28-04-2013 9:43 AM
28-04-2013 9:48 AM
Wealthy pensioners should hand back benefits.Do you agree?.
No - I believe that the rules should be changed so that only those who need benefits get them!
In the meantime if those who don't need them decide either not to claim them in the first place or to hand them back then that is fine as well.
28-04-2013 9:57 AM
If they were given the option of applying for it like they have to with a bus pass I don't see why not. These are hard times, and every possibility if it's fair must be looked at.
Alan Sugar and Paul McCartney sent theirs back, and it was sent back to them again, so they gave it to charity.
28-04-2013 10:36 AM
In the meantime if those who don't need them decide either not to claim them in the first place or to hand them back then that is fine as well.
I don't think you "claim" some of them. They just happen automatically, eg the TV licence and the fuel ones.
28-04-2013 10:57 AM
Wealthy pensioners should hand back benefits.Do you agree?.
No - I believe that the rules should be changed so that only those who need benefits get them!
Do that and some of the incentive to save for a pension would be lost.
I don't know why they always bring up bus passes, I know a number of people who qualify for one but never use a bus.
If a pensioner was so wealthy the state pension meant little to them, then I see no reason why charities shouldn't benefit especially since so many have lost a lot of funding, some even closing down.
28-04-2013 11:18 AM
I don't think you "claim" some of them. They just happen automatically, eg the TV licence and the fuel ones.
The TV licence you can get by default - just don't buy a TV licence.
The winter fuel payments have to be claimed if you are not already receiving any benefits as the DWP don't know where to send it.
I didn't claim my fuel allowance 3 winters ago when I turned 60.
28-04-2013 11:23 AM
Do that and some of the incentive to save for a pension would be lost.
I don't know why they always bring up bus passes, I know a number of people who qualify for one but never use a bus.
If a pensioner was so wealthy the state pension meant little to them, then I see no reason why charities shouldn't benefit especially since so many have lost a lot of funding, some even closing down.
You have a point regarding the incentive to save for a pension but such an argument can be used as regards any sort of means tested benefits.
Regarding the idea of given benefits to charities, I see a fatal flaw in such a suggestion if you believe, as I do, that all benefits should be means-tested. If you can afford to give the money you receive in benefits to a charity then you patently don't need it and should not be receiving it in the first place.
28-04-2013 11:38 AM
But the state pension is different from other benefits because it is given to remove the need to work for those reaching a certain age, not because they have difficulty working.
Means testing would put a person in the position of getting it or not depending on how much they saved during their working life and may have little to do with their income in that time.
28-04-2013 11:59 AM
Means testing would put a person in the position of getting it or not depending on how much they saved during their working life and may have little to do with their income in that time
I agree Bank but exactly the same argument could be made regarding the funding of care homes - those who have saved during their working life and/or bought their own home don't get this paid for by the state.
There is hardly any type of means-tested benefit where it can't be argued that it "could" influence the behaviour of potential recipients.
For example, would you like to see housing benefit non-means-tested? - After all it could be argued that it stops people saving during "times of plenty" because they know that the state will pick up the bill should they fall on hard times. Maybe everybody should have their housing paid for by the state to prevent this happening ?:|
28-04-2013 12:55 PM
The funding of care homes is to say the least, somewhat contentious and depending on circumstances some of the care may be paid for by the NHS, also those who pay for their own care may find they are being 'taxed' in that they are subsidising those relying on the state.
The difference with benefits such as housing benefit is that people generally do not expect to claim it, it is intended as an emergency measure whereas almost everybody expects to stop working sooner or later and the idea of the pension is to allow that to happen.
Receiving the basic state pension does not mean other benefits are also automatically payable, it is regarded as income and is taxable, a proportion of it does go back to the treasury.
Considering that additional pension may be paid because of the income a person has received it could hardly be fair if the person also saved they then lost that.
Already a person with very small additional pension which takes their total income over the pension credit limit may find they are actually worse off, to means test the basic pension would have a far greater effect and would be a serious blow to the Government's efforts to encourage saving for old age, pension plans would be looked at with that in mind.
