For Newsnight: should we end universal benefits for better off pensioners?

Yes but the point is as far as I am concerned is that universal benefits mean exactly that - we all pay in according to ability and in my book we all get paid out . I think that if we all want to keep to all for everyone system though we will all have to bite the bullet and pay more according to ability -I've missed the point of the thread I think - I will stop now!

Amazingly we have got back to the main point of the thread. How did that happen?

Ah! Now we are "cooking with gas". Hope you will have time to do the brasses,operating numerous search engines can be very time consuming.Nevertheless,less than an interest in all, is a betrayal of intellect, (just a passing look will do)
No need for those little electronic games to get your mind going, we seem to have developed an alternative, granted some wish to expose us/me, to the gamut of their emotions in the process.
My granddaughter had a cat she called Schrodinger, mainly because he was nowhere when wanted,and everywhere when not required, but he is definitely dead now.
The point reached now,admitting that the subject hardly ever crops up, is that, ignoring incitement to disaffection , we are getting some interesting (other) subjects mooted.Emotive words have been shown, because they are less technical,to be less accurate.
A little syllogism ,a lot of denigration, but a start.Nothing that erodes the rules of good taste can be moral, whatever name we give it.Anyone who purports to be more moral than others is a majority of one.
Defining benefits is a minefield, the inevitable "cut off" point causes more trouble than enough. Hopefully you will not need a benefit (other than a non-means tested universal one) Pity the one who has a penny more than the demarcation amount, and as a result is poorer by pounds than the person with initially, a penny less.

I think universal benefits should mean just that. We have all paid for these benefits via taxes and national insurance. If the government started to differentiate then this would cost a fortune and probably decrease the amount of money available to pay these benefits.

I still think that the bar would have to be set so high that no one who 'lost out' on the benefits in question would actually feel much, if any, financial pain. I agree, though, that it would probably cost more to implement than would be saved in the long run.

Well it seems to me that if the government want to stop the idea of universal benefits than we should vote on it. I don't think it should be their decision - it isn't their system to decide on it is ours! It should be in their manifesto before the vote not after.

My post was 'tongue in cheek' Elegran (if that is possible when posting on a thread ) and a feeble attempt to bring the thread back to the original topic. It worked - for a while!!

We are lucky that we have good private pensions but these were gained by my husband studying hard, training hard, working hard and earning a good income. As he had a good income, he paid more into the state coffers than the average person, which is only fair. Because we have good pensions we are unlikely to need top up benefits, eg Pension Credit or its successor, but should we not be eligible to some of the things available to other pensioners?

Although he is 68 tomorrow, my husband still works part time and contributes!

It is all a very sensitive subject. I'm not at all for communism as such, but the basic original tenet -"from each according to his means, to each according to his need" - ought to lead to a fair society. I only say "ought to" because human nature can always deflect fairness, whether by grabbing more than is needed, or holding back on their means.

That sounds like a sound idea Elgran but as you say not likely to happen since even the richest people seem hell bent on getting richer yet, often with no concern for those who are struggling to find enough money for the basics.

Kittylester my husband also gets a good pension after studying and working hard all his life. However, in some ways we feel he has been fortunate in being able to do this. Many people today would love to be able to work hard at a secure job and then reap the benefitsin retirement but the opportunities are not there like they used to be in times of full employment.

As for 'universal benefits' I realise I don't actually know exactly what these are. Obviously state pensions, free prescriptions, eye tests and so on.
But free bus passes? Surely fairly recently introduced? And winter fuel allowance similarly.

Finally, this principle often quoted of 'I paid in therefore I should be able to draw out what is owing to me' well what do we do about people who have not paid in (children, disabled, those unable to find work)? Logically speaking, they wouldn't be entitled to anything.

Surely if we all got the same pension/ benefit the tax system would take more tax from those with more income and be fairer than a defined cut off point. Many of us here will be paying tax so it may well be a Peter and Paul situation but perhaps generally seen as fairer.

My point petallus was that we won't be able to claim the extra income that less well off, or more unfortunate people, will require but there is no reason why we shouldn't have some of the 'freebies'. I certainly wasn't suggesting that we should be able to draw out what is owing to us - a fair society supports those who cannot support themselves.

