What's so poisonous about means testing?
Discussion
It seems to be a given in political discourse that the threat to means test a benefit is greeted with something between scorn and disgust, to the extent that 'means testing' is a phrase government politicians try and avoid saying in those words.
Can anyone explain why?
It strikes me as utterly sensible that people who would be funding a benefit should not be in receipt of it. Especially as they would probably have to pay quite a premium for the state to administer taking their money and returning it to them.
The only rational argument against I can see is where the cost of means testing exceeds the saving the testing produces.
Can anyone explain why?
It strikes me as utterly sensible that people who would be funding a benefit should not be in receipt of it. Especially as they would probably have to pay quite a premium for the state to administer taking their money and returning it to them.
The only rational argument against I can see is where the cost of means testing exceeds the saving the testing produces.
I'm not so sure it's a conceptual opposition - but just that in practice, as you acknowledged, it adds significant administrative complexity to means-test, especially when the Revenue's computer system isn't really up to the job as soon as it has to cope with linked incomes.
Witness the current dispute about child benefit and the anomaly of a household of two earners of £40K receiving but one earning £43K losing it. It was only imposed that way because that makes it easy to check and to administer.
Witness the current dispute about child benefit and the anomaly of a household of two earners of £40K receiving but one earning £43K losing it. It was only imposed that way because that makes it easy to check and to administer.
Johnnytheboy said:
The only rational argument against I can see is where the cost of means testing exceeds the saving the testing produces.
And that's the only rational argument there is.Less rational ones include not wanting the gubbermint to know too much about people, as they will invariably misuse that information.
randlemarcus said:
And that's the only rational argument there is.
I'd add to that said tests have a tendency to not be 'regionalised' therefore cause disparity as different areas have different living costs.What's a fair 'means test' for someone in deepest dankest Glasgow, is probably not going to cut it in London, for example.
roachcoach said:
I'd add to that said tests have a tendency to not be 'regionalised' therefore cause disparity as different areas have different living costs.
What's a fair 'means test' for someone in deepest dankest Glasgow, is probably not going to cut it in London, for example.
Perfectly reasonable argument.What's a fair 'means test' for someone in deepest dankest Glasgow, is probably not going to cut it in London, for example.
But it shows how quickly you can go from a simple system with a clear line that's easy (read cheap) to enforce to a system that's actually quite complex and as people think the problem through and discover more and more ways that people could derive advantage (move to Glasgow is probably one of the more drastic ones) it becomes increasingly difficult to draw the line.
Essentially, I think means testing is probably a very, very hard problem.
Johnnytheboy said:
The only rational argument against I can see is where the cost of means testing exceeds the saving the testing produces.
This is the reason, and probably the only reason if you are a conservative. Things get a bit more complicated with the socialists 
Only this morning we hear of course that the "brainwave" to take child benefit off higher rate taxpayers has hit the news again. As is so often the case with "simple" ideas, the thought processes in the minds of those that thought them up in the first place are simple as well.
But just to take this example as a good f'rinstance. The moment you decide, as a government, that your "good idea" throws up too many anomolies and you need to amend that idea, means testing will create a new bureaucratic process that will quickly cost more than the savings you will potentially make.
rs1952 said:
This is the reason, and probably the only reason if you are a conservative. Things get a bit more complicated with the socialists
Only this morning we hear of course that the "brainwave" to take child benefit off higher rate taxpayers has hit the news again. As is so often the case with "simple" ideas, the thought processes in the minds of those that thought them up in the first place are simple as well.
But just to take this example as a good f'rinstance. The moment you decide, as a government, that your "good idea" throws up too many anomolies and you need to amend that idea, means testing will create a new bureaucratic process that will quickly cost more than the savings you will potentially make.
Means testing is flawed as a system. Wht do you count? How about capital items? Before WWII people claiming what little benefit there was had to sell things like a piano (my paternal grandmother), more blankets than you need, that sort of thing. Is that how far we should go? Or should income be considered? That's not means testing, just purely a line drawn in the sand. There are so many variations in that system.Only this morning we hear of course that the "brainwave" to take child benefit off higher rate taxpayers has hit the news again. As is so often the case with "simple" ideas, the thought processes in the minds of those that thought them up in the first place are simple as well.
But just to take this example as a good f'rinstance. The moment you decide, as a government, that your "good idea" throws up too many anomolies and you need to amend that idea, means testing will create a new bureaucratic process that will quickly cost more than the savings you will potentially make.
There is no fair way. If you opt for income then it will be just as unfair but will be cheaper.
Up to recent times child benefit has been an entitlement rather than an allowance, just like, for instance, education. You pay in for it with your taxes so get it back regardless of need. There are arguments for this.
So there is no simple answer. That is the problem.
Derek Smith said:
Means testing is flawed as a system. Wht do you count? How about capital items? Before WWII people claiming what little benefit there was had to sell things like a piano (my paternal grandmother), more blankets than you need, that sort of thing. Is that how far we should go? Or should income be considered? That's not means testing, just purely a line drawn in the sand. There are so many variations in that system.
There is no fair way. If you opt for income then it will be just as unfair but will be cheaper.
Up to recent times child benefit has been an entitlement rather than an allowance, just like, for instance, education. You pay in for it with your taxes so get it back regardless of need. There are arguments for this.
So there is no simple answer. That is the problem.
