Please do not compare the 30s with the work shy race we have now. Currently Jobs are not taken and are "left" for migrants such as Agricultural work - due to the born and bread UK fraternity who will not do it. In the 30s there was nothing. - so means tests unfortunately are here to stay.

philppickervance, SDenton, UK

A Means test perverts incentives. Encourages poverty.
Also wealthy people pay far more income tax and so should reap the benefits of their tax burden. The EXTRA they pay is for the poor. If you exclude services (like the NHS) from them they will wonder why they pay anything. Very naive Libby.

Rob, Worcester, UK

Agree with every word. I know so many people over 60 who are the fortunate generation who have benefitted from free education for themselves ,free university education for their children,secure employment and pensions. Many have several holidays abroad and do not need free prescription and the rest

Lily, Truro, Cornwall

Driving people out of social housing who have slightly more money than their neighbours (I will ignore the millionaire red herring) will concentrate ghettoes of poverty and deprivation, remove positive role models and produce more dysfunctional neighbourhoods and increased crime. Brilliant, Libby!

Kim Penfold, Bridgetown, Barbados

The evil of means testing punishes people that struggle to lift themselves out of the burden - the people that pay the highest proportion of their income into welfare but get nothing back. It proves the need for private provision as an opt out to national insurance NOT a supplement to it.

Ecgbert, Sheffield,

The problem with means testing is administrative creep.
In some cases it is cheaper to pay than to test, and is social welfare is a dubious cost, social welfare bureaucracy is worse.

In NZ in the 90s, intrusive bureaucracy succeeded in driving many people off the dole. But not into work.

stuart munro, seoul, korea

The problem of the 1930's was not spending enough on armaments, leaving it difficult and even more costly to kick Gerry back to his kennel in the long run. With a bigger fleet we could have blockaded and starved Fritz into submission the first time he raised his bullet head in the Rhineland.

Burnley Bob, Liverpool, England

You could say I digressed a little with my last comment so I'll get to the point.

Did the Queen pickup her own Child Benefit or did she get a member of the Royal Staff to pop down to the Post Office and pick it up?

Graham, St. Albans, uk

Council housing has been exploited for years by everyone. New immigrants are particularly adept to exploiting these benefits, which then perpetuates ill feeling amongst the 'host' population. However you can't stop a person wanting to better themself, but you can stop a service being exploited.

Roman, London, UK

Means Testing? It works well here (Australia).

Richard Fllockart, Canberra, Australia

Means testing is bad.
1. cost of admin is high relative to amounts concerned.
2. Withdrawal rates are high, leading to effective tax rates up to 100% for the poorest, creating the poverty trap
3. It rewards those who choose not to look after themselves
4. It creates perverse incentives

Mark Baker, Grays, UK

Couldn't agree more. Many, many state benefits are already means tested - but it's about time they all were! For example why should taxpayers subsidise well off families who receive but do not need child benefit? State benefits should be targeted at those who need them - including the "working poor"

Andy, Preston,

I agree in principle but is there not a concern about means testing creating more bureaucracy? Maybe it is a good way of keeping people in work at the present time?

James Dove, London, United Kingdom

Sweden did not build vast estates destined to become sinks for problem families. They spent money on integrated housing. Today, public housing there has tenants with a range of incomes - so less stigma, local schools and surgeries have a more even spread of need and stable house prices, I believe.

Diana, DERBY, uk

All our problems could besolved if they would just reduce the administrative bloat in public services.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

All very economically logical, but I'm not sure it will wash with human psychology: tell the exxcluded (and higher earning) people that, not only do they have to disproportionately fund the system (which they already do), but that they can't take advantage of it either, and they will feel cheated.

C Morrison, London,

Means testing, in its present form, penalises the frugal and rewards the feckless. There HAS to be a fairer way, but I doubt this government has any interest in finding one.

Pat.R, Cwll,

Surely the least the government can do for "elderly millionaires" who have paid tax all their lives is give them a free bus pass!

"Means tested" simply means the less you put in, the more you get out. Why should those who work and save be penalised in favour of those who laze and spend?

Neil, London, UK

Means testing adds cost and complexity. We are a married couple, myself a chartered engineer, my wife a chartered accountant. We COUNLD NOT understand family tax credits !!!
The people administering (Inland Revenue) could not understand family tax credits.

Steven, Ex Oldham, Ex UK

Means tested benefits cost more to administer than universal takeup of the same benefits - its because its expensive checking all those details. Verifiable fact.

Means tests were brought in to stop the moaning of the middle classes - witness the comments here to see that nothing has changed.

Chris Reed, Crawley, UK

One of the worst things about the sale of council houses is that once bought at massively discounted prices, they are then frequently rented back to people in receipt of housing benefit for the maximum commercial rent.

Penny, London,

Means testing fair? A single woman on £9,000 p.a. can get £1,035 in Tax Credits. I am a single woman on £7,065 p.a. My Income Tax went up by £245 this year [axing of 10% Tax Band] after cost of living increases of £330 leaving me £85. I am a pensioner. Over £6,475 p.a. you get no Tax Credits.

