FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Non Means Tested
Non Means Tested
Jump to: Newest in thread
Child Benefit, Winter Fuel, free school dinners and whatever else is being suggested by varying parties in the run up to election.
I'm all for supporting people that need these things, but what about people that don't need financial help. What's the point in giving away money, when there are so many other things that NEED money spending on them.
I think they are crowd pleasers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Means testing is always controversial, as those that pay in the most perceive that they get the least out of it.
It will become more prevalent though, from all parties."
I have mostly paid into the system apart from two occasions. One when I was made redundant and out of work for 6 months and received JSA. Second when my late husband became terminally ill and we received PIP and carers benefits between us for the ten months he survived.
So I really don't mind paying into the system for those that are in need. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Traditionally the argurment for not means testing is that some people in need dont claim, and that it costs as much to means test as it does to just give it to everyone. "
Not thought of that. Interesting though  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Add them on to relevant benefits, then you get the money if you are on benefits, and , for example, have kids or are a pensioner for winter fuel.
It then goes to lower income people, but doesn't need additional means testing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
see... means testing on something like the winter fuel allowance is a popular in theory.... but it practice it is going to be hard to deliver...
we all agree that people overseas shouldn't get it...
we all agree rich people don't need it...
but what about everyone else?
for example... the actually conservative proposal is to take away Winter Fuel allowance from everyone except those on Pension Credit....
quick quiz..... without looking, does anyone know what the limit on pension credit is for a single pensioner?
(its only because i am a civil servant and i work in pensions that i know the answer)
I am not going to tell you the answer at the moment, but i will say this! the single personals tax allowance is £11,000....
bear with me.....
you are going to have an interesting group of people who won't get enough in pension to pay any tax on it (reach the single persons tax allowance limit)... but will be above the limit so they are not entitled to pension credit and thus no winter fuel allowance....
I wouldn't call someone getting 11K rich.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"see... means testing on something like the winter fuel allowance is a popular in theory.... but it practice it is going to be hard to deliver...
we all agree that people overseas shouldn't get it...
we all agree rich people don't need it...
but what about everyone else?
for example... the actually conservative proposal is to take away Winter Fuel allowance from everyone except those on Pension Credit....
quick quiz..... without looking, does anyone know what the limit on pension credit is for a single pensioner?
(its only because i am a civil servant and i work in pensions that i know the answer)
I am not going to tell you the answer at the moment, but i will say this! the single personals tax allowance is £11,000....
bear with me.....
you are going to have an interesting group of people who won't get enough in pension to pay any tax on it (reach the single persons tax allowance limit)... but will be above the limit so they are not entitled to pension credit and thus no winter fuel allowance....
I wouldn't call someone getting 11K rich.... "
I was sure someone would come back with something like this and I don't know the answer either.
I just know there are lots of people receiving non means tested money that I wouldn't necessarily class as rich. Like comfortably off, that the money is fairly insignificant.
I certainly don't want money taken away from borderline people that you describe, so where to set the benchmark I don't know. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
bad idea, usually costs more to implement and have an authoritarain way of doing things than give it to everyone.
can be implemented on some tax code or pension but to have it means tested will scare the most vulnerable in society.
imagine being scared you ticked the wrong box or own more than 2 jumpers.
so many benefits go unclaimed anyway.
imagine being told you wont get any heating.
theyed freeze.
deaths will rise whether by weather or people cant take it any more |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's always easier to give money away, no questions asked. Let's just go with that and save all the hassle.  "
youve only got to look at tge fiasco atos made on fit to work has cost more ti implement than on savings.
only people who made money from it was some french company who lost contract.
not disputing too the court cases and judiciaries on appealing some cases..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's always easier to give money away, no questions asked. Let's just go with that and save all the hassle. youve only got to look at tge fiasco atos made on fit to work has cost more ti implement than on savings.
only people who made money from it was some french company who lost contract.
not disputing too the court cases and judiciaries on appealing some cases..
"
Then do it properly. Fucking things up isn't a reason to scrap doing the right thing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm by no means clued up on this subject, so won't pretend to be. What I can't get my head around, in terms of benefits is the idea of... If you can't be arsed earning it, dont worry we will give it you anyway. People with a lot of money obviously don't need some of the benefits, but why does it mean they should get less, just because they have found a way to better themselves. I would obviously hate to think of old people not being able to use their heating, or a single mum with young kids going without food, but can't stand that if have a shit job its ok because it will get topped up anyway, apart from pride, what's the point in working your arse off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm by no means clued up on this subject, so won't pretend to be. What I can't get my head around, in terms of benefits is the idea of... If you can't be arsed earning it, dont worry we will give it you anyway. People with a lot of money obviously don't need some of the benefits, but why does it mean they should get less, just because they have found a way to better themselves. I would obviously hate to think of old people not being able to use their heating, or a single mum with young kids going without food, but can't stand that if have a shit job its ok because it will get topped up anyway, apart from pride, what's the point in working your arse off."
some person has to do that shit job, and they probably have kids so need to work to feed them.
also need money to feed them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Agreed, but as things are, that money will get topped up through various made up benefits, so what's the point in trying for a promotion etc, for a couple grand extra a yr that you will only lose in benefits anyway? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Agreed, but as things are, that money will get topped up through various made up benefits, so what's the point in trying for a promotion etc, for a couple grand extra a yr that you will only lose in benefits anyway?"
