Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Sheb]

I can if I put an if between the two. :p

[lordcooper]

Well, the effect on price is hard to judge. No one knows how many of these pensioners would take the bus if it were not for the free pass, but if they paid the full price like the others, price would go down for the other clients.

Even assuming you're right (I don't think you are, companies like making money), their pensions would need to be increased by a similar amount so they could actually afford to pay for buses.  No winner.

Also, your public transports are ridiculously overpriced. Do they get any subsidies?

They are, and I don't know.  Apparently it was far cheaper before the Demoness privatised everything.

[Owlbread]

Most criminally British Telecom, thereby giving them a monopoly. I actually have to use BT - I have no choice, otherwise I have no internet. They are the only internet service provider I can choose besides going for something like satellite.

[Sheb]

Okay, do you guys have some defense for the fuel subsidies as well?

[lordcooper]

The fuel subsidies that go towards helping elderly people heat their houses in the winter?

As someone who used to work for British Gas and saw just how many people struggled even with that help, I can't do anything but support it.  What's with the sudden dislike of pensioners?

[Sheb]

It's not actually about hating pensioneers, it's about the dislike of A) Several benefits creating needless bureaucracy when you could merge them in one pension. and B) Of "wasting" money by giving those benefits to people that could afford their gas.

[MonkeyHead]

Thing is, thanks to the level of taxation (and insane prices charged by the private companies, who all seem to post year on year record profits, whilst constantly raising prices - must be like selling air) on heating fuels in the UK, NOBODY can really afford gas without a compromise somewhere.

[10ebbor10]

I don't know how the exact system works, so I can't tell you anything about that. The advantage of using multiple subsidies rather than a complete pension increase is that it can be finetuned a bit more, and used to stimulate certain behaviours.

[MonkeyHead]

... and prevent pensioners doing bat shit crazy things like spending it all on lottery tickets, or getting scammed by some unscrupulous bastard selling elephant repellant.

[lordcooper]

That elephant repellent is the bomb.  Been using it for five years and there aren't even any elephants in the country.  I shit you not.

[MonkeyHead]

That elephant repellent is the bomb.  Been using it for five years and there aren't even any elephants in the country.  I shit you not.

If only they could afford it in Africa... (is it odd I sung that in my head in the style of the song by Toto?)

[Dutchling]

That elephant repellent is the bomb.  Been using it for five years and there aren't even any elephants in the country.  I shit you not.

If only they could afford it in Africa... (is it odd I sung that in my head in the style of the song by Toto?)

(you weren't the only one)

[palsch]

It's not actually about hating pensioneers, it's about the dislike of A) Several benefits creating needless bureaucracy when you could merge them in one pension. and B) Of "wasting" money by giving those benefits to people that could afford their gas.

For starters, it's not solely for pensioners. It's a supplement to a range of benefits, including Job Seekers Allowance (JSA - unemployment) and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA - disability). Having a one-time payment piggyback on these other benefits isn't a huge bureaucratic cost, given it's just refer to a list of those eligible once a year and make the additional payments. Frankly I don't see any difference even if you rolled it into the separate benefits as three different payments instead of one core one.

And yeah, keeping the benefit separate allows it to be tuned to increases in fuel costs or other economic realities. Except that in reality it just means it's an easier target for cuts. You can cut the winter fuel allowance by £100 a lot easier than cutting an annual pension by £100. So I guess I don't care as much about it's existence as individual payment and more it's continuation as a payment.

As far as means testing goes, it's for people already on a benefit that mean they are on a limited income. Given that that's by far the easiest means test out there, additional testing to see if they can 'afford' gas each winter would mean a pretty detailed audit of their place of living and local living costs (often the winter fuel allowance also pays for increased food costs), and any savings or other assets. That would be a significant expense for every eligible person. You would need to deny the payment to a pretty large number of people to make up for that added cost, even before making any additional savings.

[Sheb]

I was under the impression it was a benefit for all pensioners, regardless of economic status and didn't concern others. Sorry then.

[Leafsnail]

I don't know how the exact system works, so I can't tell you anything about that. The advantage of using multiple subsidies rather than a complete pension increase is that it can be finetuned a bit more, and used to stimulate certain behaviours.

The thing is the behaviour stimulated here is burning fossil fuels.  Is that a behaviour we actually want to stimulate?