28-04-2013 1:17 PM
The difference with benefits such as housing benefit is that people generally do not expect to claim it, it is intended as an emergency measure whereas almost everybody expects to stop working sooner or later and the idea of the pension is to allow that to happen.
But if the pension was means-tested then people "wouldn't expect to claim" that either.
Let's face it the state pension is hardly a guarantee of a comfortable life as is acknowledged by the additional benefits available for those without other income.
If the State Pension for all doesn't stop people saving for an additional pension then I'm not sure of the logic being invoked by suggesting that a State Pension just for those in need would stop people saving for their old age.
28-04-2013 1:25 PM
A couple of points:-
Why did the Government reduce the state pension contributions from 40 years to 30 years? What happens to that additional 10 years of Tax and NI, where does it go? It seems less than common sense when we oldies are living into our 90's...
Secondly, what's the definition of wealthy pensioners?
Plenty of well off pensioners give money to charity or do charitable works in their retirement so they are already giving back. I think they should have a choice as to what they do with the money.
Ian Duncan-Smith quite frankly gets on my nerves! He's always coming up with some solution or other which impacts on already fed up people with the way things are now in this country. Rather than concentrating his endless efforts on groups of individuals to increase the "haves and have nots" gap, he needs to concentrate his mind on the economy and how to improve it... but that's just a little more difficult for him to do. He should have stayed in the army...
28-04-2013 2:13 PM
The TV licence you can get by default - just don't buy a TV licence.
The winter fuel payments have to be claimed if you are not already receiving any benefits as the DWP don't know where to send it.
I didn't claim my fuel allowance 3 winters ago when I turned 60.
Creeky, I'm not sure that is right. My mother, who was over 80, never claimed for fuel payments, but they arrived as a matter of course. Maybe it was because of her age. Plus, the TV licence is automatic. If you have one prior to your 75th birthday, you get issued one automatically without payment the following yr. My mother would never have gone to the trouble of asking for anything free.
28-04-2013 2:18 PM
Being over 65 the the DWP would have your details from pension payments - I have never claimed any type of benefit and as such when I turned 60 the DWP sent me a claim form, (which I never completed).
28-04-2013 2:26 PM
Ah, I see.
I think if it were made simple for older people to hand back money they don't feel they need, many would be happy to. My mother always made a point of giving the amount she "saved" due to these freebies to the charities she supported as a matter of course.
28-04-2013 2:34 PM
28-04-2013 2:56 PM
If the State Pension for all doesn't stop people saving for an additional pension then I'm not sure of the logic being invoked by suggesting that a State Pension just for those in need would stop people saving for their old age.
It would mean for those, whose maximum possible saving would take them over the point at which they would lose their state pension, there was no benefit in saving just that bit more unless it was sufficient to take them well above the amount they would otherwise lose.
Who would endeavour to increase their pension if they were going to be no better off for doing so?
28-04-2013 2:58 PM
Bank - that assumes a means-tested benefit should/would be an all or nothing benefit rather than a graded one.
28-04-2013 3:19 PM
Being over 65 the the DWP would have your details from pension payments - I have never claimed any type of benefit and as such when I turned 60 the DWP sent me a claim form, (which I never completed).
Small point creeky, women (of my age) got their pension at 60. I know it was recently changed.
I read your letter from the DWP. I didn't get that claim letter, the fuel payment was just automatically credited to my bank account later in the year presumably because I had completed the state pension info. I hadn't claimed any benefits either. I only discovered it quite by accident when checking my account on line. Maybe one rule for men and one for women... 😉
28-04-2013 3:24 PM
Ah, I see.
I think if it were made simple for older people to hand back money they don't feel they need, many would be happy to. My mother always made a point of giving the amount she "saved" due to these freebies to the charities she supported as a matter of course.
It's also tax deductable (up to £3k) as part of the "gift allowance" on Tax reuturns.