Benefits are supposed to be a safety net to ensure no-one is left in serious need. If we have a system that means people use benefits rather than work, then things start going wrong. It has to be balanced correctly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Definitely, and id hate to see someone in desperate need go without, and yes its meant to be a temporary help, but it doesn't work like that, I dont think the different benefit departments know their arse from their elbow, look at tax credits, what a joke that is |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"It's always easier to give money away, no questions asked. Let's just go with that and save all the hassle. "
Well which is better a £100m scheme non-means tested scheme that costs £1m to administer or a means tested scheme that costs £100m with £50m being spent on the administration but only 50% of people get the benefit? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's always easier to give money away, no questions asked. Let's just go with that and save all the hassle.
Well which is better a £100m scheme non-means tested scheme that costs £1m to administer or a means tested scheme that costs £100m with £50m being spent on the administration but only 50% of people get the benefit?"
Amazing how difficult things can be, when there is a pot of someone elses money to give away.
When giving to charity, do you just give everybody cash, happy in the knowledge that some of them actually need it?
Winter fuel allowance costs £2-3 BILLION a year.
Free TV licenses cost £500 Million a year.
Is a scheme to give that to just those who need it, or even give them extra, really not worth bothering with? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"It's always easier to give money away, no questions asked. Let's just go with that and save all the hassle.
Well which is better a £100m scheme non-means tested scheme that costs £1m to administer or a means tested scheme that costs £100m with £50m being spent on the administration but only 50% of people get the benefit?
Amazing how difficult things can be, when there is a pot of someone elses money to give away.
When giving to charity, do you just give everybody cash, happy in the knowledge that some of them actually need it?
Winter fuel allowance costs £2-3 BILLION a year.
Free TV licenses cost £500 Million a year.
Is a scheme to give that to just those who need it, or even give them extra, really not worth bothering with?"
Not according to the IFS. They said the savings would be 'trivial'.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Means testing is always controversial, as those that pay in the most perceive that they get the least out of it.
It will become more prevalent though, from all parties.
I have mostly paid into the system apart from two occasions. One when I was made redundant and out of work for 6 months and received JSA. Second when my late husband became terminally ill and we received PIP and carers benefits between us for the ten months he survived.
So I really don't mind paying into the system for those that are in need."
Personally i resent most tax immensely. When i was unemployed i wss denied anything because i had savings, basically a 'fuck you' for being responsible. The only time i really needed the NHS i was misdiagnosed and nearly died. State schools are chav infested, I'd rather starve than send my child to one. State pension is a joke, it wouldn't cover my monthly food bill.
I agree with tax funding a safety net, defence, emergency services etc. But labours manifesto is just more and more nanny state and big brother running your life for you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
a forumite once said anecdotal arguments count for jack shit .... but in this case, if they did, then the fact that someone was refused benefits because they were too well off just shows the system is working as it should |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"a forumite once said anecdotal arguments count for jack shit .... but in this case, if they did, then the fact that someone was refused benefits because they were too well off just shows the system is working as it should "
It's working as it's designed to, fine. Just don't be surprised when 'the rich' won't pay any more tax than they already do. The fatal flaw in labours manifesto. Not working my ass off to fund the something for nothing crowd. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"a forumite once said anecdotal arguments count for jack shit .... but in this case, if they did, then the fact that someone was refused benefits because they were too well off just shows the system is working as it should
It's working as it's designed to, fine. Just don't be surprised when 'the rich' won't pay any more tax than they already do. The fatal flaw in labours manifesto. Not working my ass off to fund the something for nothing crowd. "
you're just pissed that the dole knew you were just trying bludge money off them  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"a forumite once said anecdotal arguments count for jack shit .... but in this case, if they did, then the fact that someone was refused benefits because they were too well off just shows the system is working as it should
It's working as it's designed to, fine. Just don't be surprised when 'the rich' won't pay any more tax than they already do. The fatal flaw in labours manifesto. Not working my ass off to fund the something for nothing crowd.
