The Magic Money tree blooms

[Workingman]

Ossie, you are not in the demographic group I was aiming at.

Like me, you are neither rich nor poor so, yes, we will take the money.

I was speaking about those for whom the extra £1.10p per day will not make a jot of difference, let's say those already on £130 or more per day. They are not really in need, are they? Nobody on £50k needs what for them is loose change - a bottle of water.

I see Risky Sunhat reads VV. He has taken up Saundra's idea that those who do not need it should give it to charity. Why give it to them in the first place? That tells me the way it has been done is more about keeping the admin simple than anything else.

[Suff]

The problem here with means testing is that those who want benefits and don't particularly want to work will have no issues with being means tested. Those who want to work and be treated as "normal" but do need the help will not submit to means testing, so will be even worse off than if there were no means testing.

What the Government could have done was to set up a department to accept back the payments from those who do not need it. Strike those off the list and then redistribute the returned funds to those who are still on the list.

To me that has a far better chance of getting the majority of the money to those who need it than any form of means testing.

The only downside is that no government of my life could do this quickly and competently. They would balls it up and nobody would get much of anything. But I think the approach would help. Because charities have their own priorities and, in this specific case, I doubt the money would go to where it is needed.

[Workingman]

I cannot fathom why people in need would avoid means testing in their millions when many things: PIP; ESA; Housing Benefit; Pension credits, and more, are already means tested. Those opting out would be the exceptions, and very few.

And why set up a department to accept back payments? That's just another admin burden; a money-go-round.. Just don't give them the money in the first place.

Any household with earnings of £4,500 pcm (£55k p a ) or more coming in does not need the £400. If they claim they do then budgeting advice would be of more use to them. They could go on "Eat well for less", turn the thermo down from 25C and stop prancing about in flip-flops, shorts and T-shirts in winter.

Sunak did not target anyone, he took the scattergun approach because it was easier, but also more expensive in the long run.

[Suff]

Sunak did. He took the least effort approach which has the highest level of success in getting some money to those who need it whether or not other money was given to those who did not.

Have you ever been unemployed, no resources, renting and socialising with people who have been in the same situation long term? They are violently opposed to some "know it all" delving into their situation. Bad enough that they have to take hand out's worse that someone throws it in their face.

I agree that there could easily have been a cut off at a certain level of income. But income doesn't always denote lack of hardship. Especially when you factor in rising interest rates and mortgage stress on an income which already has stresses on it. I was checking on Brighton London train passes yesterday. If you can't use ThamesLink solely, it's over £6,000 a year.

When the financial crisis hit my mortgage was £2,000 a month and my home in Scotland cost about as much as a council flat in London. That's £24,000 a year. Now add £6,400 for a rail pass and that is £30,400 taken from your £40,000 take home. Add a car to get to the train station and parking and now you could be at £6,000 easily. Add a wife, 3 kids and your income is vanishing fast. Second car for the wife to get the kids to school, fuel etc.

Now your energy bill is going to be higher than most because your home will be larger with the kids. You may hit the £2,800 bracket.

Now double your mortgage interest rate. The net free income for food and social activities could be as low as £250 a month.

£55k? It's not so much depending on your situation. #1 son and his wife have no kids at home, take home over £30k each, drive to work but not always too far. Now they have NO need of this money at all. But neither are considered £55k or even £45k income. The household, however, gets a very good income.

This is why I said they should have a mechanism which allows those (say two income households with 2x £20k incomes and no kids at home), to put their money back into the pot for those who have less.

BTW, the minimum wage, for a 50 week year, is £19,600. So, theoretically, a double income home on minimum wage might not need any support if they live in a small 2 bedroom, walk to work and work in local offices on minimum wage.

This is why I say that it is hard to means test and people really don't like it.