"I've paid into the system!"

[L00b]

Who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to decide the needs of others?

Common sense dictates that there has to be a lowest common denominator. Objectively, the needs must be assessed and decided, if the Gvt isn't to run out of cash for the year by mid-January.

 

In our modern, developed and safe economies, basic needs are housing, healthcare and sufficient provision for basic food and clothing. They're pretty much the same the world over, come to think of it...but here at least, people are entitled to that by Statute, and get it - and more (statement of fact).

 

The 'TV license' and 'buss passes' of Berberis examples are nice-to-gives/-haves...but they're not existential requirements, by any stretch of meaning.

What's the problem with that? Entitlement works both ways.

 

People are entitled to tax-relief on their pension contributions. Do you think that should be applied on a basis of necessity?

Arguably, that's part and parcel of the incentivisation for making personal provisions and not leaving the entire burden all to the State. The obvious alternative is no tax-relief against reduced personal taxation = worse cashflow problem for the State. Edited May 11, 2015 by L00b

[Cyclone]

Using one of those examples, free tv license to people old enough. I'm sure many can afford it, we don't means test this benefit because the testing will cost more than it can save.

So is it morally right/wrong/ambiguous to make sure that someone who qualifies, knows that they qualify?

[woodmally]

Who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to decide the needs of others?

 

If he is "paying into the system" and those taking it arnt then he should decide its his money after all looked after by the government.

 

Your right there are a lot of people who have never paid into the system in their life and yet get everything you only need to watch benefit street, Jeremy Kyle or even "Skint".

[Chris_Sleeps]

Arguably, that's part and parcel of the incentivisation for making personal provisions and not leaving the entire burden all to the State.

Of course, but without getting into the intricacies of pension taxation, my point still stands. One is still entitled to it. It's just moralised in a different way to benefit entitlement.

[El Cid]

 

People are entitled to tax-relief on their pension contributions. Do you think that should be applied on a basis of necessity?

 

Its not linked tho, I dont know much about the NI and state pension. There are all sorts of ways to qualify, if your partner has contributed etc ...

So some people do pay almost nothing, compared to those at the top who pay loads but just get the basic state pension.

[L00b]

Of course, but without getting into the intricacies of pension taxation, my point still stands. One is still entitled to it.

But, to maintain the analogy with Berberis' post, is any public officer frog-marching taxpayers into making pension contributions to secure that tax-relief?

It's just moralised in a different way to benefit entitlement.

Personally, I consider the issue entirely amorally, in simple terms of resources.

 

If people in receipt of benefits are not claiming everything to which they are entitled 'on paper' but get by reasonably fine, then them wanting to better their lot from that point forward may well incentivise them into getting a better job, taking up additional training, seizing an enterprising initiative, <etc.> basically 'help themselves more', whilst unspent/unclaimed benefits are redirected to alternatives (or carried forward in budgets, and resulting in less actual cuts - for what is effectively unspent is not missed when cut).

 

Wishful (admittedly less than well-informed) thinking as it may be, I'd like to think that's how it works mostly in practice.

 

FWIW I only ever had occasion to call on the benefits system once in 20-odd years. Over a period of 6 months, we had zero income coming into our household. And I mean zero. Nada, nothing. Both sacked within a week of one another and black-balled/unemployable, with my Mrs newly pregnant, and an employment tribunal case to fund and go through.

 

Can you guess what benefits we got in that time (during which I set up an online business with a few hundred quids and travelled far and wide for interviews, including overseas trips)?

 

Sod all. Zero. Nada. Nothing. Not even JSA. We did get good free healthcare for my Mrs, thanks to the NHS.

 

I was quite hacked off at not getting anything whatsoever, but it wasn't because we'd been paying in at the top whack for years heretofore. Why did we get sod all? Perhaps unsurprisingly, because we'd been reasonable and careful with our money, and had a bit of savings. So we weren't "entitled". That's what p***ed me off, and so long as the benefit system in general terms doesn't come with serious strings attached for people to self-responsibilize and improve their lot by themselves, you will find me taking pot shots at it, and those like Berberis' couple who p*** budgets away like tax receipts grow on trees.

Edited May 11, 2015 by L00b

[Chris_Sleeps]

Its not linked tho, I dont know much about the NI and state pension.

Tax-relief is not for state pension.

[ubermaus]

Picked this up in another thread and thought it was worthy making a new thread about:

 

"I paid into the system, so I should get something back".

 

I've noticed it ever since I moved here, people really do feel entitled to public money, whether it is the NHS, benefits or pensions, but if that is the case, shouldn't people who paid more into the system be getting more out of it?

 

Sorry, this is a strange post.

What do you think people pay taxes for? Education, services, health.

What about tax on services? Tax on products? It mostly goes back into the public purse.

So yes we are entitled to public help.

[hyper]

The problem I have is, I pay into the system and then the politicians' gravy train takes a load of upkeep and benefits those who don't need it (and some who have even fiddled their expenses). So if the system is such that this is deemed ok, I would have no problems claiming the little bit that I don't need (not eligible at moment, so its all hypothetical now)

[ubermaus]

Pensions...old age..

 

---------- Post added 11-05-2015 at 13:23 ----------

 

The entitlement generation is a real problem.

 

I once had a discussion with a couple who worked in the public sector. They seemed to think it was their role to find every benefit there is to give to people they deemed entitled. I asked if these people needed the benefits they where taking and they couldn't comprehend the notion.

 

"Do they need it"?

"but they are entitled to it"

"no you're not answering the question, do they need it"?

"but they are entitled to it"

:roll:

 

It was a long evening

 

If you are entitled to it. Then claim it. Again what do you think the tax system is for?

 

---------- Post added 11-05-2015 at 13:25 ----------

 

Not all benefits are judged as need. Take TV license or Bus passes.

 

My point was, this couple, took it upon themselves to find more benefits for people who were happily living on what they already received. The were unaware they could claim more at the time. This couple where not tasked to do so, but they saw it as a moral crusade to get as much for these people as they could.

 

Now I'm not saying they where totally wrong. What I am pointing out is how they could not understand the difference between entitlement and need.

 

Its not a moral issue. A government is democratically elected to decide how this money is distrivuted and under what system. Not you, not me.