you're just pissed that the dole knew you were just trying bludge money off them "
I just assumed unemployed benefit was for all unemployed people. I know now. It's cool though, i don't get pissed, i get even, a tax rate above 30% is for people that don't have accountants. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"a forumite once said anecdotal arguments count for jack shit .... but in this case, if they did, then the fact that someone was refused benefits because they were too well off just shows the system is working as it should
It's working as it's designed to, fine. Just don't be surprised when 'the rich' won't pay any more tax than they already do. The fatal flaw in labours manifesto. Not working my ass off to fund the something for nothing crowd.
you're just pissed that the dole knew you were just trying bludge money off them
I just assumed unemployed benefit was for all unemployed people. I know now. It's cool though, i don't get pissed, i get even, a tax rate above 30% is for people that don't have accountants."
Above 30%? I'd be looking for a better accountant if that's your view then.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"a forumite once said anecdotal arguments count for jack shit .... but in this case, if they did, then the fact that someone was refused benefits because they were too well off just shows the system is working as it should
It's working as it's designed to, fine. Just don't be surprised when 'the rich' won't pay any more tax than they already do. The fatal flaw in labours manifesto. Not working my ass off to fund the something for nothing crowd.
you're just pissed that the dole knew you were just trying bludge money off them
I just assumed unemployed benefit was for all unemployed people. I know now. It's cool though, i don't get pissed, i get even, a tax rate above 30% is for people that don't have accountants.
Above 30%? I'd be looking for a better accountant if that's your view then.
-Matt"
Nah, as i say, I'm happy to pay some tax and not an ultra aggressive tax avoider. But i would be if corbyn gets into power. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"a forumite once said anecdotal arguments count for jack shit .... but in this case, if they did, then the fact that someone was refused benefits because they were too well off just shows the system is working as it should
It's working as it's designed to, fine. Just don't be surprised when 'the rich' won't pay any more tax than they already do. The fatal flaw in labours manifesto. Not working my ass off to fund the something for nothing crowd.
you're just pissed that the dole knew you were just trying bludge money off them
I just assumed unemployed benefit was for all unemployed people. I know now. It's cool though, i don't get pissed, i get even, a tax rate above 30% is for people that don't have accountants."
if you'd payed enough in you would've qualified for unemployment benefit but seeing as how you were refused you clearly hadn't paid enough in and so you were turned down .... the system clearly works |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"a forumite once said anecdotal arguments count for jack shit .... but in this case, if they did, then the fact that someone was refused benefits because they were too well off just shows the system is working as it should
It's working as it's designed to, fine. Just don't be surprised when 'the rich' won't pay any more tax than they already do. The fatal flaw in labours manifesto. Not working my ass off to fund the something for nothing crowd.
you're just pissed that the dole knew you were just trying bludge money off them
I just assumed unemployed benefit was for all unemployed people. I know now. It's cool though, i don't get pissed, i get even, a tax rate above 30% is for people that don't have accountants."
You may have been trying to claim income-based, rather than contribrution-based jobseekers allowance.
One is obviously based on your income and savings, the other isnt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
The concept of not getting unemployment benefit if you have savings sits well with everyone then?
Then it follows that we must all be happy with the winter fuel allowance being refused if you have savings? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the administrative costs for means testing would cancel out savings from non means tested"
That is a nonesense repeated reason. The poster above couldn't get unemployment benefit because of savings. They do loads of stuff for tax credits already.
200,000 pensioners are on higher rate tax. What cost is involved in hmrc giving those names to dss? Pensioners in care homes get it.
They know our incomes already, it should be straightforward for lots of these benefits.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the administrative costs for means testing would cancel out savings from non means tested"
Seems highly unlikely. I've never heard a business say "ah fuck it, it's too expensive to work out which of our customers actually ordered the product so we'll just send one out to every postcode" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Means testing is always controversial, as those that pay in the most perceive that they get the least out of it.
It will become more prevalent though, from all parties.
I have mostly paid into the system apart from two occasions. One when I was made redundant and out of work for 6 months and received JSA. Second when my late husband became terminally ill and we received PIP and carers benefits between us for the ten months he survived.
So I really don't mind paying into the system for those that are in need.
Personally i resent most tax immensely. When i was unemployed i wss denied anything because i had savings, basically a 'fuck you' for being responsible. The only time i really needed the NHS i was misdiagnosed and nearly died. State schools are chav infested, I'd rather starve than send my child to one. State pension is a joke, it wouldn't cover my monthly food bill.
I agree with tax funding a safety net, defence, emergency services etc. But labours manifesto is just more and more nanny state and big brother running your life for you. "
State schools are chav infested? I assume you went to one..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Means testing is always controversial, as those that pay in the most perceive that they get the least out of it.
It will become more prevalent though, from all parties.
