Looks like they'll get rid of it for all over 75s apart from those on pension credit. Looking at the numbers, it looks fair enough 20% of their budget would have been going on this. I can't see how that's sustainable.
www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48583487
|
|
Reasonable enough. Age does not necessarily correlate to wealth or income and in any case it is up to the Goverment to fund benefits not the BBC.
|
>> Reasonable enough. Age does not necessarily correlate to wealth or income
>>and in any case it is up to the Goverment to fund benefits not the BBC.>>
I agree it is reasonable enough. I am fortunate that I can afford it.
I wonder why it was announced today?
A lot more older folks may vote against the Conservatives ?
|
>> >> I agree it is reasonable enough. I am fortunate that I can afford it.
>> I wonder why it was announced today?
>> A lot more older folks may vote against the Conservatives ?
>>
It is nothing to do with the government now. The decision was made by the BBC and has been criticised by May.
|
>> It is nothing to do with the government now. The decision was made by the
>> BBC and has been criticised by May.
>>
....of course it in't; as succinctly summed up by The Guardian.
The policy of free TV licences for the over-75s was introduced in 1999 by the then Labour chancellor, Gordon Brown, with the cost met by the government, which paid the BBC to provide the service.
However, in 2015 the Conservative government, guided by George Osborne, struck a deal under which the subsidy would be phased out by 2020, with the broadcaster having to shoulder the cost of free TV licences.
The government later gave the BBC responsibility for deciding what to do about the benefit, meaning any unpopular decisions on charging over-75s had to be made by the BBC rather than ministers.
|
A bit like the Tories selling off the English waterboards when there was many £billions of investment required?
Nothing like passing on the blame, eh.
|
|
I know I'm lucky enough to mix mostly with the more fortunate old timers (including those here) but when I see the amount of older people not working buying new expensive cars/going on pretty flash holidays and generally maintaining a fairly expensive lifestyle etc etc I agree that it is rather outdated to be giving many pensioners handouts.
|
Generally speaking, in recent years pensioners have been ringfenced from declining living standards and less affected than those in work.
Its an anachronism from when there were few over 75, few expected to make it, and those who did were chairbound with nowt else to do than watch TV and suck up liquidised mash from meals on wheels.
|
I was surprised at some of the stats on retired people's incomes.
According to the "This Money" money website the average perhead pretax income of retired people hit £20k in 2018.
Govt figures on taxpaying over 75's (Survey of Personal incomes) show mean gross incomes of £23.9k with a median of £18.1k.
Perhaps those people don't need free licences? Bus passes? Winter fuel?
However averages can mislead and at lower incomes Pension credit is only available to take you up to £167 per week or about £8k pa. For those people the licence fee is close to a week's income so I am pleased that they would be exempt.
That still leaves a swathe of people above that low income level who will be hit if free licences are withdrawn.
So there is a problem in universal entitlement given across such a varied population where those at the bottom may be in dire need while others appear comfortable. I am not sure how to square the circle unless there is some form of means testing, which has a chequered history, or taxation of currently tax-free benefits?
Last edited by: martin aston on Tue 11 Jun 19 at 09:45
|
>> Govt figures on taxpaying over 75's (Survey of Personal incomes) show mean gross incomes of
>> £23.9k with a median of £18.1k.
Do I misunderstand the meaning of 'mean' and 'median'?
Mean is average. Total all the values and divide by the number of values?
Median is the halfway between top value and bottom value?
I don't believe that no pensioner had a greater income than £36k. Assuming that some pensioners had no income.
www.purplemath.com/modules/meanmode.htm
Can we have licence, please?
Last edited by: Duncan on Tue 11 Jun 19 at 09:58
|
|
Median is not half way between top and bottom figures but the point where there are as many examples above that figure as there are below it.
|
|
Thanks, CG, that's an easily remembered simple explanation for something I always forget. Hermes Trismegistus would have been proud too.
|
>> So there is a problem in universal entitlement given across such a varied population where
>> those at the bottom may be in dire need while others appear comfortable. I am
>> not sure how to square the circle unless there is some form of means testing,
Means testing should be mandatory. For all benefits. Far too many get stuff they dont need, and far too many dont who should. Universal benefits are unaffordable.
