Possible £500 one off payment for low income families

Good point. I don’t think it will be just those on UC as Pension Credit has been mentioned as well, so hopefully ESA and Tax Credits would be considered?

In Scotland families with children under 6 were given £20 a week for each child when the UC was tampered with/taken off them .That will be changed in April to families with children up to 16 in receipt of benefits.Young people wont pay for dental work from April before they are 22 ,so students and young people on very low income and the free travel comes into effect next week with free bus passes for all up to 22 ,again gives low income youngsters a help AND saves the need for old bangers polluting the air.Bonus is it will keep the busses busy and local services have already made changes to the schedules in preperation for it.
On top of that the bedroom tax has been mitigated by the Scottish government since it was introduced
Before the SNP BAD group attacks,I know that everything isn't perfect here and a lot still needs doing BUT they have 300+ years of union rule to sort out and its going well .We like many many others pay a slightly higher rate of tax and its more than worth the benefits to those at the bottom of the pay scale .....Now ,please tell me again WHY you voted for uncaring crooked tories?

I know I keep saying it, but this sort of means-testing is never fair, in any sense of the word. There will always be people who are equally in need (of whatever is being means tested) who will miss out because they sit just outside of the qualifying criteria, so the act of lifting one group to one side of an arbitrary poverty line pushes another group in the other direction.

If a bill is £5 and the cut-off for help with it is £10, someone with £9 is given a fiver in aid, so still has her £9 when the bill is paid. Someone with £11 gets nothing, so is left with £6. It doesn’t matter whether the cut-off amount is based on income or savings - it is manifestly unfair. This sort of thing causes resentment against claimants (which plays into the government narrative of the undeserving poor) and traps the people with £11 in poverty - whatever they do (save, work longer hours, even get cash for their birthday) to try to improve their lot is futile, as they are deemed by others not to be in need by dint of having found that extra money, so they will stay bumping along the poverty line.

It’s not just bills, there are so many things that people one one side of a line get free that those on the other do not. Entrance to events, prescriptions, school meals and so on. It would be so much fairer if we all paid more tax but all got the same subsidies, whether someone with no idea of our individual circumstances deemed us ‘in need’ or not.

I hate the idea of means testing anyone, I wish I knew the answer. The cut off point means that those just over the limit are worse off as they cannot get all the benefits those that claim do. Thank goodness the rates of pay per hour has increased, but it’s difficult for such a lot of hard working people, how they get a home in the first place I don’t know.

@Doodledog, I totally agree with what you're saying except that in this instance, legacy benefits are no higher than UC benefits, in fact, the majority of UC claimants get more than legacy claimants, even if its only a tiny difference, but our ignorant government just think that the poorest in society are all on UC.

@Cabbie21, let's hope we are included this time, I'm sure I'm not the only person receiving a legacy benefit that's seeing the injustice of this.

Not everyone on UC is worse off than pensioners, and have the Government forgotten that David Cameron knocked £50 off the winter fuel allowance,the very first thing he did
I have never voted Tory and never would
I have to say that Boris has lied etc, but i wouldnt like the mess he has to sort out either
I hope when this idea about giving low income people £500 he includes pensioners
Not all pensioners are poor either, so i think the fairest way is means testing

The way I see it though, is that anything means-tested is equally likely to follow the same principle. Your situation is even worse, as you get less than those who are on UC, but if no means-testing existed everyone would get the payments, and they would be paid for out of progressive taxation.

Doodledog is absolutely correct about means testing being unfair. Years ago a relative of mine qualified for social security payments of £1 a week, the minimum payable, but that was a gateway benefit to so much else. Free prescriptions, council tax relief etc which added up to much more than the £52 a year original benefit. Someone not qualifying for that £1 a week would have been far worse off.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

There will always be people who are equally in need (of whatever is being means tested) who will miss out because they sit just outside of the qualifying criteria, so the act of lifting one group to one side of an arbitrary poverty line pushes another group in the other direction

There are pensioners who have been frugil and saved for a modest occupational pension who are in exactly this position. Being just above the level to qualify for any state benefit they have to pay through the nose for dental treatment, glasses, and some other benefits that those on pension credit get handed for free. As a result someone who saved to provide for their old age can actually find themselves in real material terms worse off than someone who never saved a penny.

