After Osbourne's attack on IT contractors

[tractor]

....

It goes hand in hand with the complexity of the system, I guess. Scrapping it all in favour of a basic income guarantee does seem appealing. I think means testing is very much a case of projected savings vs costs. If it saves more than it costs, do it. I can't see how third parties like Atos, Avanta etc. have accomplished that at present. If anything, they've added to the number of snouts at the welfare trough.

Yes but this is what it is all about. Making money for their friends. Just take the attacks on contracting and look at how much revenue it has made for accountants, lawyers and insurance companies. Look how many service providers it has spawned like 2 or 3 tier agents and umbrellas etc. It's the same with appointing these companies to certify the disabled and mentally ill fit for work and paying them commission on how many they can sanction.

Lots of employment and profits for their friends but now George is scratching his head trying to understand productivity. Idiot.

And you thought Labour was bad bloating the Civil Service. This is no different. And the voting public generally don't have a clue that they have just voted in more of the same old New Labour.

[expat]

The only thing is, NI is hardly ring-fenced to fund the spending items it is meant to. It's an insurance in nothing but name, and is really just another tax notionally intended for spending on items notionally intended as a safety net, and more besides. With regards to means testing what I do wonder is how much it actually saves vs how much is spent on it.

Quite so. Barber (early 1970s chancellor) unified a lot of personal tax and came close to merging NI into Income Tax but didn't quite make it. Could Osborne be the one to do it?

As for means testing, the question of whether it saves money should certainly be a factor in the choice, but perhaps also the questions of intrusiveness of the testing (including on those who ultimately pass), and of a feeling of solidarity, a feeling that there is such a thing as society (which BTW even Margaret Thatcher never disputed in general, only in a particular context), and feeling, as someone said who wouldn't know the meaning of the phrase, that we are all in it together.

I would not dismiss that last point since I believe it will be the cause of the dissolution of the United Kingdom; IMHO that is exactly why 56 of 59 Scottish MPs are SNP. Not from nationalism per se, but from a feeling that the Scots and the English now have irreconcilably different views of society.

[expat]

It goes hand in hand with the complexity of the system, I guess. Scrapping it all in favour of a basic income guarantee does seem appealing. I think means testing is very much a case of projected savings vs costs. If it saves more than it costs, do it. I can't see how third parties like Atos, Avanta etc. have accomplished that at present. If anything, they've added to the number of snouts at the welfare trough.

It is politics-based evidence. The market is known as a matter of faith to be the best way of organising things, so everything must be run by private companies. It is not a matter of asserting that is the best way; it is a matter of knowing the answer without any need, or desire, for evidence.

[Zero Liability]

It is politics-based evidence. The market is known as a matter of faith to be the best way of organising things, so everything must be run by private companies. It is not a matter of asserting that is the best way; it is a matter of knowing the answer without any need, or desire, for evidence.

I am all in favour of the free market, but what we're seeing is not that, but the government outsourcing its functions to these firms, whilst still picking up the tab as their client. It is the worst of both worlds. AFAIC, it's just another added layer of bureaucracy. I think this is a case of rhetoric masking the fact that it's still the same inefficient, blinkered entity that is paying for these firms, whilst having a nominally "free market" shell added to it.

[tractor]

...

I am all in favour of the free market, but what we're seeing is not that, but the government outsourcing its functions to these firms, whilst still picking up the tab as their client. It is the worst of both worlds. AFAIC, it's just another added layer of bureaucracy. I think this is a case of rhetoric masking the fact that it's still the same inefficient, blinkered entity that is paying for these firms, whilst having a nominally "free market" shell added to it.

And to put it even more simply, using the private sector to do your dirty work then claiming you are all in it with us.

Free market really works. Just look at the tagging scandal. 'Print your own money' contracts for your friends. NL was as bad, they just didn't get caught as often nor were as blatant about it.

Thatcher actually knew what the pitfalls of this type of relationship was, remember what happened to Andersen?

[WordIsBond]

The problem with not having it though is that you give everything to everyone who asks for it which is unsustainable and got us to where we are now, subsidising big employers for decades and the middle income earners paying for it all, now the pot is empty (and has been for years) so everyonesome of us will pay more and more of us will get less.

But you can't means-test everything.

Means-test the state pension? Maybe. The rich can get by without it.

Means-test the NHS? Maybe. The rich can buy private medical insurance. If they choose not to, they take the risk.

Means-test police protection / fire service? Sure. The rich can hire private protection agencies and install sprinkler systems, I guess. If they choose not to, well, they've taken a risk.

Means-test election services? Why not? The rich can go to a polling place manned by staff paid by the users, rather than the free, government operated service. If they choose not to, well, they take the risk of the election not going how they want.

Means-test constituency services? Sure, the rich could pay their MP a fee for any help they want. (Any allegations that this is already happening are probably true but unproven). If they choose not to, well, their MP won't help them.

I guess you could means-test everything. Schools. Road maintenance. National defence. No government agency will get involved in providing any government services for those who have the money to pay for those services themselves. Sounds like a winner to me. If a rich person doesn't want the service, they don't pay.

My favourite? HMRC. Hopefully I'll make enough that they won't provide the services of investigating me and collecting my taxes, leaving me to pay someone to do it. If I don't want the service, if I don't want anyone investigating me or collecting my taxes, I just won't pay for it.

Meanwhile, if you decide that after all, some things SHOULDN'T be means-tested, you'll have to try to come up with some kind of reasonable explanation as to which ones should be, which ones shouldn't be, and what principle determines how to make that decision.

Or you can just decide which things are means-tested by guessing which ones are going to win or lose you the most votes....

[AtW]

Means-tested VAT.

Now that would be the killer.

Nicely aligned with income tax levels - fingerprint scanning in shops.

And if you've spent more money then you've earned (and paid tax on), then it's straight to jail.

And why not? Why should a rich man pay only 20% VAT on buying his Ferrari, same as very poor person? Totally unfair!

[tractor]

...

But you can't means-test everything.

Means-test the state pension? Maybe. The rich can get by without it.

Means-test the NHS? Maybe. The rich can buy private medical insurance. If they choose not to, they take the risk.

Means-test police protection / fire service? Sure. The rich can hire private protection agencies and install sprinkler systems, I guess. If they choose not to, well, they've taken a risk.

Means-test election services? Why not? The rich can go to a polling place manned by staff paid by the users, rather than the free, government operated service. If they choose not to, well, they take the risk of the election not going how they want.

Means-test constituency services? Sure, the rich could pay their MP a fee for any help they want. (Any allegations that this is already happening are probably true but unproven). If they choose not to, well, their MP won't help them.

I guess you could means-test everything. Schools. Road maintenance. National defence. No government agency will get involved in providing any government services for those who have the money to pay for those services themselves. Sounds like a winner to me. If a rich person doesn't want the service, they don't pay.

My favourite? HMRC. Hopefully I'll make enough that they won't provide the services of investigating me and collecting my taxes, leaving me to pay someone to do it. If I don't want the service, if I don't want anyone investigating me or collecting my taxes, I just won't pay for it.

Meanwhile, if you decide that after all, some things SHOULDN'T be means-tested, you'll have to try to come up with some kind of reasonable explanation as to which ones should be, which ones shouldn't be, and what principle determines how to make that decision.

Or you can just decide which things are means-tested by guessing which ones are going to win or lose you the most votes....

We are talking about welfare state benefits not roads, NHS and the like.

[AtW]

We are talking about welfare state benefits not roads, NHS and the like.

Is keeping one healthy not welfare?

[AtW]

BBC licence fee could be means tested under Government charter renewal plans - Telegraph