In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 12:08:44
on Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Recliner remarked:
They just don't seem to understand the concept of someone who
lives comfortably off their investments.

It's called "independently wealthy" and several questionnaires do
recognise the concept.

Not the ones I seem to get.

They aren't common, but with means-testing making a comeback, maybe
it will be seen more often.

In any case, I wouldn't call myself
wealthy, just that I have enough to generate enough dividend income to
live on comfortably.

That's what it means. In general terms, "wealthy" in these
circumstances means "getting more income from investments etc than
would qualify you for benefits".

You don't have to be wealthy not to qualify for benefits. The maximum you
can earn that is disregarded is the same £5 per week that it was forty years
ago.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message

, at 09:11:29 on Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Recliner
remarked:
Freedom cards are cheap to administer, but would be a nightmare in your
scheme: they'd have to be renewed annually, with a check that someone
hadn't slipped into or out of the wrong category.

The Taxman, the tax credits man, and enormous numbers of people
administering various benefits manage to do it.

We need fewer, not more, of the "enormous numbers of people administering
various benefits".

Arguably we need more transferability of benefit entitlements, which is
why I suggested "taxable earned income below X" as a possible test for
bus passes. Because the taxman is already administering that, and always
will.

But I agree about the plethora of administrators, and have never
understood why the tax, and tax credits, people need to collect their
own separate information and make their own separate decisions. Unless
it wasn't a ploy to bribe those receiving the benefits, but a bribe to
those employed administering them (to vote Labour).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 15:07:23 on Sun, 23
Jun 2013, Peter Smyth remarked:
But then you could argue, why does a 60 year old banker who has taken
early retirement with a large pension get free travel, when a 60 year
old who is still working 40hrs a week on minimum wage gets nothing?

Because the "free travel" thing is for the retired, not the employed.

Looking at the retired person's wealth is a different test to whether or
not they are travelling as a leisure pursuit.

It may well be that the whole scheme is bonkers (like most of what NuLab
did), but we are where we are...
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:22:19
on Sun, 23 Jun 2013, remarked:
You don't have to be wealthy not to qualify for benefits. The maximum you
can earn that is disregarded is the same £5 per week that it was forty years
ago.

But wouldn't earning £6 a week just taper your benefits, rather than
cancelling them altogether?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:07:23 on Sun, 23 Jun
2013, Peter Smyth remarked:
But then you could argue, why does a 60 year old banker who has taken
early retirement with a large pension get free travel, when a 60 year
old who is still working 40hrs a week on minimum wage gets nothing?

Because the "free travel" thing is for the retired, not the employed.

Actually the grounds for getting a Freedom Pass are Age or Disability. It
doesn't mention employment/retirement status.

In message

, at 09:13:01 on Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Recliner
remarked:
Roland is using his value judgments to restrict universal
benefits, without appreciating that not everyone shares his values.

Not so much my value judgements, as my interpretation of the value
judgements of those who designed the scheme.

But it seems to me that the free buss pass scheme subsidises a very
specific subset of retirees - those who have made the lifestyle choice
to live sufficiently far from the facilities they need to access that
they require a bus, together with there actually being a bus service
they can take advantage of.

Those who made the lifestyle choice to live close enough to the
facilities, such that they don't need to use a bus, are not only failing
to benefit from the bus pass, but are likely to be paying higher taxes
(especially Council Tax) and more for their housing, as result of being
more central.

Those who made the lifestyle choice to live far away, in a bus-less
area, also fail to benefit from the pass.
--
Roland Perry

In message

, at 10:40:57 on Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Recliner
remarked:
But then you could argue, why does a 60 year old banker who has taken
early retirement with a large pension get free travel, when a 60 year
old who is still working 40hrs a week on minimum wage gets nothing?

Because the "free travel" thing is for the retired, not the employed.

Actually the grounds for getting a Freedom Pass are Age or Disability. It
doesn't mention employment/retirement status.

Currently; but that's a simplification of the original intention, which
was to try to assist the mobility of the "poor and aged".

Somewhere along the line, an assumption was made that all the aged are
poor. The same failure may come home to roost regarding winter fuel
payments.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at 10:40:57 on Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Recliner remarked:
But then you could argue, why does a 60 year old banker who has taken
early retirement with a large pension get free travel, when a 60 year
old who is still working 40hrs a week on minimum wage gets nothing?

Because the "free travel" thing is for the retired, not the employed.

Actually the grounds for getting a Freedom Pass are Age or Disability. It
doesn't mention employment/retirement status.

Currently; but that's a simplification of the original intention, which
was to try to assist the mobility of the "poor and aged".

Somewhere along the line, an assumption was made that all the aged are
poor. The same failure may come home to roost regarding winter fuel payments.

Yes, they're stupid. I'd suggest they be abolished and perhaps replaced by
an equivalent increase in the (pensionable) old age pension. That way, the
poor are no worse off, but richer pensioners are taxed on the benefit, as
they are on their pensions.

Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at 10:40:57 on Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Recliner remarked:
But then you could argue, why does a 60 year old banker who has taken
early retirement with a large pension get free travel, when a 60 year
old who is still working 40hrs a week on minimum wage gets nothing?

Because the "free travel" thing is for the retired, not the employed.

Actually the grounds for getting a Freedom Pass are Age or Disability. It
doesn't mention employment/retirement status.

Currently; but that's a simplification of the original intention, which
was to try to assist the mobility of the "poor and aged".

Somewhere along the line, an assumption was made that all the aged are
poor. The same failure may come home to roost regarding winter fuel payments.

Yes, they're stupid. I'd suggest they be abolished and perhaps replaced by
an equivalent increase in the (pensionable) old age pension.

Of course, I meant TAXABLE old age pension.

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
09:22:19 on Sun, 23 Jun 2013, remarked:
You don't have to be wealthy not to qualify for benefits. The maximum you
can earn that is disregarded is the same £5 per week that it was forty
years ago.

But wouldn't earning £6 a week just taper your benefits, rather than
cancelling them altogether?

Yes, but the taper is steep enough for a couple of hundred a month to lose
JSA. If there were housing and Council Tax benefits then something might
still be paid at higher income levels.

--
Colin Rosenstiel