Not all benefits are means tested, maybe they should be but at what level would the trigger point be. Also it surely couldn't be a precipice point where one extra pound loses you the whole 'benefit'. It would have to be a sliding scale. I really wouldn't be against it if it was to affect only the 'very rich' because quite frankly they likely couldn't care less. The way taxation works in the UK puts the vast majority of the load on the middle classes (means testing the state pension would make this worse). The much better off can employ tax accountants to avoid tax which, whilst arguably immoral, is perfectly legal. Furthermore if you squeeze the very rich too much they just move themselves and their money offshore. At the other end of the scale, those who pay no tax I have no problem with channelling funds their way if the need is genuine i.e. low income families or those who CANNOT work. Those who simply won't work, and openly boast that they are better off on benefits need sorting out but it seems that the tail wags the dog in the Labour party and the backbenchers won't countenance this. To be clear the previous Tory shambolic government failed also in this regard.
So how can you justify means testing which will almost wholly affect the middle classes, the working classes, those who contribute most imo to society. I repeat my previous post. Why should a person lose this 'benefit' if they have worked hard, saved for their retirement and not been profligate with their money over a lifetime in work. As I said before another party could have blown the lot on fast cars, fast women, luxurious holidays, smoking, drinking etc. etc. despite over the same lifetime earning and spending perhaps double the case of the first party, squandering the lot. If the latter party was to get the state pension 'benefit' and the former not then it would make a mockery of the system of means testing. This is the main reason that means testing is immoral, unjust and unlikely, hopefully, to be implemented.





Reply With Quote