Can I have this deal?

[fivemack]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7813791.stm: "But for every £500 they have saved over [£6000], the authorities assume they earn £1 per week in "tariff income" and reduce the benefit payments accordingly."

£1/week/£500 is 10.9%, a significantly better deal than Madoff!

Changing that figure to 25p would seem a nice boost to poor pensioners in next year's budget; I think that a truly honorable government should also commit to providing an investment which pays the "tariff income", at least on sums up to that on which the tariff income equals the State pension, and that would provide the right incentive to keep the assumed rate of tariff income sensible.

Comments

[naath.livejournal.com]

The government could make it illegal to be a private landlord... or better, the government could enforce regulations such that "being a landlord" is actual work.

But, yes, you are right that it scales badly.

I don't think "distributing the capital more fairly" is *helped* by people who just sit on their damn money so that they can give it to their children, so their children have a head start in the race to accumulate the most capital! Another reason to encourage pensioners to spend their savings (possibly on annuities).

[tigerfort.livejournal.com]

I don't think "distributing the capital more fairly" is *helped* by people who just sit on their damn money so that they can give it to their children, so their children have a head start in the race to accumulate the most capital!

Agreed (and with the rest, too), but then I think that a "race to accumulate the most capital" is a pretty lousy way to organise a society anyway (which I imagine you do too.)

The other side of the question is the utility/value provided by any given piece of government expenditure. To take a not-random example, surely it makes sense for the gov't/council to spend GBP600 per month to pay a couple's mortgage and keep them in their own house rather than pay GBP750 per month in rent to move them into the identical house next door.

One solution would be that when a social payment towards your rent/mortgage is made, then 'society' (in the form of the gov't, the local council, some approved housing association, whatever) becomes owner of a suitable chunk of the equity in exchange. But that has problems of its own (most notably with private landlords again, but).

[naath.livejournal.com]

Well the government could buy your house off you slowly; and then it could be a council house! And that would both keep you in your house *and* expand the social housing available.

[tigerfort.livejournal.com]

That's roughly what I'm suggesting in the final paragraph, but yes, you could even apply it to people who already own a house outright. You still have a fight on your hands with private landlords, though, who will object to having their assets taken away because their tenants have become unemployed. (Funny how the problem with changing the system is always that the people who are on top at present don't want it to change.) And you've got to apply it to rental property as well as owner-occupied, or you're simply tweaking the unfairness rather than doing anything to actually correct it.

[naath.livejournal.com]

Ah yes; I see that would be a problem.

Perhaps you could ensure that you were paying fair market value for the house or something. Private landlords are very annoying.