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

when I went to school, we had one teacher and several students. As you age you are sometimes said to have returned to childhood. Beware the school teacher.Today on here, we have numerous teachers, that can't let go, and one reluctant, if not recalcitrant student.
If something's worth saying, well thats it in a nutshell, it's worth saying however said.
I suggest that looking in a dictionary would be more productive than checking out wickiwhatsit to see if someone has possibly plagiarised .Very few people are original, we are all influenced by our previous experiences and they inevitably have an effect on the things we do and say, that is how it should be.
Numerous would have to look up impenetrable, and as for prose, well it's a matter of semantics, and if you see it written or if it is heard The intonation, where the inflection is placed, has it been assumed that it is a slang word for something else,and do we end it with,as seems common now, the Australian interrogatory inflection.
"Is it me"? T Wogan ( I'm not expecting an answer)(Now how was that said)

Probably, elegran. I promise not to repeat myself.

Is it different people noticing the same impenetrable prose?

Haven't we done this one already?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

I meant amongst

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.

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.

Bad penny springs to mind LOL

Does it, why?

Divide and rule certainly works.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.