I have mostly paid into the system apart from two occasions. One when I was made redundant and out of work for 6 months and received JSA. Second when my late husband became terminally ill and we received PIP and carers benefits between us for the ten months he survived.
So I really don't mind paying into the system for those that are in need.
Personally i resent most tax immensely. When i was unemployed i wss denied anything because i had savings, basically a 'fuck you' for being responsible. The only time i really needed the NHS i was misdiagnosed and nearly died. State schools are chav infested, I'd rather starve than send my child to one. State pension is a joke, it wouldn't cover my monthly food bill.
I agree with tax funding a safety net, defence, emergency services etc. But labours manifesto is just more and more nanny state and big brother running your life for you.
State schools are chav infested? I assume you went to one....."
I've been in both systems and therefore have direct experience of them, unlike 99% of the population who get their information on the differences second hand. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the administrative costs for means testing would cancel out savings from non means tested
Seems highly unlikely. I've never heard a business say "ah fuck it, it's too expensive to work out which of our customers actually ordered the product so we'll just send one out to every postcode" "
well thats what the nhs, state education and pensions do.. id expect that from a wealthy nation |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Personally i resent most tax immensely. When i was unemployed i wss denied anything because i had savings, basically a 'fuck you' for being responsible. The only time i really needed the NHS i was misdiagnosed and nearly died. State schools are chav infested, I'd rather starve than send my child to one. State pension is a joke, it wouldn't cover my monthly food bill.
"
Stupid comment. I went to one and am not a chav, neither are my kids. Currently loking at straight As in gcse's too.
Do what you want, but don't tar my kids with your foolish brush. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Personally i resent most tax immensely. When i was unemployed i wss denied anything because i had savings, basically a 'fuck you' for being responsible. The only time i really needed the NHS i was misdiagnosed and nearly died. State schools are chav infested, I'd rather starve than send my child to one. State pension is a joke, it wouldn't cover my monthly food bill.
Stupid comment. I went to one and am not a chav, neither are my kids. Currently loking at straight As in gcse's too.
Do what you want, but don't tar my kids with your foolish brush."
Chav infested doesn't mean all the kids there are chavs  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the administrative costs for means testing would cancel out savings from non means tested
Seems highly unlikely. I've never heard a business say "ah fuck it, it's too expensive to work out which of our customers actually ordered the product so we'll just send one out to every postcode" well thats what the nhs, state education and pensions do.. id expect that from a wealthy nation"
What are the figures that prove its more expensive to means test winter fuel allowance than not to? You're talking about a non-discretionary decision that a relatively simple computer programme could make. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the administrative costs for means testing would cancel out savings from non means tested
That is a nonesense repeated reason. The poster above couldn't get unemployment benefit because of savings. They do loads of stuff for tax credits already.
200,000 pensioners are on higher rate tax. What cost is involved in hmrc giving those names to dss? Pensioners in care homes get it.
They know our incomes already, it should be straightforward for lots of these benefits.
"
Actually, your assuming that tbe government runs an efficient system, regardless of which party is in no. 10. I can tell you now it's far from efficient. I dourced my own work experience at a museum like the woman who's story wad in the media, i was told i would have a good chance to be kept on.
The dss, in their infinite wisdom, threatened me with sanctions if i didn't stop, and go on a stupid course on how to write a cv and advise such as 'get a wash and wear clean clothes for a jod interview' stupid expensive courses run by private training companies, so NO! It isn't nonsense, it will be a financial black hole having the incompetent morons they employ, it will be too expensive! They couldn't organsise a bun fight in a bakery! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the administrative costs for means testing would cancel out savings from non means tested
Seems highly unlikely. I've never heard a business say "ah fuck it, it's too expensive to work out which of our customers actually ordered the product so we'll just send one out to every postcode" well thats what the nhs, state education and pensions do.. id expect that from a wealthy nation
What are the figures that prove its more expensive to means test winter fuel allowance than not to? You're talking about a non-discretionary decision that a relatively simple computer programme could make. "
I worked on government projects snd tbey are always way over expensive and under deliver, your assuming they are an efficient organisation., add to that they are overworked public sector workers. Bun fight and bakery springs to mind.
Dont get me wrong, i agree that Alan Sugar qualifying is wrong but frankly i reckon it would be too costly |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the administrative costs for means testing would cancel out savings from non means tested
Seems highly unlikely. I've never heard a business say "ah fuck it, it's too expensive to work out which of our customers actually ordered the product so we'll just send one out to every postcode" well thats what the nhs, state education and pensions do.. id expect that from a wealthy nation
What are the figures that prove its more expensive to means test winter fuel allowance than not to? You're talking about a non-discretionary decision that a relatively simple computer programme could make.
