hi ian
i'll have a bite. : )
it remains to be seen what the government's position on means-testing is. it's been defended up to and including this week, but there are some new squawkings in light of the pensions report. it's at least being called means-testing again, after many years of euphemistic 'targeting'.
times and attitudes change, but the 'state-handout' stigma has never really gone-away. the right to _your_ pension, which you have earned and paid for over your working life, is regarding differently, by beneficiaries and by the law, than a means-tested benefit, to which you have to establish entitlement on an on-going basis, subject to on-going changes in the rules. overwhelmingly, people would prefer a pension which pays them enough to live on, with recourse to means-testing as a safety-net, not a norm. since we've never had it so good, this doesn't seem too much to expect.
what many think is really unfair, is that the value of the pension is allowed to erode, so that reliance on the state 'safety net' becomes a necessity for more and more pensioners. this is true of the contributory benefit scheme as a whole, which has been deliberately allowed to wither on the vine, particularly since 1979, but wasn't always the case.
the progressive S.E.R.P.E.S scheme was introduced with the switch from flat -rate to earnings related NI contributions in 1975, and we might now be seeing some really worthwhile state retirement pension rates, if only the current opposition hadn't decided to halve it in 1988, and further cutbacks since then. if there was a reduction in the NI rate at the Fowler reforms, it was too slight to reflect all the cuts introduced at that time. (and since - wot no rebate?) Mrs. Thatcher's project made sure that the workers lobby was much less powerful than the employers' lobby. heh! pensioners have been ripped off by the state scheme, and by their employers, and by the pensions industry. i don't know what happened to the 'minimum guarantee pension' but a lot of people believed that SERPES protected contracted out contributors, because to contract out, the Occupational Pension Board quango had to be satisfied that the occupational scheme would pay as much or more than SERPES. imo, on past history, added to increasing privatisation of state functions, the public would be fools to fall for 'compulsion' again, at least without cast-iron long term guarantees which governments and employers may not be willing to make. probably better to to save for our own retirement, in which case higher pay might be required. do i hear sobbing?
two main objections to means testing are the _oppressive_ level of state intrusion - and the administrative cost. the cheapest benefits to administer are universal benefits. i'm not sure the costs involved in administering means-tested benefits ever emerge in the accounts, but i'm certain the _true_ costs never emerge on paper. arguably the government could save hugely on introducing a non-contributory non-means-tested guarantee pension subject to overlapping benefit provisions with the contributory state pension. this would ensure that the money got to those with inadequate or no pension provision, and the targeting, to ensure that people with high incomes and capital did not needlessly benefit, could take place in the tax system, with a straightforward claw-back provision. not only would the grown men reduced to tears at the thought of completing another 50 page claim form like it, but the trees would benefit too!
it's possible that the younger generations, more accepting of providing copious amounts of personal information to get Boots cards etc, will have less objection to state intrusion and loss of privacy, but i suspect they will be less tolerant of being made to jump through hoops by a state that treats them with no respect whatsoever, and much more savvy as consumers about whether they are getting a fair deal. perhaps not - i'm often wrong about these things...
jj
|