Quote:
Originally Posted by Low C Sharp
Means-testing is a very old idea when it comes to public benefits. Asking people to demonstrate their need for services is a hardly a whim. I suppose you could reject means-testing altogether and give heating assistance to anyone who requests it, no questions asked. But if means-testing is appropriate, then it has to be OK to debate where the line should be drawn. The size of one's TV is crude means test, to be sure, but there's a legitimate principle at work here.
|
No, looking at the size of one's TV is a pretty absurd way to judge whether someone needs assistance or not. Someone can have a very nice car, and received it as a gift or be borrowing it from family, or still have it from a time when times were better. They might have people willing to help them pay for the car, but who can't help with anything more. The car itself doesn't mean
anything about one's ability to manage rent, utilities, etc. but some people make those assumptions. The standards in place look at income, assets and expenditures - rent, bills, etc. I've been pretty firmly supporting the standards in place, and not the "You're using my tax money so act the way I like with it" people.
So no, it's neither legitimate nor actually means testing.
Threaded Mode