I worked on government projects snd tbey are always way over expensive and under deliver, your assuming they are an efficient organisation., add to that they are overworked public sector workers. Bun fight and bakery springs to mind.
Dont get me wrong, i agree that Alan Sugar qualifying is wrong but frankly i reckon it would be too costly"
But let's stick to numbers, winter fuel allowance costs £2.1bn a year and goes to 12.5m people. Let's be ultra conservative and say 10% of them don't need it. So we could save £210m a year. Let's save a civil servant costs £150,000 to employ a year. Are you seriously saying that it would take more than 1,400 civil servants a year so work that out? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the administrative costs for means testing would cancel out savings from non means tested
Seems highly unlikely. I've never heard a business say "ah fuck it, it's too expensive to work out which of our customers actually ordered the product so we'll just send one out to every postcode" well thats what the nhs, state education and pensions do.. id expect that from a wealthy nation
What are the figures that prove its more expensive to means test winter fuel allowance than not to? You're talking about a non-discretionary decision that a relatively simple computer programme could make.
I worked on government projects snd tbey are always way over expensive and under deliver, your assuming they are an efficient organisation., add to that they are overworked public sector workers. Bun fight and bakery springs to mind.
Dont get me wrong, i agree that Alan Sugar qualifying is wrong but frankly i reckon it would be too costly
But let's stick to numbers, winter fuel allowance costs £2.1bn a year and goes to 12.5m people. Let's be ultra conservative and say 10% of them don't need it. So we could save £210m a year. Let's save a civil servant costs £150,000 to employ a year. Are you seriously saying that it would take more than 1,400 civil servants a year so work that out? "
Lower civil servants would be closer to £20k, upper management a lot more, how much investigation processing is required to assess for each person.. not just savings but house value, houses abroad, othet income from other assets, who they live with etc.
But the big factor is who writes the Software, and crucially, what organisation runs the development, e.g is it subcontracted out.
I dont doubt your figures, but when you talk about big government projects, youd better have a big purse.
Remember the ID card project? I worked on it and the costs were mind blowing.
Again, high costs and in that case no delivery, Child Support agency, same again, and the controversy wad huge.
Ront get me wrong, i agree on means testing but.. I don't think its achievable.. Not yet anyway
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the administrative costs for means testing would cancel out savings from non means tested
Seems highly unlikely. I've never heard a business say "ah fuck it, it's too expensive to work out which of our customers actually ordered the product so we'll just send one out to every postcode" well thats what the nhs, state education and pensions do.. id expect that from a wealthy nation
What are the figures that prove its more expensive to means test winter fuel allowance than not to? You're talking about a non-discretionary decision that a relatively simple computer programme could make.
I worked on government projects snd tbey are always way over expensive and under deliver, your assuming they are an efficient organisation., add to that they are overworked public sector workers. Bun fight and bakery springs to mind.
Dont get me wrong, i agree that Alan Sugar qualifying is wrong but frankly i reckon it would be too costly
But let's stick to numbers, winter fuel allowance costs £2.1bn a year and goes to 12.5m people. Let's be ultra conservative and say 10% of them don't need it. So we could save £210m a year. Let's save a civil servant costs £150,000 to employ a year. Are you seriously saying that it would take more than 1,400 civil servants a year so work that out?
Lower civil servants would be closer to £20k, upper management a lot more, how much investigation processing is required to assess for each person.. not just savings but house value, houses abroad, othet income from other assets, who they live with etc.
But the big factor is who writes the Software, and crucially, what organisation runs the development, e.g is it subcontracted out.
I dont doubt your figures, but when you talk about big government projects, youd better have a big purse.
Remember the ID card project? I worked on it and the costs were mind blowing.
Again, high costs and in that case no delivery, Child Support agency, same again, and the controversy wad huge.
Ront get me wrong, i agree on means testing but.. I don't think its achievable.. Not yet another yway
"
The main failures in the past were fitness for purpose.. And deliverability of s system that will do the job. Big software projects are very expensive and difficult to control and keep to budget |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Just to add, the dss introduced universal credit and are struggling with various issues with it. Remember they hsve been administrating benefits for years on it systems and after chucking a lot of money at it, are jusy about coping.. So imagine them starting the same with pensions, admittedly they could model it on existing systems like unemployment benrfit but still a big ask. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"to be honest, think fuel allowance comes as a bar coded voucher for energy company doesnt it?
im sure its not classed as cash and only redeemed via energy supplier.
"
The winter fuel allowance is paid directly into a nominated bank account. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Why does it need to be a big software project? Hmrc already has all our tax records. If you pay x amount of tax, you don't get fuel allowance. Not rocket science."
