5 years hard labour ?

[AndyN01]

3 hours ago, Corolly Poly said:

I think you could argue that anyone exceeding the basic threshold does not need it. The problem with a blunt tool like that is many who come below all tax thresholds have large amounts in the bank.

Just wondering abut pensioners who live in rented accommodation? The basic threshold is about £12K or £1K a month. How much of that will be taken by rent? I realise it'll be different in different parts of the country but I guess it'll be a significant proportion.

As far as Pension Credit is concerned the first £10K in savings is disregarded and then there's a calculated "income" on each £500 above that.

What standard of living and level of comfort (heating) is reasonable for our elderly citizens? And if someone has had a life of spend, spend, spend should they be in a "better" position than someone who has been frugal and put something away? And were those frugal ones told, decades ago, that hey, spend it folks, we'll cover the costs in your retirement or conversely, those that spent everything told that tuff, you'll be skint and cold in your retirement?

The whole thing is more complex than it seems.

 

 

[Bper]

In my opinion, one of the main issues with means testing is that it can feel very intrusive for many people, and it’s also time consuming for the government to determine eligibility. I also agree that pensioners living abroad should not be entitled to the winter fuel allowance especially when they might be using the money for air conditioning rather than heating due to the warmer climate.

As for those of us who don’t need the allowance, I believe it was a mistake to apply it universally. My concern is with those who are just above the threshold for additional support and those whose circumstances leave them struggling to afford heating in the winter. In these cases, the allowance should definitely be applied.😄

[Bper]

2 hours ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

Two issues - cost and access. 

Cost: contracting out is usually more expensive than the current scenario - eg. competitive tendering, contract management, time for the various processes, contracts are only for a limited number of years (currently 3-5 years), number of contracts, TUPE, etc. Setting up an independent agency is also costly.

Access to Departmental computer systems whether benefits or taxation, and risk of system compromise.

Also the devolved governments of Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate arrangements, so would be outside scope.

I see your point, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the idea of an independent body is off the table. Maybe instead of creating a whole new agency, we could look at a middle ground solution. For example, a smaller, specialised team within an existing department could handle the winter fuel allowance, ensuring it’s managed more fairly without the added costs or security risks of setting up something entirely separate.

This way, we could still keep decision making independent from political influence but avoid the complications of outsourcing or creating a new body. Scotland and Ireland could do the same depending on the existing arrangements for this allowance.

[Haliotis]

Those who are fortunate and content with their own situation very often forget to consider they less fortunate.  I thank myself to be one of the more fortunate, but I am wary of how politicians view peoples’ circumstances.  The sad thing is that it is those on the wrong side of the border line who suffer.  Governments frequently state that there will be winners and losers.  This is an excuse to cover their abilities (or caring) when proper fairness cannot be achieved - at this point the revenue becomes the prime factor.  But such excuses do not give succour to this borderline element, neither does it give them comfort in the knowledge that wealthier people are denied a benefit simply because “they don’t need it”.  If successive governments conducted their business and distribution of revenue in an honest manner, then “means testing” to avoid payment to persons who have earned it would not be necessary.

[Bper]

35 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

Those who are fortunate and content with their own situation very often forget to consider they less fortunate.  I thank myself to be one of the more fortunate, but I am wary of how politicians view peoples’ circumstances.  The sad thing is that it is those on the wrong side of the border line who suffer.  Governments frequently state that there will be winners and losers.  This is an excuse to cover their abilities (or caring) when proper fairness cannot be achieved - at this point the revenue becomes the prime factor.  But such excuses do not give succour to this borderline element, neither does it give them comfort in the knowledge that wealthier people are denied a benefit simply because “they don’t need it”.  If successive governments conducted their business and distribution of revenue in an honest manner, then “means testing” to avoid payment to persons who have earned it would not be necessary.