>> which has a chequered history,
There are far too many old wives tales from pre Bevin days that are trotted out to this day. Means testing should be able to be implemented in a fair, confidential and unintrusive manner. Unless you are off the grid, everyones financial and personal details are easily gathered.
|
>> There are far too many old wives tales from pre Bevin days that are trotted
>> out to this day. Means testing should be able to be implemented in a fair,
>> confidential and unintrusive manner. Unless you are off the grid, everyones financial and personal details
>> are easily gathered.
There are plenty of traps in means testing as it's applied today. If anybody can devise a means test which is fair, not perceived as intrusive by those subject to it and is simple to administer they could probably make a fortune as a consultant to HNG.
The final sentence about details being easily gathered is, while theoretically possibly utter nonsense if you try and do it. Even something as simple as monthly income can be a nightmare to establish.
|
You could pay for 11,500 licenses with Gary Linacre's salary.
Two birds with one stone!
8o)
|
>> You could pay for 11,500 licenses with Gary Linacre's salary.
>> Two birds with one stone!
There are currently 4.46 million licence holders over 75 so that's only another 4,448,500 to find :-)
|
>> There are plenty of traps in means testing as it's applied today. If anybody can
>> devise a means test which is fair, not perceived as intrusive by those subject to
>> it and is simple to administer they could probably make a fortune as a consultant
>> to HNG.
>>
But at the end of the day it is the ONLY way to affordably get benefit to those who need it. Suck it up or lose it.
|
I do means tests and I don't like it. It is uncomfortable, intrusive, often felt to be demeaning and shameful. But Zero has a point, how the hell else do you get the money to the right people.
It is intrusive. I am asking people every detail of their income, and then I am asking every detail of how they spend it. I don't want to know, and they don't want to tell me.
Bearing in mind that they are only speaking to me because they are in need, and that's not somewhere they're happy to be in the first place.
Ultimately all one can do is carry them out with as much sensitivity and respect possible. Which I think I do. But then, I only do 15 or so a year and largely with decent people who have fallen upon hard times. Can you imagine working for the DSS and doing 15 a day many of them with people out to fool you. Too easy too become too jaded too quickly.
But resources are ultimately limited, the world is full of chancers, so what is the alternative? I wish there was one.
Even then means tests are flawed and can easily be corrupted, even if only by circumstance. They favour the reckless.
They are considerably more difficult than one might believe. Especially difficult to make fair and consistent.
>>Means testing should be able to be implemented in a fair, confidential and unintrusive manner
I know of no way to make it unintrusive.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 11 Jun 19 at 13:54
|
>> But at the end of the day it is the ONLY way to affordably get
>> benefit to those who need it. Suck it up or lose it.
I don't accept your premise; in some cases Universality is simplest and cheapest way to spread benefits. Child Benefit is one example though the government has cut this off for the most well off by a reverse means test where parents lose it if they pay higher rate tax. While having the advantage of simplicity though it creates a gross unfairness where family with two parents bot on £40k get CB while £60k earner with other parent on £20k does not.
The winter fuel allowance could relatively easily be clawed back from those over pension age who pay income tax or pay more than a certain amount in income tax. I pay over £2k income tax on my CS pension and 20% of everything I earn at CA. Simply adjust the tax code downwards to increase take by amount equivalent to WFA. Not actually old enough yet to get State Pension/WFA but you can see the principle.
Means tests do NOTHING to help those unaware of their entitlements or those too proud to claim. I reckon I used to find about 1 person a week missing out on a means tested addition when I was doing general benefit checks. Occasionally identified gains running to thousands.
Even on Universal Credit there are few gainers and winners.
|
Very naive.
>>Means tests do NOTHING to help those unaware of their entitlements or those too proud to claim.
True, but neither does much else.