Can you name another benefit that works that way? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why does it need to be a big software project? Hmrc already has all our tax records. If you pay x amount of tax, you don't get fuel allowance. Not rocket science.
Can you name another benefit that works that way?"
No, but why does that matter? Are you in favour of the principle of means tested benefits? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Why does it need to be a big software project? Hmrc already has all our tax records. If you pay x amount of tax, you don't get fuel allowance. Not rocket science.
Can you name another benefit that works that way?
No, but why does that matter? Are you in favour of the principle of means tested benefits?"
Well it matters because if its so simple, then why aren't other benefits paid out that way? Probably because it doesn't work that way, so your solution isn t a solution at all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why does it need to be a big software project? Hmrc already has all our tax records. If you pay x amount of tax, you don't get fuel allowance. Not rocket science.
Can you name another benefit that works that way?
No, but why does that matter? Are you in favour of the principle of means tested benefits?
Well it matters because if its so simple, then why aren't other benefits paid out that way? Probably because it doesn't work that way, so your solution isn t a solution at all."
Do you support the principle of means testing? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Why does it need to be a big software project? Hmrc already has all our tax records. If you pay x amount of tax, you don't get fuel allowance. Not rocket science.
Can you name another benefit that works that way?
No, but why does that matter? Are you in favour of the principle of means tested benefits?
Well it matters because if its so simple, then why aren't other benefits paid out that way? Probably because it doesn't work that way, so your solution isn t a solution at all.
Do you support the principle of means testing?"
Sure |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why does it need to be a big software project? Hmrc already has all our tax records. If you pay x amount of tax, you don't get fuel allowance. Not rocket science.
Can you name another benefit that works that way?
No, but why does that matter? Are you in favour of the principle of means tested benefits?
Well it matters because if its so simple, then why aren't other benefits paid out that way? Probably because it doesn't work that way, so your solution isn t a solution at all."
Because most government things evolved from legacy systems rather than being designed as integrated ones. Doesn't mean it can't be done. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why does it need to be a big software project? Hmrc already has all our tax records. If you pay x amount of tax, you don't get fuel allowance. Not rocket science.
Can you name another benefit that works that way?
No, but why does that matter? Are you in favour of the principle of means tested benefits?
Well it matters because if its so simple, then why aren't other benefits paid out that way? Probably because it doesn't work that way, so your solution isn t a solution at all.
Do you support the principle of means testing?
Sure"
Right, here's how it would work outside of government :
Monday. Head of hmrc asks IT for a list of all pensioners who paid over £2000 tax last year (for example)
Tuesday. IT supply the list.
Wednesday. List is sent to DWP, to be excluded from winter fuel payments.
Thursday. DWP delete those names as recipients of winter fuel allowance.
Simply accepting that government is too inept to manage not paying a benefit that cost £2 billion + is scandalous imo.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why does it need to be a big software project? Hmrc already has all our tax records. If you pay x amount of tax, you don't get fuel allowance. Not rocket science.
Can you name another benefit that works that way?
No, but why does that matter? Are you in favour of the principle of means tested benefits?
Well it matters because if its so simple, then why aren't other benefits paid out that way? Probably because it doesn't work that way, so your solution isn t a solution at all.
Do you support the principle of means testing?
Sure
Right, here's how it would work outside of government :
Monday. Head of hmrc asks IT for a list of all pensioners who paid over £2000 tax last year (for example)
Tuesday. IT supply the list.
Wednesday. List is sent to DWP, to be excluded from winter fuel payments.
Thursday. DWP delete those names as recipients of winter fuel allowance.
Simply accepting that government is too inept to manage not paying a benefit that cost £2 billion + is scandalous imo.
"
If a government can't even be trusted to uncheck some boxes on an IT system then why the hell are people voting to put them in charge of trains and energy companies? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Why does it need to be a big software project? Hmrc already has all our tax records. If you pay x amount of tax, you don't get fuel allowance. Not rocket science.
Can you name another benefit that works that way?
No, but why does that matter? Are you in favour of the principle of means tested benefits?
Well it matters because if its so simple, then why aren't other benefits paid out that way? Probably because it doesn't work that way, so your solution isn t a solution at all.
Do you support the principle of means testing?
Sure
Right, here's how it would work outside of government :
Monday. Head of hmrc asks IT for a list of all pensioners who paid over £2000 tax last year (for example)
Tuesday. IT supply the list.
Wednesday. List is sent to DWP, to be excluded from winter fuel payments.
Thursday. DWP delete those names as recipients of winter fuel allowance.
Simply accepting that government is too inept to manage not paying a benefit that cost £2 billion + is scandalous imo.
"
What if they paid more tax last year because of something like a funeral plan for their spouse who passed away?