Dragon, Windsor, England

We should foster a culture of financial independence: we should not need to have recourse to Council or State handouts.

ian cheese, london, uk

A more sensible solution would be to scrap most benefits and simplify the tax system. Increase the tax free allowance substantially so people are willing to take on low paid jobs which can progress to better jobs. Actually make work pay and don't reward idleness. Why pay people to have kids.

Neil, Leeds, UK

The sentiments in this article are long overdue for an airing. The anomaly over council housing has been an insanity for decades.

I once knew a structural engineer working for a local authority who used to visit council homes that had brand new Jaguars parked outside their doors. Social equity?

David Garfield, London, UK

The Means Test for claimants of unemployment benefit still goes on, I think.

When I lost my job, as recently as 1996, I was questioned by an investigator who visited me at home to check out my circumstances.

Also, it's still compulsory to attend training courses - or you lose your benefit.

Katie, Newport, Wales

Council tenants presently enjoy two separate subsidies - 'Social' (reduced) rent that's not means-tested, and Housing Benefit that is.

The solution is simple. Abandon the 'Social' rent element, and increase Housing Benefit.

Social Housing should be wholely devolved to Housing Associations.

Fred , Isle of Wight, UK

Home ownership is still out of the reach of many, and far from council tenants being subsidised, council tenants actually subsidise the treasury to the tune of £1.8 BILLION pounds per year, something to do with the anomalies of the Housing Revenue Account, a tenants tax if you wil.

Paul, London,

"...the system always “penalises” everybody who earns a bit more. It's called income tax."

Don't people who earn a bit more already pay more income tax? Or should people in public housing face an even higher tax margin than now?

david, ely,

There's a lot of muddle about allowances (everyone gets these)and benefits (should be means tested).

For example as a child, my father got a tax allowance for me and my sister. By the 1970's this had become child benefit. Ever since there've been arguments about whether it should be targetted.

Steve S, Wiltshire, UK

There should be sensible means testing. Those who remain on the various benefits then should have a good rise in these benefits. It is nowhere near enough now.

margie, victoria , australia

A truly weird article. Almost all benefits in the UK are means-tested, and that is the problem: a massive bureaucracy and effective very large tax rates for those on income support disincentivising them from getting a job. Give everyone a taxable fixed sum weekly and then leave them alone.

Mark, Melbourne, Australia

"In total, in 2006-07, we estimate these specific initiatives cost the Department £154 million to operate and identified an estimated £106 million of benefits which had been overpaid as a result of fraud. ..." thus costing £1.50 to identify £1 overpayment each time. NAO 23.1.08

ethel, bournemouth,

There is not and never has been any justification for spending state money on non-means-tested benefits. It is a catastrophic and reckless waste of public funds.

James E. Petts, Burnham, England

many in my town have been sitting on their backside for 40years living on benefits, also co-habiting with boyfriends who earn hundreds of quid a week. What a cushy life in the UK,.no wonder people flock here.

my own sister 30 years & never worked,.lives in a posh house & has flying lessons, car,

K Piper, north west, uk

Ah yes. Means Testing. My parents took all my grandparents money, in the £100,000s of pounds and put it into my name so the government wouldn't take it instead.

What a perfect system.

Or would you prefer government accounts peering into your family finances - cause that's the only alternative!

Dave, manchester, uk

Tell me, how are people in social housing supposed to save up money to get out of social housing if, the minute their incomes rise, this money is taken from them in the form of increased rents?

Isa, London, England

Correction here regarding child benefits in Australia. The "baby bonus", about $4000, is not means tested in any way, too much generalising in this article, but many points well made.

Ian, UK, UK

Means Test ?Why does not Gordon Brown make the State Pension Indexed Linked as his pension is, His record re pensioners is deplorable. An increase in one of 75 pence e week. When he repeatedly stated that the economy was sound. He insulted WW 2 Veterans with an INCREASE OF 25 PENCE A WEEK.

mrs Leyder , Muingar, Meath

Well-intentioned article, but it ignores one key aspect - that of the costs administering the means test system. As good intentions of "focus" and "fairness" are translated into ever more elaborate layers of bureaucracy, means tests waste more resources than could be saved from targeting resources.

Andrew Undershaft, London, UK

Well said Libby! I, for one, strongly object to paying tax so that my money can be given, for no good reason, to someone else earning about the same as I do.

Martin, Newmarket, Suffolk

We really ARE cursed by the 1930s, Libby! To take another example: there is no sensible debate about euthanasia today because Hitler used it to exterminate the mentally ill. Why can we not see that times change, problems change, and that solutions to problems have to change too?

JF, Canterbury, UK

Well put. I have great hopes, but not enough patience, to witness the change in our global economy with the election of Barack Obama to President. We will all have to be patient, but I do hope that the people of the US will find and maintain that hope and cooperation with helping to alleviate this.

Christie Harrison, Pawtucket, USA

Well said, Libby, when are you standing for Parliament? I, for one, will certainly vote for you and your common sense. What is wrong with means testing? If somebody wants some of my money, I would certainly hope that they are in more need than me.

Sarah Billings, Alford, United Kingdom