How do you stop those who should not receive money getting it? And if it became known that checks were not made, those funding it would rebel against it.
Resources are not infinite. Wasting it on those who do not need it or should not have it simply deprives those that should.
And don't forget, all taxation and welfare is used as a [complex] political popularity tool. There have been those in the past who have not done at all well by forgetting that.
|
>> Very naive.
I was responding to Zero's assertion (his post at 10:41) which suggests means testing would help those missing out on entitlements when clearly it will not.
Universality works well for things payable at a fixed rate like Child Benefit, particularly if, should government choose to limit it, they can effectively reclaim it through the tax system. Same goes for Winter Fuel Addition.
I of course recognise that for some benefits covering variables like living and housing costs a means test is both a necessity and an integral part of assessing needs. But equally a means test that fairly covers most of the variables in lives of 90% of the population can quickly become impenetrably complex for 20%.
It's dealing with that 20% that currently pays my wages.....
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 11 Jun 19 at 19:27
|
>>I was responding to Zero's assertion (his post at 10:41) which suggests means testing would help those missing out on entitlements when clearly it will not.
Sorry, I missed that link. You're quite correct of course. In fact, often means testing is so intimidating that people avoid it.
The input data for a means test is fairly easily defined and determined, though an unpleasant task. Then translating that yo how much money somebody should receive is difficult. And certainly impossible to set standard rules for.
But we don't trust or accept people's subjective judgement any more.
|
"Same goes for Winter Fuel Addition."
If we get rid of the Winter Fuel Addition, there'll be far fewer over 75s by next spring. Then a referendum would go my way.
Last edited by: BiggerBadderDave on Tue 11 Jun 19 at 21:15
|
>> >> Very naive.
>>
>> I was responding to Zero's assertion (his post at 10:41) which suggests means testing would
>> help those missing out on entitlements when clearly it will not.
Clearly it will, because if its spread too thin no-one will be getting what they need. What the title of this thread? Clearly its a ridiculous benefit by anyones standards.
>>
>> Universality works well for things payable at a fixed rate like Child Benefit, particularly if,
>> should government choose to limit it, they can effectively reclaim it through the tax system.
>> Same goes for Winter Fuel Addition.
Yes of course, pay it out, take it back, soo sooo efficient.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 11 Jun 19 at 23:25
|
>> Clearly it will, because if its spread too thin no-one will be getting what they
>> need. What the title of this thread? Clearly its a ridiculous benefit by anyones standards.
If you believe means testing would result in more for the deserving then you're astonishingly naive.
>> Yes of course, pay it out, take it back, soo sooo efficient.
Payment to all and recovery from the small cohort (eg Child Benefit from HR tax payers) by an automated process is, in cash terms, pretty efficient. The means test thus applied is however rough and ready and has unfairness baked in; different families with same income have different outcomes depending on whether one or both parents work.
A 'fairer' means test quickly becomes complex (because people's lives and circumstances are complex) and therefore expensive to administer. Universal Credit is supposed to represent a simplification of the complexity of 'legacy' benefits. Nobody, bar those few who lose out, will mourn the passing of Tax Credits and the routine impenetrable overpayments. There is though still a lot of detail in UC for those in employment but on low pay with work allowances, child additions, child care, income tapers, differing treatment of earned and unearned income etc. The 'simplification' achieved by removing premiums for severe disability has had to be put in reverse. I predict the same for mixed age couples.
|
>>
>> So there is a problem in universal entitlement given across such a varied population where
>> those at the bottom may be in dire need while others appear comfortable. I am
>> not sure how to square the circle unless there is some form of means testing,
>> which has a chequered history, or taxation of currently tax-free benefits?
Pension credits open the door to other benefits. Many will also receive housing benefit, so it doesn't follow that those on pension benefit are surviving on £167 per week.
The BBC has sensibly disconnected itself from managing the cut-off point by linking it to pension credit. It's still wrong that the BBC should be managing welfare distribution but at least they have aligned it with a government-determined support level
The government/Mrs May has no business criticizing the decision when it handed it off to the BBC in the first place.
|
>> Pension credits open the door to other benefits. Many will also receive housing benefit, so
>> it doesn't follow that those on pension benefit are surviving on £167 per week.
