpose now.
If there's a low take up rate as a result then savings are all to the good. Those that don't feel they need it not applying is a positive outcome.
---------- Post added at 13:06 ---------- Previous post was at 13:04 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taf
So disabled people over 65 don't need to get around? Lock them indoors where they can't be seen by society?
Another anomaly is that Carers lose their "allowance" (now the princely sum off £66.15 for a MINIMUM 35 hour week) the day they get their State Pension.
No-one steps in to take over their role.
And I believe that Carers Allowance is under threat. Two Carers I talk with have been told to complete a diary over 4 weeks, showing how much time they spend caring. Bureaucracy on top of their already tough roles. 
And letters announcing the 2% rise in Carers Allowance are filled with information on their rights to flexible working, but if you earn too much you lose the "allowance". |
If someone is 66 they can't apply for PIP mobility so it ends the discrepancy of having a two tier system.