I agree that there needs to be more honesty and transparency in how governments manage resources. If there were a genuine commitment to distributing revenue fairly, means testing might not even be necessary. Instead of focusing solely on cutting costs, a more compassionate approach would prioritise the well being of all citizens, ensuring that those who really need help receive it, regardless of their financial situation.

 

[AndyN01]

Perhaps some "bluntness" and honesty about personal choice and the consequences of spending everything you have (or not) might help. There's a difference between like, want and need.

So, if the message was by all means, drink too much, smoke, eat too much, gamble, go on multiple expensive holidays, run several cars and have the latest iPhone and multimedia package every year BUT there won't be a "comfort net" for you when you retire - you'll be safe, fed and warm but you won't be "rescued" by someone else's money for things you might like or want but you can't afford to pay for.

Another might be, be frugal, save what you can and put something aside "for a rainy day." Live well within your means and only buy what you can afford. When the time comes, you can enjoy all the benefits of the lifestyle you planned and saved for with the money that you've put away. The state shall not take your savings, you will keep that.

IMHO there needs to be a direct link between personal choice and the consequences of that choice.

[Bper]

15 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

Perhaps some "bluntness" and honesty about personal choice and the consequences of spending everything you have (or not) might help. There's a difference between like, want and need.

So, if the message was by all means, drink too much, smoke, eat too much, gamble, go on multiple expensive holidays, run several cars and have the latest iPhone and multimedia package every year BUT there won't be a "comfort net" for you when you retire - you'll be safe, fed and warm but you won't be "rescued" by someone else's money for things you might like or want but you can't afford to pay for.

Another might be, be frugal, save what you can and put something aside "for a rainy day." Live well within your means and only buy what you can afford. When the time comes, you can enjoy all the benefits of the lifestyle you planned and saved for with the money that you've put away. The state shall not take your savings, you will keep that.

IMHO there needs to be a direct link between personal choice and the consequences of that choice.

Very true, but obviously, people are not all the same. Everyone has different ideas, lives, and circumstances, which may not have provided them the opportunity to become financially astute.
 

[AndyN01]

Agreed.

That's why it's never going to be simple or straightforward to come to a reasonable, fair and "acceptable" solution.

If, indeed, one exists?

It is, however, always quite easy to use and/or spend someone else's money.

[Bper]

1 hour ago, AndyN01 said:

Agreed.

That's why it's never going to be simple or straightforward to come to a reasonable, fair and "acceptable" solution.

If, indeed, one exists?

It is, however, always quite easy to use and/or spend someone else's money.

Human nature unfortunately 🙄

[Haliotis]

17 hours ago, AndyN01 said:

 

Another might be, be frugal, save what you can and put something aside "for a rainy day." Live well within your means and only buy what you can afford. When the time comes, you can enjoy all the benefits of the lifestyle you planned and saved for with the money that you've put away. The state shall not take your savings, you will keep that.

IMHO there needs to be a direct link between personal choice and the consequences of that choice.

This is exactly what we have done “up to a point”, and that’s how we lost the Winter Fuel Allowance.  Yes, we have saved and been sensible over our spending.  But we have paid more into the system (many have paid even more) than  those who habitually “slummed” their way through life and have taken every penny they could wheedle out of the welfare state.  So our careful management has paid off - we won’t go cold this winter.

But you know what?  If those lazy wasters (not the genuine people in poor health) were aware of the safe circumstances we created for ourselves, and entirely by our own efforts, they would abusively denigrate us as if they had paid for our financial position.  And our lazy government will not chase after these scrounges - they would rather go after the hard workers who still have some cash that can be purloined.

[Cyker]

21 hours ago, Bper said:

I agree that there needs to be more honesty and transparency in how governments manage resources. If there were a genuine commitment to distributing revenue fairly, means testing might not even be necessary. Instead of focusing solely on cutting costs, a more compassionate approach would prioritise the well being of all citizens, ensuring that those who really need help receive it, regardless of their financial situation.

