Gransnet manifesto

My experience (late last year to the early part of this year) was an absolute eyeopener with regard to how little help we were entitled to, despite having paid full NI contributions and tax etc.

Some benefits/allowances seem to be paid with no regard to need. Child allowance is standard, so for example Samantha Cameron is entitled to the same amount as any other mother with the same number of children.
The winter fuel allowance is also paid regardless of circumstances.

But the 2 things that really made me mad was the nephew of a friend who hasn't worked since he was 19, he and his wife now have seven children, and seem to be doing very nicely thank you! What about capping this sort of benefit? Say if you have 2 children when you first start claiming, you can claim for 1 more but after that there is no increase for any extra children?

The other issues was the programme about whole coachloads of immigrants comig to the UK with the express intention of being housed and getting benefits. I remember one chap saying that if he recieved any less than £40k per year in benefits, he would go pick pocketing!

To be accurate, phoenix, I doubt that Sam Cam is getting child benefit as this has been withdrawn from higher income parents. I also doubt that any immigrant would get anything like £40K in benefits. I suspect that there are middle-men involved in transporting them across Europe for a substantial fee deceiving them with stories about what they can get for doing nothing.

Numerous politicians talk about "wealthy" pensioners but don't actually say what they would call a wealthy pensioner. Would the criteria for removing things like the WFA and bus passes be based on income or savings.

Leaving aside the cost of means testing these benefits, many of us have managed to save for our retirement and that money is now invested to produce an income, if the criteria is on savings rather than income then many would be forced to use their savings for living, therefore reducing their income, until such time as all savings are gone, meaning they would become eligible for more benefits and could in the long run cost the country more money than if the universal benefits were kept.

Incidentally, bus passes have to be applied for - I really don't see the likes of Alan Sugar or Mick Jagger applying for one and travelling by bus!

As phoenix has said Child Benefit should be restricted to 2 children, with our overcrowded island we really shouldn't be encouraging people to produce more children.

Stricter border controls need to be in place - because our health, education, housing and social services are at breaking point. We should do as many other countries do and use a "points" system, based on what skills someone could offer and whether they can support themselves during the first years after their arrival.

All my immediate family live in Australia but as a widow living on a pension I could not emigrate there unless I was able to post a substantial bond to ensure I would not be a drain on their resources, something I agree with and which I would like to see in UK

I think that the ruling on CB was very flawed, wasn't based on a total income, just what one person earned (I hope I've got this right!) something like if each person earned £50k (or whatever the figure was) the family qualified, but if one earned £60k and the other earned £20k they didn't.

(bear with me if I'm wrong, at home with a horrid virus and the brain isn't too good today!)

Also in the case I mentioned re my friends nephew, it wasn't just CB that I was referring to, for every additional child they had, their other benefits were increased too, I wonder if they would have had so many children were that not the case?

I have a sister in law by marriage who made an excellent living out of child rearing on benefits. I would think that their family income exceeded £40,000 a year and this idiot working full time used to buy her furniture eg bunk beds for the kids.She and her husband must now be feeling the pinch because they can now claim for only one child. Her husband thinks that a working day is 4 hours to give you an idea of the mindset!

Phoenix the Child Benefit rule is that if one parent/carer earns £50,000 then you get no CB. But if there are two earning £49,000 each they are still entitled. Totally unfair if the £50,000 is the only income. Total household income should be taken into account. Also those earning £50,000 are nowhere near rich as a large chunk of this is taken in 40% income tax.

Thanks Pittcity I knew there was some daft anomaly to it, but couldn't remember the actual figures, and I agree re the total income thing.

The health of the nation affects every single one of us - probably more so now we are 'getting on a bit'. I would support an additional 1p or 2p on tax IF the extra was guaranteed to go directly to the NHS.

Too much central government! Devolution of control of public services to regions and proper accountability through locally elected bodies. Sack all the police commissioners and go back to local bodies. Bring in local elected school boards to sort out the dog's breakfast Gove has left in terms of management and control. On the other hand, we could probably regionalise the emergency services, police, fire service, ambulance. Flat rate pension. Us 'rich' pensioners pay tax on other income which contributes both to our own pensions and those of pensioners who depend on the state pension. Go back to paying universities directly, relieve students of the perceived burden of fees and provide state loans for living costs. Encourage young people who don't want an academic career to take up apprentice and traineeship and encourage employers to provide more trainee places.