It's not that they are too inept, it's that the cost benefit analysis says it's not worth means testing for some benefits. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why does it need to be a big software project? Hmrc already has all our tax records. If you pay x amount of tax, you don't get fuel allowance. Not rocket science.
Can you name another benefit that works that way?
No, but why does that matter? Are you in favour of the principle of means tested benefits?
Well it matters because if its so simple, then why aren't other benefits paid out that way? Probably because it doesn't work that way, so your solution isn t a solution at all.
Do you support the principle of means testing?
Sure
Right, here's how it would work outside of government :
Monday. Head of hmrc asks IT for a list of all pensioners who paid over £2000 tax last year (for example)
Tuesday. IT supply the list.
Wednesday. List is sent to DWP, to be excluded from winter fuel payments.
Thursday. DWP delete those names as recipients of winter fuel allowance.
Simply accepting that government is too inept to manage not paying a benefit that cost £2 billion + is scandalous imo.
What if they paid more tax last year because of something like a funeral plan for their spouse who passed away?
It's not that they are too inept, it's that the cost benefit analysis says it's not worth means testing for some benefits."
Then they can do without the fuel allowance that year. Doh |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Do you support the principle of means testing?
Sure
Right, here's how it would work outside of government :
Monday. Head of hmrc asks IT for a list of all pensioners who paid over £2000 tax last year (for example)
Tuesday. IT supply the list.
Wednesday. List is sent to DWP, to be excluded from winter fuel payments.
Thursday. DWP delete those names as recipients of winter fuel allowance.
Simply accepting that government is too inept to manage not paying a benefit that cost £2 billion + is scandalous imo.
What if they paid more tax last year because of something like a funeral plan for their spouse who passed away?
It's not that they are too inept, it's that the cost benefit analysis says it's not worth means testing for some benefits."
They currently handout £100-£300 cash to every single person, regardless of need. If they can't target it, without it costing more than it saves, then they are inept. In the private sector, they would be sacked. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Do you support the principle of means testing?
Sure
Right, here's how it would work outside of government :
Monday. Head of hmrc asks IT for a list of all pensioners who paid over £2000 tax last year (for example)
Tuesday. IT supply the list.
Wednesday. List is sent to DWP, to be excluded from winter fuel payments.
Thursday. DWP delete those names as recipients of winter fuel allowance.
Simply accepting that government is too inept to manage not paying a benefit that cost £2 billion + is scandalous imo.
What if they paid more tax last year because of something like a funeral plan for their spouse who passed away?
It's not that they are too inept, it's that the cost benefit analysis says it's not worth means testing for some benefits.
They currently handout £100-£300 cash to every single person, regardless of need. If they can't target it, without it costing more than it saves, then they are inept. In the private sector, they would be sacked."
Alternatively just hire a private sector company to build the system and run it. If you can't get an IT system that simple to do such a simple task for £210m then i will eat my hat. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Why does it need to be a big software project? Hmrc already has all our tax records. If you pay x amount of tax, you don't get fuel allowance. Not rocket science.
Can you name another benefit that works that way?
No, but why does that matter? Are you in favour of the principle of means tested benefits?
Well it matters because if its so simple, then why aren't other benefits paid out that way? Probably because it doesn't work that way, so your solution isn t a solution at all.
Do you support the principle of means testing?
Sure
Right, here's how it would work outside of government :
Monday. Head of hmrc asks IT for a list of all pensioners who paid over £2000 tax last year (for example)
Tuesday. IT supply the list.
Wednesday. List is sent to DWP, to be excluded from winter fuel payments.
Thursday. DWP delete those names as recipients of winter fuel allowance.
Simply accepting that government is too inept to manage not paying a benefit that cost £2 billion + is scandalous imo.
What if they paid more tax last year because of something like a funeral plan for their spouse who passed away?
It's not that they are too inept, it's that the cost benefit analysis says it's not worth means testing for some benefits.
Then they can do without the fuel allowance that year. Doh"
CandM, what do you think about all those Brits living out in Spain, they don't need a heating allowance do they? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why does it need to be a big software project? Hmrc already has all our tax records. If you pay x amount of tax, you don't get fuel allowance. Not rocket science.
Can you name another benefit that works that way?
No, but why does that matter? Are you in favour of the principle of means tested benefits?
Well it matters because if its so simple, then why aren't other benefits paid out that way? Probably because it doesn't work that way, so your solution isn t a solution at all.
Do you support the principle of means testing?
Sure
Right, here's how it would work outside of government :
Monday. Head of hmrc asks IT for a list of all pensioners who paid over £2000 tax last year (for example)
Tuesday. IT supply the list.
Wednesday. List is sent to DWP, to be excluded from winter fuel payments.
Thursday. DWP delete those names as recipients of winter fuel allowance.