 

That's one of the reasonings for having a UBI - Everybody gets just enough money to live in borderline poverty, and it's up to people to make the choice to elevate their living standards by working.

Alas we're not at The Culture or Star Trek levels of post-scarcity for that to be realistically workable...!

 

 

[Bper]

1 hour ago, Cyker said:

That's one of the reasonings for having a UBI - Everybody gets just enough money to live in borderline poverty, and it's up to people to make the choice to elevate their living standards by working.

Alas we're not at The Culture or Star Trek levels of post-scarcity for that to be realistically workable...!

 

 

The trouble is that the gradual change in benefits over the years has made it far too easy for the work-shy to stay at home or do cash-in-hand work to boost their income on top of the benefits they receive. There are no doubt many circumstances that prevent people from working, but it isn't going to change. This whole culture of working from home, as an example, is costing the economy dearly, but employment laws are set to be implemented that will prevent employers from demanding that employees work from an office. How soon before those working from home start claiming disability allowance because they only move from the sofa or bed to the kitchen and toilet? That will also be a laugh if the dustman says he is going to work from home.🙄
 

[Haliotis]

Bper said: “That will also be a laugh if the dustman says he is working from home.”

Now now, Bob. To be politically correct, it is Refuse Collector.  😇

But seriously, there are a great many occupations that cannot be worked from home.  So singling out those that ‘apparently’ can is an unwise step.  When  an employer starts up a company, it is for that employer to decide how the operating procedures should be conducted - not interfering busybody bureaucrats, who probably have no idea of how to run a business successfully.  But it is a good way to drive out entrepreneurs to another country where sanity reigns supreme.

[Cyker]

2 hours ago, Bper said:

The trouble is that the gradual change in benefits over the years has made it far too easy for the work-shy to stay at home or do cash-in-hand work to boost their income on top of the benefits they receive. There are no doubt many circumstances that prevent people from working, but it isn't going to change. This whole culture of working from home, as an example, is costing the economy dearly, but employment laws are set to be implemented that will prevent employers from demanding that employees work from an office. How soon before those working from home start claiming disability allowance because they only move from the sofa or bed to the kitchen and toilet? That will also be a laugh if the dustman says he is going to work from home.🙄
 

You joke but that is something potentially on the horizon -Automated rubbish trucks supervised remotely!

Although having seen some of the heroic manoeuvres our one has done to get past inconsiderately parked cars I'm not sure if a robot could handle that    

[Rhymes with Paris]

15 minutes ago, Cyker said:

You joke but that is something potentially on the horizon -Automated rubbish trucks supervised remotely

It would be too complicated to program them to place the empty bin in the most awkward spot every time,as this is a variable.

eg. Empty driveway - place in the centre to make sure the driver has to get out and move it on return.

Occupied driveway - place obstructing the driver's door to make sure the driver has to move it to enter the car.

In all cases where there is soft earth or flowerbeds,spin the bin around to make sure the handles are unreachable from the driveway without trampling the flowerbed.

[Primus1]

Well, people only see the down sides to wfh, for instance, employees are generally happier therefore more productive, they don’t have to commute so much thus saving the environment, as for the workshy, yes, there’s always going to be those who just won’t work, and it’s generally those employed that will work for backhanders, more is lost to the economy through tax avoidance than benefit fraud…

[Bper]

There will always be jobs that can be carried out from home, but it’s incredible that this would have been unheard of years ago. This shift isn't good for local businesses, and both larger and smaller offices will obviously need less space. So what happens to these buildings? Do they get converted into flats, or will they remain empty? Civil servants are demanding to work from home, and many have never returned since the pandemic. Again, what happens to these buildings? Will we continue to fund them while many remain occupied by only a skeleton staff, or will they become derelict?

What about the lack of communication with work colleagues or the youngsters who need to ask frequent questions and need to be shown practically.We already have an insular society and this will just lead to isolation and lack of life skills in so many different areas.

