Examples of means test

Example from the Hansard archive. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0
By 1931 these transitional benefits were cut back and a meanstest was applied to applicants for them.
A central and controversial issue here is the meanstest.
They are free to choose their ward and there is no meanstest.
They support a higher threshold for a capital-based meanstest.
This reverse meanstest, usually referred to as an 'affluence test', is believed by its opponents to threaten the political stability of the programme.
A difference of meanstest reveals this possibility to be false.
A joint meanstest usually takes place on entry into the system with only random checks of pensioners' incomes undertaken afterwards.
This would be provided for all pensioners but 'no meanstest (in the current sense) would be applied'.
These were intended to protect individual assets by alleviating the meanstest for those who had taken out private long-term care insurance.
There would be a meanstest.
One possible way by which this aversion might be diminished is to meanstest voucher entitlements.
Abolishing the meanstest should further encourage taking out private retirement income among low income groups such as domestic workers and informal sector workers.
Homogeneity of variance in the two-sample meanstest.
This suggests that the medical officer's assessment of disability (rather than the meanstest) is key to obtaining a disability grant.
The t-statistic from a difference in meanstest is provided in brackets.
Inevitably, the context for this research is the meanstest for long-term residential and nursing home care.
They raised the limits on capital retention to soften the meanstest and also favoured various private insurance schemes offering limited state support in order to encourage take-up.
Arguments usually brought against the meanstest are that it creates administrative nightmares, encourages concealment of income, and may create disincentives to earn income or to provide for retirement.
In contrast, support in the community would usually mean that the authority had to meet some or all of the costs depending on the local meanstest.
For all four domains, a difference of meanstest compares attitudes toward event-centered and more general testimony.
He argues that the focus of the meanstest should be on identifying and excluding the relatively wealthy rather than on the sliding scale as a means of fine-tuning benefits.
The differences are caused by the interplay of a nationally applied meanstest for residential care, and locally determined eligibility criteria for domiciliary care.
From the
Hansard archive