Why would counting income be unfair?There is no fair way. If you opt for income then it will be just as unfair but will be cheaper.
Up to recent times child benefit has been an entitlement rather than an allowance, just like, for instance, education. You pay in for it with your taxes so get it back regardless of need. There are arguments for this.
So there is no simple answer. That is the problem.
dibbers006 said:
I think I am of the same mind as you but there is some confusion in how it was put across. I was agreeing. If you test on income then layabouts and 40years working are equivalent which a ridiculous system.
I agree with the consensus that an enormous amount of data would have to be gathered and worked out which would in render the system unviable.
Layabouts are a problem that will occur irrespective of whatever system you try to concoct (apart from my bullet agenda...). Could you not legislate to stipulate that those with x years of income tax paid would not be included? I wouldnt be so quick as to disreguard it. Perhaps there is a way of means testing - the Govt does know an awful lot about most of us already.I agree with the consensus that an enormous amount of data would have to be gathered and worked out which would in render the system unviable.
We, in the UK, have a real problem with the seperation of political rhetoric and ideology and practical application of social policy. It's something that both America and Western Europe are far better at doing than us, because we have this post war romantacisation of political ideals, especially the welfare state, I think it's largely down to our ingrained calss system and strong cultural identity and cross fertilisation of politics, class and society.
The welfare state and NHS is, as conceived, essentially an state run insurance policy, it was designed to, and most sane people would consider it the function of, the welfare state to insure individuals against hard times and no fault bad luck events, it is why we do indeed pay a portion of our income tax to "National Insurance".
Unfotunately years of political manipulation seem to have removed out focus from this and the welfare state has somehow become synonimous with the insurance of the state against the actions of it's people, i.e it has become a system of protecting the system from the people it is supposed to serve.
France and germany are much more open about their health systems and how they're run, America is quite blatant about the choices individuals need to make and the responsibility that comes with that. Unfortunately the governing class in this country has tret us like children for so long and promised us what is essentially undeliverable whilst fleecing our cash in return.
So to answer the OP's question, means testing is a repugnant and statist lie that suggests that the middle class need to stump up more to protect the governing class from the people who it has failed. That's why.
The welfare state and NHS is, as conceived, essentially an state run insurance policy, it was designed to, and most sane people would consider it the function of, the welfare state to insure individuals against hard times and no fault bad luck events, it is why we do indeed pay a portion of our income tax to "National Insurance".
Unfotunately years of political manipulation seem to have removed out focus from this and the welfare state has somehow become synonimous with the insurance of the state against the actions of it's people, i.e it has become a system of protecting the system from the people it is supposed to serve.
France and germany are much more open about their health systems and how they're run, America is quite blatant about the choices individuals need to make and the responsibility that comes with that. Unfortunately the governing class in this country has tret us like children for so long and promised us what is essentially undeliverable whilst fleecing our cash in return.
So to answer the OP's question, means testing is a repugnant and statist lie that suggests that the middle class need to stump up more to protect the governing class from the people who it has failed. That's why.
randlemarcus said:
Johnnytheboy said:
The only rational argument against I can see is where the cost of means testing exceeds the saving the testing produces.
And that's the only rational argument there is.Less rational ones include not wanting the gubbermint to know too much about people, as they will invariably leave that information on the bus, train, in a park bin, or in full view of the paparazzi.
randlemarcus said:
Johnnytheboy said:
The only rational argument against I can see is where the cost of means testing exceeds the saving the testing produces.
And that's the only rational argument there is.Less rational ones include not wanting the gubbermint to know too much about people, as they will invariably misuse that information.
randlemarcus said:
Johnnytheboy said:
The only rational argument against I can see is where the cost of means testing exceeds the saving the testing produces.
And that's the only rational argument there is.Less rational ones include not wanting the gubbermint to know too much about people, as they will invariably misuse that information.
This of course applies just as much to tax in as it does to benefits and other spend out. Not only does the added complexity of things like means testing and graduated tax bands and allowances increase the direct cost of collecting and spending government funds, it also tends to decrease the amount collected and increase the amount spent.
Plus, as Tonker says, there's only so far the government can take the piss in terms of taking from the working and giving to the feckless.
mattnunn said:
The welfare state and NHS is, as conceived, essentially an state run insurance policy, it was designed to, and most sane people would consider it the function of, the welfare state to insure individuals against hard times and no fault bad luck events, it is why we do indeed pay a portion of our income tax to "National Insurance".
I'm not sure that is quite correct. The NHS was not designed as an insurance policy. It is like suggesting that London sewage system was an insurance policy. Both were designed to deal with medical need.Between the wars child mortality was at a very high level. Further, adult diseases were not being treated. On top of that, doctors were not being paid so there was not engough being trained. The idea of the NHS was to overcome the massive blockages in the system.
Further, after the war a lot of people, both men and women, wanted something better than the mass unemployment, something the previous generation had 'enjoyed' for 20 years, where they could not afford essentials. My father was not ever examined by a doctor until he joined the army. He had a number of brothers in the navy. They joined for regular food and benefits, one of which was doctors.
The design of the NHS was to ensure that treatment was free according to need. There was nothing 'insurance' about it. You got it whether you paid for it or not.
Between the wars and for some time after, amateurs dealt with medical situations like birth, fevers and such. As the NHS took over, child mortality dropped, plummeted in fact.
The NHS is far from perfect but it is much, much better than the system it replaced.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff