The problem with the benefit system

Unsustainably so.

The solution to tax the bejesus out of working folk doesn’t necessarily solve the problem either, as plenty of people have pointed out, cozzy lives means saving for a pension is not straightforward, so eating into the already stricken disposable income is probably not that helpful.

🤣🤣🤣

He might have, but that's irrelevant to the current pension setup being sustainable. Neither do comparisons with other countries explain why pensioners should be protected from any spending cuts when all others who receive benefits are not. Stop fixating on Rick.

I really don't think cutting the state pension amount is helpful if it is already low.

If we are on about fixations, why the fixation about the pension? It is 11% of spending. What is your target proportion?

They're teasing some changes to the single parent 50k income child benefit cliff edge.

There is a difference, one group has to work to qualify for the full amount where the other group must not work to qualify for the full amount. Not the fault of either recipients.

It bothers me that all UC recipients are painted scroungers and layabouts, as much as it bothers me that all people born between 1946 and 1964 are painted as affluent, lucky layabouts.

I'll confess to being lucky. I'm not affluent and don't layabout very much. More active now than when I worked.

Do spell out why all those millionaires need to be given an extra £11k every year

Here's some sensible people talking to each other.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/business-school/ib-knowledge/finance/boomers-versus-millennials-new-perspective-generational-wealth-the-uk/

It does support it, perhaps not as starkly. You might want to look at some of the source research as well.

Thing is, your solutions are wrong. So is the general presumption that you are due the same as the boomers. You aren't. Nether am I. It's tough shit, sorry.

Best you can do is move the dial a little bit on a number of things, but drastically moving one of them is going to create manifest unfairness.

For example, if 1 in 5 boomers are millionaires, 4 in 5 aren't. So, means test the pension, you say.

How much would that cost to administer and how much would it save? And would you be means testing by wealth, or income? If it's income, cost would not be worthwhile based on what it would save. If it is wealth, how do you assess that? Government estate agents? Or just wild guesses based on coarse approximations? Council tax bands perhaps? And do you judge it fair to force elderly people to sell or mortgage their homes? Would it be fair to create that new industry to line the pockets of the lenders? Wouldn't that effectively transfer mass ownership of property to corporations?

So how about stop with this simplistic shit and actually go on a real thought exercise or two.

Otherwise, raising the pension age to 68 and removing the triple lock is probably the best bet, and you'll need to come up with a new way to fund healthcare instead.

A very simple way to means test would be to use a similar system to the way Child Benefit is taxed back.

Mmm yes. The absolute values don't get you anywhere unless you have some idea of what you think they should be.

What do you think they should be and how do you propose to get there?

The issue is not the proportion at a given point but that one is steadily increasing and the others are being squeezed to fund it. You've argued that means testing is too bureaucratic to save money yet you are happy for the other half of the pie to be means tested - in some cases in intrusive medical detail.

Where have I said that? There's no option for disability obviously.

If it's not self defeating cost wise, we should probably means test pensions and the NHS as well.

Small bit of the pie though isn't it.