One of the silliest universal freebies is free prescriptions where the annual payment is quite low and provides any number of prescriptions per year. Universal free eye tests are just ridiculous too for the low cost every two years, unless of course there is an underlying health problem. Surely they should only be available to people on certain benefits as is free dental treatment for pensioners? (sorry, hobby horse time!!)

You might gather from all the above that I have no idea what the way forward might be

One reason for having at least some universal benefits is that the majority of people do pay into the 'system'.
It's only fair that everyone should get something back.
If all the contributions are channelled into what the Government refers to as people from 'poorer backgrounds' then resentment will gradually build up which will be divisive. There is already resentment among working people who see people on benefits with apparently higher disposable incomes than themselves.

I don't think the state pension falls under the classification of universal benefits. Surely that's a separate matter.

Divide and rule certainly works.

Does it, why?

Bad penny springs to mind LOL

Divide and conquer works because people react impulsively without considering all the motives of whoever they are reacting to. Think twice, post once, like the carpenter's advice to measure twice and cut once.

Quite often, not posting at all is the right answer, particularly when it is clearly a "Have you stopped beating your wife" type question - damned if you say yes, damned if you say no.

Deserving in answer to your question when I said divide and rule certainly works I was thinking of our Government rather than Gransnet.

For instance, if I was a member of the ruling classes and was concerned about the working class becoming a strongly united and powerful force, I would try to create discord amonst them. I would demonise unions who went on strike, tell one poorish group I was thinking of cutting their benefits so I could spend it on another poorish group, justify cutting housing benefit by saying it wasn't fair to those struggling to pay their mortgage if others got housing for free. And so on.

i'm sure there are other examples I could think of but I'm off for a swim with the grandson.

I meant amongst

I thought you were thinking of the government petallus, your posts never lack benevolence, I was just wanting a little more "meat". It is hard for even diplomacy to overcome prejudice, and often what is attributed to me, is a reflection of "themselves".
What you suggest you would do is in fact what is being done.Attempting to manipulate public opinion, (astroturfing).It has some success as is demonstrated by the disputes on universal benefits that have arisen here.
We have benefited from something, probably for vote catching purposes,that is costly and may be questioned by the next government. Who cares? Not the ones that introduced the benefit, they were well thought of , the onus falls on the next government who SAY they cannot afford it, and attempt to astroturf, to change the opinion of even those who get the benefit, in an attempt to reduce it, yet still get votes.This is where your divide and rule comes in I suspect, we have the magnanimous, who are themselves, desirous of certain benefits, but not all, willing to concede some to the detriment of those that need them all.
I appreciate that they have no malice in their suggestions, but they show a division that can be manipulated by the government, who given their head, would set up a department to operate a new system probably involving a "means test", that many deserving would avoid,and so lose their entitlement,and would result in the overall costs being considerably more than paying the benefit universally in the first place.
I have emphasised say because it is apparent that this is a lie. We have more than enough were we not to give money to countries that are more wealthy than ourselves, and to fund illegal wars, and as you say, "i'm sure there are other examples i could think of but" and here I divert, I'm going for a walk.

If 'universal benefits' are taken away from 'better off pensioners' even more younger people will see no reason to pay into pension schemes. Already so many of them think it is not worth it as they will be kept in their old age regardless. Surely we should be showing them that saving is a good thing?

Did anyone else notice that paying for caring in old age cropped up again this week? Why is that?

deserving

I wish you would put your point over in plain English. I might agree with you but I have to keep reading over and over what you write. We are not all smart asses, although some think they are. I am not out to offend I genuinely struggle with your comments and I like a good debate.

I might not be clever but I do have my own thoughts and I think 'divide and rule' does apply to a lot of things, dare I say it I have thought it even happens one here by some. There is also the case that it is not 'divide and rule' but simply people having their own thoughts and should be accepted.

Oh dear now I have just talked a load of old rubbish I think.

I don"t think you have POGS , as I said on the sitting thread, whats with the flowery prose ?

No, POGS, you're not the one talking rubbish. Impenetrable prose is not good prose. I would love to refer deserving to the campaign for plain English. Sorry, deserving, but if something's worth saying, it's worth saying clearly.

Haven't we done this one already?