Can you imagine how very angry and bitter people in this group feel? They feel like telling their grand kids dont bother to save because it will not do you ang good in the long term.

You're right biglouis.
It's the same with care home fees. Anyone that has savings of over £23,000 I think it is have to pay the full amount out of their savings. Under that they get some paid by the council.
I quite understand that some haven't had the opportunity to save for old age but then there's others who spend every penny they've got and don't care.

I am not angry or bitter. I know how lucky I have been to have been able to save into a private pension that, if I were on my own, would leave me with just too much to get pension credit. I also understand that other people were not lucky enough to be able to get the sort of job that would allow them to save.

I agree, biglouis.

Ilovecheese some of these things come down to luck, but not all of it. It isn't luck that makes two people on the same income spend it differently. The choice to save for the future or spend as you earn is just that - a choice. Yes, both people might be lucky to have that choice (although it might equally be that one person has worked more overtime or taken on more responsibility), but IMO the one who has saved shouldn't be penalised for having done so by having to pay for things that the spender gets free.

The fact that some can't afford to save is an important but separate issue, and should not be conflated with this one.

Doodledog

I know I keep saying it, but this sort of means-testing is never fair, in any sense of the word. There will always be people who are equally in need (of whatever is being means tested) who will miss out because they sit just outside of the qualifying criteria, so the act of lifting one group to one side of an arbitrary poverty line pushes another group in the other direction.

If a bill is £5 and the cut-off for help with it is £10, someone with £9 is given a fiver in aid, so still has her £9 when the bill is paid. Someone with £11 gets nothing, so is left with £6. It doesn’t matter whether the cut-off amount is based on income or savings - it is manifestly unfair. This sort of thing causes resentment against claimants (which plays into the government narrative of the undeserving poor) and traps the people with £11 in poverty - whatever they do (save, work longer hours, even get cash for their birthday) to try to improve their lot is futile, as they are deemed by others not to be in need by dint of having found that extra money, so they will stay bumping along the poverty line.

It’s not just bills, there are so many things that people one one side of a line get free that those on the other do not. Entrance to events, prescriptions, school meals and so on. It would be so much fairer if we all paid more tax but all got the same subsidies, whether someone with no idea of our individual circumstances deemed us ‘in need’ or not.

I agree with you. I am one of those people on the wrong side of the line. I have no savings and limited pension income and live alone

I am one of those people who are on the wrong side of the line. Single pensioner living alone and a few pounds over the pension credit limit to claim. No savings

Very true biglouis
A lady I know is a couple of years older than me, her husband has his own Company and they have lived in a Local Authority Home for all of their married life (40 years or so) they have plenty of expensive holidays, a new car (each) every 3 years and minimal savings, because they enjoy spending their money.
They are on a very nice, small housing estate where most homes are now Private.
She says that she doesn’t care about not having any savings, they have a very good life and when she is too old to live in her house the LA will take care of her in a nursing home and if her Pension isn’t enough to live on when her husband retires she will pick up money from the Government.
Fair enough they pay their taxes the same as the rest of us, but I do get cross sometimes.

Bring in means testing.

Bring in means testing.

It is means testing that makes it unfair, Oopsadaisy. That's the term for the system that only gives money to those without 'means' (as the system defines it) to pay for care, or council tax or whatever, and denies it to those who are deemed to have the means to pay.

biglouis
I agree.

There is no point in saving as you are ruled out of any help because you have some 'money'. Fortunately I have a small private pension otherwise I'd have nothing and will have to wait years for my state pension. There is no incentive to save at all.

The one thing I learned when my partner was made redundant in lockdown is that people are not "better off" in work.

It's just not true. Financially things are basically the same but when you factor in losing free prescriptions, especially if you have complex medical needs, travel costs too and from work or car maintenance and insurance... Well its simply not true.

I do not qualify for disability yet I have a long term illness and I still am forced to up my hours soon due to the rise in cost of living

Someone HAS to do the low paid jobs which are often long exhausting days and they are just not valued