I agree with taxation on earnings, but totally disapprove of means testing.
I think that when people have earned money and paid tax on it (and I would increase the rate at which earnings are taxed), then it should be up to the individual how to spend or save it, without penalty. It infuriates me that people of moderate means are penalised if they want to save for something, as they can lose some of their savings in lost allowances because of means testing, and their dreams keep moving out of their reach.
Why should deciding to save their own money count against some when others are able to claim because they have spent their money instead of saving it? The unfairness of some earning so much more than others is a bit of a separate argument, but in any case, could be dealt with by fairer taxation at source.
As ever, the rich don't have to worry, as they can afford things without the need to claim, and the poor will qualify anyway.
Pensions should (IMO) go to everyone who has contributed NI, and a means-tested allowance go to those who have chosen not to work. Those who were unable to work (eg because of looking after a sick partner, or because of their own illness, or unemployment etc) should get NI credits, but those who didn't work because their partner could afford to keep them should not.
These are the only circumstances in which I approve of means-testing, because as it stands, if you can't afford not to work you are (through your NI contributions) subsidising those who can afford not to (but get given NI credits), which is topsy turvy, surely?
Obviously, nobody should do without any means of support in the sixth richest country in the world, but IMO those who opt out of paying for a pension should not be able to get one at the same rate as those who have worked, and have paid both tax and NI all their lives. If they could afford not to work, they can afford to pay for a means of support in old age. The money saved could go to older people on the lower pension, or to bring UK pensions in line with those in the rest of the 'First World'.
I also object to the idea that whether someone 'needs' an allowance or benefit should be decided by someone else. Who knows what someone else needs or does not, and who defines 'need'? Again, if someone has paid tax and NI, then IMO they should not have to prove poverty in order to be granted the same allowances as others.
There is also, IMO, an argument for encouraging everyone to use public transport (when it is safe to do so!), and I would like to see a free transport system paid for out of ring-fenced taxation. Those who choose not to use it should still pay, in lieu of a pollution tax.
(Clearly, this is something I have thought about a lot )