Means testing
Dec. 1st, 2005 10:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriqueWell, on Radio 4 yesterday morning, the 'hot topic' as pensions.
For those that haven't been following it, there's a Report due today about sorting out pensions and making them bigger, better and fairer.
The thing that crossed my mind though, is this:
Is it fair to "means test" a pension?
What about tutition fees/grants/student loans?
You see, if you start 'means testing' these things, surely that's a disincentive to people to actually bother saving - if my 5% of my salary savings is going to get me £5/week more pension, maybe it's better to just not bother, and live it up.
With tuition fees, and grants, the situation is slightly different - that's perhaps a different situation. After all, you don't need a university education to live. But similar arguments apply - if you've a slushfund of £25,000 to finance a uni education, is it really 'fair' to make you use it, when those who haven't saved up, don't need to.
(And regardless of what's said, I still feel that 3 years of university is a notable financial burden, even for the 'upper ends' of means testing)
Where would you stand? Should the person who's been employed for 40 years, paying NI contributions have the same 'pension rights' as the person who's not done so? Should the person who's spent 40 years saving 10% of their income for retirement have to 'share' by losing out on a basic pension entitlement?
Should the student loan/grant/tuition fee be available to everyone? Or should it be denied to those who have an asset they can draw on to cover the cost? (Be it savings, property or just a 'better job')
You see, on one hand, I feel that everyone as a basic minimum entitlement. Sort of baseline living. On the other, I don't feel it's the 'right' thing to do, to encourage people to _not_ provision for the future.
For those that haven't been following it, there's a Report due today about sorting out pensions and making them bigger, better and fairer.
The thing that crossed my mind though, is this:
Is it fair to "means test" a pension?
What about tutition fees/grants/student loans?
You see, if you start 'means testing' these things, surely that's a disincentive to people to actually bother saving - if my 5% of my salary savings is going to get me £5/week more pension, maybe it's better to just not bother, and live it up.
With tuition fees, and grants, the situation is slightly different - that's perhaps a different situation. After all, you don't need a university education to live. But similar arguments apply - if you've a slushfund of £25,000 to finance a uni education, is it really 'fair' to make you use it, when those who haven't saved up, don't need to.
(And regardless of what's said, I still feel that 3 years of university is a notable financial burden, even for the 'upper ends' of means testing)
Where would you stand? Should the person who's been employed for 40 years, paying NI contributions have the same 'pension rights' as the person who's not done so? Should the person who's spent 40 years saving 10% of their income for retirement have to 'share' by losing out on a basic pension entitlement?
Should the student loan/grant/tuition fee be available to everyone? Or should it be denied to those who have an asset they can draw on to cover the cost? (Be it savings, property or just a 'better job')
You see, on one hand, I feel that everyone as a basic minimum entitlement. Sort of baseline living. On the other, I don't feel it's the 'right' thing to do, to encourage people to _not_ provision for the future.
