Means Testing of pensions?

[burning dog]

That said, as an adviser he does seem a dubious choice; but it will be what the government chooses to do that matters.

I agree. Maybe i should have started a topic, "get rid of this adviser quickly." This person made these comments on the eve of the election,

[Petrushka]

That said, as an adviser he does seem a dubious choice; but it will be what the government chooses to do that matters.

Was it Thatcher who said: 'Advisers advise, ministers decide'?

[Pulcinella]

Was it Thatcher who said: 'Advisers advise, ministers decide'?

Surely not: wouldn't she have decided everything?

[french frank]

I agree. Maybe i should have started a topic, "get rid of this adviser quickly." This person made these comments on the eve of the election,

On checking up on Edward Troup, I see that this archived (17.04.24) article from the D.Telegraph (who?) featured an attack by Rish! Sunak (who?) on Labour and the appointment. Look! They're going to tax the elderly! Shameful!

Incidentally, the lbc article quotes him as having "stressed he was not advising Labour on what taxes they could raid and his new role was focused on making existing taxes work better."

[Dave2002]

I know nothing of economics, but I've always thought Income tax should be the only tax, as it is the fairest. VAT is not a fair tax. I understand some countries (Sweden?) have high tax because they provide much more welfare for those in need. I'm very much in favour of higher tax for the rich. Some rich people are really quite obscenely rich (i.e. the sort of money most of us can't even imagine) and could well afford to support the needy better.

I'm not really sure about the "fairness" of different taxes. I can however comment on Sweden, having lived there for a while, and still having some connections there. Sweden is thought to be a high tax country - and indeed it may seem to be - with both local and state taxes to pay.

Some services, such as health care and dentistry are provided, as in the UK, either free of charge or at low cost to the patients.

However on the face of it, it does seem that a higher proportion of one's income goes on tax.

Nevertheless it is interesting to note that even with the seemingly higher taxes, many people do appear to have a higher standard of living than in the UK. I don't fully understand why.
Possibly this is because of the way Sweden handles taxes on companies, and in particular companies which export services and products outside the country.

[smittims]

re Dentistry I was alarmed to hear in yesterday's Commons debate that parts of Britain have no dentists and many people are in agony . I must be fortunate in that my dentist is only five minutes walk away and I was offered an appointment only three hours ahead although I hadn't been for over five years.

[french frank]

There is an efficient system of progressive taxation in place, which is used to tax wealthy pensioners at a higher rate, this is open to amendment (Increase!!!) without much admin. Much more efficient than means testing and without the stigma.

The subject of means testing came up this morning in conversation with my brother whose No 2 son declared it was 'not socialist'. But in such an unequal society as we currently have in the UK, how would it work to means test the richest? They can be identified fairly easily by HMRC and there is surely no stigma in being one of the richest? I don't include the state pension in this which is 'paid for' in advance, but handouts like winter fuel payments and Christmas bonuses. What am I missing? Not cost effective?

[oddoneout]

re Dentistry I was alarmed to hear in yesterday's Commons debate that parts of Britain have no dentists and many people are in agony . I must be fortunate in that my dentist is only five minutes walk away and I was offered an appointment only three hours ahead although I hadn't been for over five years.

Not an NHS one I assume? Patients get delisted if they don't attend often enough - used to be at least every 2 years, but I think it's now annually in many cases.
I live in a dental desert, many patients have been shunted out of practices they've been attending for years if they won't or can't go private, some practices have waiting lists running into thousands, and even trying to get on as a private patient may not be possible. The practice I was with for a good many years gradually ran down the NHS element when they were unable to recruit staff(survived on locums for many months until even they were unavailable) and I now have to go private. I was "lucky", as shortly after they had to close their lists for private patients as well, and none of the other practices in town(all private except for one which accepted children as NHS patients briefly) were accepting new patients. As a large rural county with the kind of public transport that involves, and low incomes, accessing dental care has become impossible for thousands.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I received £500 from the government last winter for fuel. It more than paid my entire heating bill for 4 months. Frankly I was embarrassed. I have a decent work pension, and when this is combined with the state pension, I receive more than many who are working full time. So I do think means testing is a fairer way to use public funds.

[oddoneout]

The subject of means testing came up this morning in conversation with my brother whose No 2 son declared it was 'not socialist'. But in such an unequal society as we currently have in the UK, how would it work to means test the richest? They can be identified fairly easily by HMRC and there is surely no stigma in being one of the richest? I don't include the state pension in this which is 'paid for' in advance, but handouts like winter fuel payments and Christmas bonuses. What am I missing? Not cost effective?

I have seen it said more than once that it is cheaper overall to pay every one things like the winter fuel payment than try and sort out who doesn't need it/shouldn't get it. Given the appalling problems faced by those claiming things like carers allowance and universal credit which are subject not only to mistakes, but crass incompetence of the system, it is arguably also fairer overall since a universal handout reaches more of the people who do need it. Effective taxation would in effect recoup from those who don't need such payments? Ironically I get quite a nice sum of fuel payment due to age and single status, but now,despite being retired not getting a full State Pension, the non-increase in personal allowance and increase in SP means that a small additional income I have takes me over the threshold. Last year I more than repaid the fuel allowance in a tax demand, but as the calculations aren't given I don't know if that might include an unpaid element from previous years since HMRC like to give me lots of different tax codes each year, none of which was used for PAYE purposes when I was working. So perhaps I'll pay it back this year as well,not sure that's how it's supposed to work... However as I can afford my heating bills even without the payment I just count myself lucky - too many can't manage even with that payment.

[burning dog]

My original post was about the Means Testing of the State Pension, hinted at by a Government "expert" , not winter payments etc. which I believe were announced by Ted Heath without informing his Civil Servants. That could be and episode of "Yes, Prime Minister" though.

I think the State pension should be regarded as an entitlement for all .The rich contribute more to it through income tax (N.I. contibtuions are more of a yearly ticket to qualify)


Pension Credit, which will still entitle someone to winter payments, has a very poor take-up

[burning dog]

https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/Less-than-two-thirds-of-those-entitled-to-Pension-Credit-claimed-it-in-2021-22.php

[french frank]

I have seen it said more than once that it is cheaper overall to pay every one things like the winter fuel payment than try and sort out who doesn't need it/shouldn't get it.

My query was: wouldn't it in fact be easy to sort out who very definitely didn't need it, rather than those who did? Would it amount to a significant amount or not? They know that the average wealth of 65-year-old retirees is £790,900 - but that might be distorted by the wealth of x billionaires, I suppose. In which case, quoting an 'average' is meaningless anyway.

[burning dog]

I'd have though finding out who definitely didn't need it might be fairly easy, but wouldn't save much money. It may score points politically I suppose.

The Aussies have gone for the opposite approach.

"The “age pension” in Australia is reduced if yearly income from other sources is over a threshold. The fortnightly thresholds are AUS$190 (£99) for a single pensioner and AUS$168 (£87) each for members of a couple. For each dollar of income over this, the pension is reduced by. 50 cents"

So if you earn $191 dollars a fortnight (nice that they still use that word) your pension is reduced by 50cents? Surely that can't be correct? It must cost more than that to process

[burning dog]

This is something the present Government should sort out straight away , before the next election looms.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001vztb