Properly fund the NHS, even if this means 1p more tax. Ensure everyone has access to a GP. Restrict the use of zero hours contracts. Introduce a living wage.

What would give me enough ticks in the boxes to tick the party box?
1. Separate benefits into Contributory benefits and None Contributory benefits.
2. Abolish child tax credits and child benefits and provide optional wrap around care, morning to night, in term time and in holidays, even at weekends if necessary, centred round the schools so that every parent can work, develop and provide for their children.
3. The devolution of power to the cities and the counties and a smaller UK Parliament.
4. The abolition of all universal pensioner benefits replaced by a living pension for all pensioners with a complete record of contributions recognising that, although a personal pension is a brilliant aim some people will never be able to contribute.
5. The alignment of the tax for those of working age and those of pension age including NI while ensuring the start level of NI is never below the minimum wage.
6. The increase of proper vocational training including more high level apprenticeships to give a proper choice between this and university.

Of course my thoughts may have changed by election time

Cari, what happened to the collective thoughts if members on the Politics 2 thread? If I remember correctly they were going to be collected and published. This sounds like a repeat.

Statutory Toilet Provision which would:
1. Encourage older people to go out and about
2. Encourage tourism
3. Encourage people to stay longer in towns and cities
4. Enable more public transport usage
5. Support the 24 hour economy
6. Reduce health problems due to 'holding on'
7. Reduce infections
8. Reduce worries when taking diuretic medications
9. Provide a place to cope with biological needs
10. Provide a space to cope with medical needs
11. Encourage good hygienic practices
12. Reduce incidence of fouling

As a result of which there would be a reduction in NHS costs and we would become a more inclusive society

Good post Lilygran - I agree with every word and the sad thing is, it sounds the way I remember life being at one time.

A realisation that more needs to be spent at grassroots level on the health, safety and wellbeing of the youngest members of our society and that all who work in government, whether at local or national level, look long and hard at their expenditure on themselves. Whether this be their personal expenses or on building and furnishing for themselves bigger and better offices - edifices of power - this is not acceptable by anyone in power. They must realise that they need to work for the interests of the people of all ages, especially the young, and not in their own interests.

goldengirl that is an excellent idea.

Better training for staff in care homes, especially where dementia is involved. In fact, compulsory in-depth training for dementia care. Friends are discovering that many staff haven't a clue. They were 'not in that week'.

I am going to be deaths head at these proceedings. All of us would like to improve provision for social care at every level and I am among them.

BUT we have a huge budget deficit, which is still growing and we cannot continue to spend money we have not got and are having to borrow from elsewhere to sustain the social contract. Sooner or later the debts must be paid. We castigate individuals who build up huge credit card bills to sustain a standard of living they cannot afford, but forget that what applies in the home applies to the state as well. If that sounds Thatcherite, I am unapologetic. I was not a Thatcherite in the past nor am I now but sound finance is the only way a secure and fair social contract can be delivered.

The only solution to the countries current problems is to increase taxation and/or reduce benefits. One of the first groups I would target is us, the retired. One of the reasons that groups like the Intergenerational Foundation and others have been so successful in blaming us for all societies ills is because they have ring fenced those on pensions from sharing in the pain and this has, rightly, caused resentment.

So I make the following proposal. All pension 'add-ons' should be abolished; free TV licences for over 75s, free bus passes, the fuel supplement, even free prescriptions, everything over the straight pension payment. To mitigate against the effect this would have on poorer pensioners I would raise the Pension Credit level by, probably, at least £20 a week. This sum should be enough to replace the value of the lost benefits for poorest pensioners and would ratchet up through those whose incomes are currently above benefit level, bringing into benefit many who now receive nothing extra.

This would decide the discussion about how to define 'rich' pensioners, you don't, it comes down to whether you qualify for benefit or not. What the initial saving would be I do not know but there would be an immense saving in administrating all those bells and whistles that would no longer need staff to process forms and run them.

