Means Testing

There is a general assumption that all services and benefits should be provided equally to all residents irrespective of income and assets. Is this a sustainable situation?

If there is a real need to save money to balance the books limiting benefits to being a "safety net", as originally intended by the welfare state, should be investigated.

Personally I would have no objection to paying for health services and not drawing a State Pension. I would much prefer that others who have genuine (important word) needs are properly looked after than spreading the benefits more thinly to cover the likes of me.

We have a low tax economy and expect 'Finland' style universal benefits. It does not add up. If  those on higher incomes and higher pensions want universal benefits then let's introduce a taxation system that makes this affordable.

Why the contribution is important

Reduced costs, personal choice, using money wisely.

by dpfellows on April 06, 2017 at 04:20PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 4.8
Based on: 5 votes


  • Posted by Joe1000 April 07, 2017 at 10:09

    Everyone is entitled to the state pension if they have paid in, the fact that they have an additional pension from their employment is for their retirement as well. It does not mean you can look at their total income and say-you dont need the state pension. I paid a lot of money into a company pension scheme, which was money i could have used during hard times.
    I dont object to a rise in income tax but i do expect to get my state pension which i paid into over 40 years contributions, only 1 year out of work so i have paid my share.
  • Posted by George April 10, 2017 at 14:13

    I agree, there should be a rise in income tax for the wealthier to pay for these universal services.

    UK has tax tiered based on income, I don't understand why ours is capped at 20%.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas

Idea topics