Pension credit this year is £167.25. There are additions for those pensioners who are Carers (eg for their husband) and for those who live alone, get Attendance Allowance and where nobody else is getting Carer's Allowance.
And just to illustrate why means testing isn't as simple as Zero thinks pensioners in private rentals, say an ex LA house now 'buy to let' are still subject to same rent ceilings as those on working age benefits. If they get a couple of quid over Pension Credit limit they still get Housing benefit but their rent is above the ceilinglimit they will have to make up difference. They will have less to live on than a neighbour in Council property who gets Pension Credit but have to pay for their TV licence.
Then there are mixed age couples who have to stay on Working Age Benefits until the younger one reaches pension age.
|
>> It is nothing to do with the government now. The decision was made by the
>> BBC and has been criticised by May.
So the government should not now be whinging at the BBC.
In the circs, the BBC solution is a reasonable one.
|
The Government might be in for a shock!
Apparently millions of Pensioners on the breadline do not claim Pension Credit.
The loss of the free BBC Licence might just prompt some of the millions to register for Pension Credit - this saves them the £3.00 per week cost of the BBC Licence & might give them an extra £30.00 per week in their pocket - a total benefit of £1700+ or so & a Bill of £1600 for HM Government .
Say there are 3 million Pensioners not claiming £1600 - lets assume 10% now apply that's £480m
If 20% apply it would be in the order of £1Bn.
|
>> In the circs, the BBC solution is a reasonable one.
This says it all.
i.ibb.co/44RYbcG/62494182-10156574385960863-6146863963180105728-n.jpg
|
>> >> In the circs, the BBC solution is a reasonable one.
>>
>> This says it all.
>>
>> i.ibb.co/44RYbcG/62494182-10156574385960863-6146863963180105728-n.jpg
>>
I doubt of the millions of pensioners affected by this there will be that many that fought in WW2. A few thousand?
|
Invoking the War is now compulsory in every national debate. May we should change the name of the UK to Unclealbertland
|
>>I doubt of the millions of pensioners affected by this there will be that many that fought in WW2. A few thousand?
If you were WWII Vet the youngest you'd be is 88 or something like that.
in 2016 there were 1.5m people over the age of 85. So that'd be the age eligible ones.
So, how many people who were of an age to serve actually did?
2.9 Million Brits served in WWII at a time when the population of the UK was 48million. An obviously flawed but easy statistic would be 5%
So if 5% of those still living actually served that'd be 75,000 people. It's a number, probably a little low. A lot more than none though. Don't forget it'd drop when considering households rather than individuals.
However, what about this assumption that if someone served in WWII then they are now little, shabby and poor and shambling along the high street struggling to make ends meet?
The free TV licence made no financial sense other than as a crowd pleaser. If the Government thought it important they should have kept funding it. If you think it is important you should berate the Government for stopping the subsidy.
Why the BBC should have to pay for it is beyond me.
|
>> If you were WWII Vet the youngest you'd be is 88 or something like that.
Somebody who was 16 in 1945 would have been born in 1929 so I reckon min for vets, excluding those who lied about there age, is 90. In practice anyone who saw active service will, I think, be well into their nineties. My Mother who was born in 1926 had several older male contemporaries (ie those in same village or school) who served, at least one was killed. I don't remember her mentioning anyone younger being in the Forces.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 12 Jun 19 at 12:35
|
Same theme but slightly off topic, I made the same calculation when I saw the Chelsea Pensioner sing on BGT, the judges were going on about how we owed so much to him for his war service, I'm sure he looked much younger than early nineties.
Seems to be a way too common throw away line used by many.
|
>> >>I doubt So if 5% of those still living actually served that'd be 75,000 people. It's a
>> number, probably a little low. A lot more than none though. Don't forget it'd drop
>> when considering households rather than individuals.