I would modify but not abolish the 'bedroom' tax. I would apply it to those of pension age. Many older people who own their own home decide to downsize when they retire, not just to have an easier home to run but to match their incomes and I think this should apply to those in rented accommodation as well. However I would relax the rules for older people by allowing them a spare bedroom. I would abolish the 'bedroom' tax for anyone of working age settled in their home before they qualified for housing benefit but apply it if for any reason someone moved house after they qualified for help.

I would limit all child benefits to two children per family after a date at least a year ahead. I would not withdraw benefit from larger families now receiving it. As the children grew their entitlement to benefit would end but anyone having a third or further child after the date set would not get benefit. I would also look at disability benefits. I would abolish the disability premium on income support if you are receiving a disability payment, the disability payment should be increased to cover everything. I would also look at families, not many I know, where 3 or more members receive disability benefit, are there, sadly, economies of scale.

Council tax should be based on a percentage of house value based on the price a householder or landlord paid when they bought the property, with a revaluation after every 10 years the property remains in the same hands. This will end the problem of rateable values being based on decades old valuations and ensure that what is paid in council tax is in line with current prices. Those buying bigger houses will pay the same proportion of the value of their house in council tax as everybody else. If they cannot afford it they will need to buy a cheaper house.

I am not sure how much money this will save but two thirds of any savings should go to debt reduction and one third to increasing social welfare until such time as our current national debt is halved.

Have to go out so I have only skim-read what looks like a very interesting post, flickety. Will digest it later.

However, I would just say that the powers-that-be seem to have no intention of reining in their own expenditure on themselves - it is the rest of us, including our children, who have to be seen to be doing that.

We are NOT all in this together.

I would add that I mean politicians at all levels across the political spectrum, not just the government.

I agree, FlicketyB that we have to balance the budget. I have just heard someone say on Women's Hour that we have a finite amount which can be spent. This is only partly true. It is finite at any one moment but it can grow if more people are working and earning more. However, I do believe it is good to look at how we pay for each benefit while looking at costed borrowing for some capital projects.

FlicketyB : I think all parties are looking to get rid of the Pension Credit. All these credits are hugely expensive to administer.

In some ways my point 4 concurs with your fourth paragraph except I feel the increase (to offset taking the universal benefits) should be for all. I have offset this making all tax (point 5) equal for tax payers of working and state pension age including NI. It is my belief that rich pensioner are the same as rich working age people. There is no argument that I can see.

FlicketyB: Limiting the child benefit to two children does not solve the problem. People who cannot afford to care for their children should be working and providing for them, with help I agree, hence my suggestion of using the money from child tax credits and child benefit to be removed and the money used to provide wrap around care that any parent can choose to use to enable them to work and work full time if that is what they need to do.

Even with two children just two years apart a mother in a single adult household (and it usually is mothers) can choose to work the minimum number of part-time hours and claim Child Tax Credit for 18 years. This is the best decision many of these women can make in the short term. However, they end up not by setting an example of “we do whatever it takes to keep the family” but “if we play the system we will be OK”. They are unlikely to get a chance to train or aim for anything higher than the level of job they start with so the family will always remain vulnerably poor and the mother’s pension is likely to be very basic. She is very unlikely to be able to pay into or even have the opportunity of a private pension.

FlicketyB: I think your version of spare room subsidy is a really good one. It gets over the fact that many people moving into their council house all those years ago thought they had a home for life while recognising that staying in a big family house is not an option other people have as they get older.

I also like your thinking on disability payments. We need to get rid of as many tacked on bits as we can. I often think they must cost as much in administration as they do in helpful payments. Looking at the household income including these benefits will probably come in at some time in the future when they have made the Universal Benefit work with the benefits they have started to incorporate. (Always assuming it is made to work )

FlicketyB: I don’t agree on council tax I’m afraid. I think it should be a local income tax. I would get rid of stamp duty however, and charge a Capital Gains tax at the time of sale. This would mean the country would benefit from the rise in the value of houses and may even keep prices down a bit for everyone.

I like the idea of dividing any savings by a formula but I would make it one third one to benefits, one third on the debt and one third on capital projects. You cannot pay this to reduce the deficit as that is a proportion of debt to income but you can reduce the actual debt.

Very thoughtful post altogether.