this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
36 points (100.0% liked)

UK Politics

3098 readers
85 users here now

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! :'(

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mex 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

They are using an existing measure to means test it off so I doubt there is much additional cost

[–] HumanPenguin 4 points 3 months ago

Yep.

But worth remembering their are several reasons this has been rejected in the past.

1st those on the border of entitlement to benifits are still in difficulties.

2nd this is an age group where a high % refuse or do not have the ability to claim. Refuse os basically pride. As there has been a long history of judging people claiming benifits.

Unable is often due to mental and physical disability that hits with age. And in increased over the last 14 years às many of the people who helped prevent this nonlonger exist.

[–] gedhrel@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

"Not much additional cost" has to be really low in aggregate. The allowance is 200 quid a year per household. If someone phones twice to check on it that's pretty much blown the saving.

It's obviously mostly about perception, and the principle behind the message they want to send is reasonable, but targeting pensioners at the borderline of the cutoff is hardly effective redistributive justice.