>>
So, a bit more fag packet maths, around 1% of those affected will probably have fought in ww2.
>> Why the BBC should have to pay for it is beyond me.
I guess if your in government its probably a good idea if only for political reasons. I'd agree with the others if it's important to the government as a benefit pony up if not admit it's not important.
|
|
I have a close relative who served in WW2 and despite that he's worth a bob or two :-)
|
>> This says it all.
>>
>> i.ibb.co/44RYbcG/62494182-10156574385960863-6146863963180105728-n.jpg
>>
No, this says it all:
This week the Tory Party are attacking the BBC for withdrawing free TV licences for pensioners after they, as the Government, decided to withdraw an approximately £500M p.a. subsidy.
Next week the Tory Party, under Boris, will be handing tax cuts worth £10Bn p.a. to the wealthy.
It's easy to see where the real priorities lie ;-).
|
|
Kind of depressing that the general public is sufficiently dumb for the Conservative tactics to be effective.
|
|
I thought we'd already established that one :-)
|
|
It has often been said that it was the older generation that swung the referendum towards a leave vote, hence the Bremainiacally-biased Broadcasting Corporation has hit back at said ‘oldies’. Despite their extensive coverage of the D-day commemorations, the Beeb seems to have overlooked the fact that those oldies are from a generation that thwarted the last, rather less-subtle attempt at a grand European unification project.
|
The govt shifted responsibility for over-75s rebate to the BBC and didn't fund it.
No surprise this piece of vote-grubbing nonsense was subsequently dumped in 'pass-the-blame' manner.
Considering even an 85 year old is too young to have fought in WW2 the crap about defending us from the Nazis is worthy of Breitbart for veracity.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sat 15 Jun 19 at 09:33
|
>> It has often been said that it was the older generation that swung the referendum
>> towards a leave vote, hence the Bremainiacally-biased Broadcasting Corporation has hit back at said ‘oldies’.
>> Despite their extensive coverage of the D-day commemorations, the Beeb seems to have overlooked the
>> fact that those oldies are from a generation that thwarted the last, rather less-subtle attempt
>> at a grand European unification project.
Amongst we fanatical 'Remoaners' the Beeb is known as the Brexit Broadcasting Corporation so it's probably getting the coverage about right.
The idea that the BBC is out to punish oldies is beyond ridicule.
The facts of how this was engineered on Osborne's watch are fully described by TnE and others in this very thread.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 15 Jun 19 at 09:37
|
"Amongst we fanatical 'Remoaners' the Beeb is known as the Brexit Broadcasting Corporation so it's probably getting the coverage about right."
Now it's your turn to extricate the micturate.
|
|
Brexiteers never really seem to grasp reality and the real world, and anything that tries to explain it is a thwartish plot
|
"Brexiteers never really seem to grasp reality and the real world,"
One of my biggest fears about being sucked into the ever-more powerful EU vortex was that our politicians would become as useless and vestigial as my ability to wiggle my ears. Are you going to tell me that my fears were unfounded, based on recent evidence?
|
|
The utter impotence of parliament isn't going to improve post Brexit.
|
|
If like to see your evidence, real evidence where you think we were being governed by Europe, but hey well done you have replaced the EU with Boris. Now that must be a bad deal
|
HW - I guess you never listen to Humphreys on R4 Today?
Last edited by: Rudedog on Sat 15 Jun 19 at 22:05
|
"HW - I guess you never listen to Humphreys on R4 Today?"
I assume that you are referring to John Humphrys, the failed organic carrot grower? About 16 or 17 years ago, I was bowling down the A14 listening to R4 Today when Humphrys was cooing sympathetically about the the actions of a bunch of eco-loons who had been rolling around in trial plots of GM oilseed rape. Likeminded listeners were ringing in with their own unscientific contributions. Humphreys was loving this ..... until a geneticist from the company responsible rang in and put him straight on the matter; Humphreys shut up and moved rapidly on.
I tuned to R3, and haven't listened to Humphrys or Today since.
|
BBC free license for over 75s - CGNorwich