Most people seem stuck to their phones and many sit in restaurants and pubs with no communication staring into social media sites probably seeing how many likes they have for telling their followers they are going out for a meal.Heaven help us.
 

[Primus1]

Well obviously those jobs that are only, or mostly done via computer would be the ones that can be easily done from home, as for the buildings, many could be made into smaller units with bigger places split up to be used by many more this would reduce overheads, some could indeed be made into housing to ease the shortage and save building on the green belt..

[Bper]

1 hour ago, Primus1 said:

Well obviously those jobs that are only, or mostly done via computer would be the ones that can be easily done from home, as for the buildings, many could be made into smaller units with bigger places split up to be used by many more this would reduce overheads, some could indeed be made into housing to ease the shortage and save building on the green belt..

True but it doesn't 

 

1 hour ago, Primus1 said:

Well obviously those jobs that are only, or mostly done via computer would be the ones that can be easily done from home, as for the buildings, many could be made into smaller units with bigger places split up to be used by many more this would reduce overheads, some could indeed be made into housing to ease the shortage and save building on the green belt..

Of course but society thrives on social interaction and there is no greater experience then interacting with others.😀

[AndyN01]

2 hours ago, Primus1 said:

.........more is lost to the economy through tax avoidance than benefit fraud…

Tax avoidance is legal.

The real questions are:

(1) who put that "loophole" into the original legislation (do not for a split second think that it was some sort of "mistake or incompetence or accident" -  it's there quite deliberately to be exploited) and

(2) what is being done to close or remove them? And if nothing, what's the reason it's not? Vested interest??? Freebies being called in????

AFAIK there's some 28K pages of tax instruction/guidance which is surely ludicrous.

 

 

[Bper]

3 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

Tax avoidance is legal.

The real questions are:

(1) who put that "loophole" into the original legislation (do not for a split second think that it was some sort of "mistake or incompetence or accident" -  it's there quite deliberately to be exploited) and

(2) what is being done to close or remove them? And if nothing, what's the reason it's not? Vested interest??? Freebies being called in????

AFAIK there's some 28K pages of tax instruction/guidance which is surely ludicrous.

 

 

Of course it's legal, but there will always be loopholes. nothing happens that the rich can't circumnavigate. 😠

[Primus1]

1 hour ago, Bper said:

True but it doesn't 

 

Of course but society thrives on social interaction and there is no greater experience then interacting with others.😀

Have you seen the people walking the streets with their heads buried in their smartphones and earphones/headsets on?, and these people working from home don’t have family or friends to interact with?, even on zoom meetings they are interacting with each other..

[Primus1]

1 hour ago, AndyN01 said:

Tax avoidance is legal.

The real questions are:

(1) who put that "loophole" into the original legislation (do not for a split second think that it was some sort of "mistake or incompetence or accident" -  it's there quite deliberately to be exploited) and

(2) what is being done to close or remove them? And if nothing, what's the reason it's not? Vested interest??? Freebies being called in????

AFAIK there's some 28K pages of tax instruction/guidance which is surely ludicrous.

 

 

I never suggested that tax avoidance wasn’t legal, tax evasion on the other hand…!

[Bper]

10 minutes ago, Primus1 said:

Have you seen the people walking the streets with their heads buried in their smartphones and earphones/headsets on?, and these people working from home don’t have family or friends to interact with?, even on zoom meetings they are interacting with each other..

IMO It’s sad to see people so glued to their screens. While technology helps us stay in touch, nothing beats the value of real human interaction. Those face to face conversations really make a difference in how we connect with others. I think we all need to make an effort to step away from our devices and engage with people in person more often. Ironically says someone who is communicating via a tablet.

 

[Bper]

11 minutes ago, Primus1 said:

I never suggested that tax avoidance wasn’t legal, tax evasion on the other hand…!

All tax is illegal.😡