Simply accepting that government is too inept to manage not paying a benefit that cost £2 billion + is scandalous imo.
What if they paid more tax last year because of something like a funeral plan for their spouse who passed away?
It's not that they are too inept, it's that the cost benefit analysis says it's not worth means testing for some benefits.
Then they can do without the fuel allowance that year. Doh
CandM, what do you think about all those Brits living out in Spain, they don't need a heating allowance do they? "
Yes they do. In winter it is bloody freezing im most apartments and in the summer they use extra electric for fans and air conditioning, the heat can kill as well as the cold. If they have paid UK taxes all their lives and are eligible they should get it. A lot of people move to a warmer climate for health reasons don't you know, for things such as arthritis or breathing difficulties, so they are saving the NHS money |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why does it need to be a big software project? Hmrc already has all our tax records. If you pay x amount of tax, you don't get fuel allowance. Not rocket science.
Can you name another benefit that works that way?
No, but why does that matter? Are you in favour of the principle of means tested benefits?
Well it matters because if its so simple, then why aren't other benefits paid out that way? Probably because it doesn't work that way, so your solution isn t a solution at all.
Do you support the principle of means testing?
Sure
Right, here's how it would work outside of government :
Monday. Head of hmrc asks IT for a list of all pensioners who paid over £2000 tax last year (for example)
Tuesday. IT supply the list.
Wednesday. List is sent to DWP, to be excluded from winter fuel payments.
Thursday. DWP delete those names as recipients of winter fuel allowance.
Simply accepting that government is too inept to manage not paying a benefit that cost £2 billion + is scandalous imo.
What if they paid more tax last year because of something like a funeral plan for their spouse who passed away?
It's not that they are too inept, it's that the cost benefit analysis says it's not worth means testing for some benefits.
Then they can do without the fuel allowance that year. Doh
CandM, what do you think about all those Brits living out in Spain, they don't need a heating allowance do they?
Yes they do. In winter it is bloody freezing im most apartments and in the summer they use extra electric for fans and air conditioning, the heat can kill as well as the cold. If they have paid UK taxes all their lives and are eligible they should get it. A lot of people move to a warmer climate for health reasons don't you know, for things such as arthritis or breathing difficulties, so they are saving the NHS money"
shouldnt matter where people live, they have paid into the system.
most people move for economical reasons knowing it will be cheaper to retire other countries |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why does it need to be a big software project? Hmrc already has all our tax records. If you pay x amount of tax, you don't get fuel allowance. Not rocket science.
Can you name another benefit that works that way?
No, but why does that matter? Are you in favour of the principle of means tested benefits?
Well it matters because if its so simple, then why aren't other benefits paid out that way? Probably because it doesn't work that way, so your solution isn t a solution at all.
Do you support the principle of means testing?
Sure
Right, here's how it would work outside of government :
Monday. Head of hmrc asks IT for a list of all pensioners who paid over £2000 tax last year (for example)
Tuesday. IT supply the list.
Wednesday. List is sent to DWP, to be excluded from winter fuel payments.
Thursday. DWP delete those names as recipients of winter fuel allowance.
Simply accepting that government is too inept to manage not paying a benefit that cost £2 billion + is scandalous imo.
What if they paid more tax last year because of something like a funeral plan for their spouse who passed away?
It's not that they are too inept, it's that the cost benefit analysis says it's not worth means testing for some benefits.
Then they can do without the fuel allowance that year. Doh
CandM, what do you think about all those Brits living out in Spain, they don't need a heating allowance do they?
Yes they do. In winter it is bloody freezing im most apartments and in the summer they use extra electric for fans and air conditioning, the heat can kill as well as the cold. If they have paid UK taxes all their lives and are eligible they should get it. A lot of people move to a warmer climate for health reasons don't you know, for things such as arthritis or breathing difficulties, so they are saving the NHS money shouldnt matter where people live, they have paid into the system.
most people move for economical reasons knowing it will be cheaper to retire other countries"
They should get a summer air con payment because the heat kills more than the cold in spain.Im sure that'll play well with the electorate back in Blighty  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Personally i resent most tax immensely. When i was unemployed i wss denied anything because i had savings, basically a 'fuck you' for being responsible. The only time i really needed the NHS i was misdiagnosed and nearly died. State schools are chav infested, I'd rather starve than send my child to one. State pension is a joke, it wouldn't cover my monthly food bill.
Stupid comment. I went to one and am not a chav, neither are my kids. Currently loking at straight As in gcse's too.
Do what you want, but don't tar my kids with your foolish brush.
Chav infested doesn't mean all the kids there are chavs "
You do know what the word infested means don't you? You're either on the wind up or incredibly stupid (or both) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
