General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
Good. I cannot see why the state should subsidise an age group which in general is relatively well off and certainly better off than young people.
Completely agree. The same people who think they should get it without qualifying wouldn't be in favour of UBI, would they?
Surely if you're eligible, you can still get it?
People want it without being eligible. And they don't want the government to means test them. That's the bottom line.
On a related point I never understood the argument that means testing automatically must be ruled out on expense grounds. The old rebuttal is "means testing costs money and it would be cheaper not to means test and just pay everyone". But I don't understand why you can't build a means testing service / system once and reuse it for all such benefits like this. Surely as a government you can be competent enough to quickly and efficiently prove that someone is or isn't eligible and make this decision cheaply. Apparently not 😕.
Often as different benefits have different qualifying conditions. But the larger point against means testing (IMO) is that universal benefits are far less likely to be attacked and devalued over time. If something is just given to a small section of society, often a relatively powerless one, it is easy for politicians on the right to scrap that benefit or daemonize those who receive it. On the other hand universal benefits (like this one) see huge pushback when politicians try to take them away.
The better path forward is to make benefits universal, but make them taxable income and raise higher rates of income tax, that way most of the money given to higher earners naturally flows back to the treasury.
Except that the requirements for what counts as eligible vary for each program, and the government can’t use anything the person being means tested reported directly because they could be lying, but still has to ask with a bunch of legally binding forms with the important questions hidden in dozens of pages of questions so they can prosecute fraud, so means testing also has to talk with third parties like the person’s place of work, bank, and energy company to verify that they arn’t a cent over the cutoff and don’t have any hidden assets or investments.
You also have to verify the persons identity, dig up their immigration history, and all these hours of research are to make sure the person in question is deserving of a discount. If a program has means testing but doesn’t require all of this research, it will get added on because what if a handful of people take advantage of a copon? Surely it can’t be that hard to make sure their deserving?