Sick & disabled to be targeted in massive welfare changes.
Discussion
Ian Geary said:
I'm just going to take this post apart a bit. Don't worry, I'll leave all the bits here, so you can have them back afterwards.
They are very good at it, too. The system responds by withdrawing a grown up level of trust between two willing parties, and retreats back into treating users with no trust, strict regimes and loads of bureaucracy.
[qoute=crankedup]
On the other hand we have CEO and directors being handed multi million pound bonuses for ‘improved’ Company performance. The improvements garnered off the back of a Government grant in the housing sector called right to buy.
This seems a bit of a red herring. There has always been a small, powerful elite, and I would hazard there always will be. I don't see how the award of disability benefits will affect this elite in any meaningful way, or how the existence of the elite affects the award of disability benefits?crankedup said:
Morally I am outraged tbh, I know that some current issues which are unrelated but form the basis of dissatisfaction, perhaps anger within sectors of the public.
Sorry, I don't follow this at all..?crankedup said:
Here we perceive the continued clampdown in benefits awarded to those with qualifing disabilities and/ removal of the benefits.
I understand the aim is to keep the disability benefits where they qualify, and remove them where they don't. Wouldn't you agree this is the correct policy? "Clampdown" sounds emotive. This is just making sure policy is followed. I would say that clampdown should apply to all parties. But I work at a council, and can readily see those who basically have a full time career in playing the system. They are very good at it, too. The system responds by withdrawing a grown up level of trust between two willing parties, and retreats back into treating users with no trust, strict regimes and loads of bureaucracy.
[qoute=crankedup]
On the other hand we have CEO and directors being handed multi million pound bonuses for ‘improved’ Company performance. The improvements garnered off the back of a Government grant in the housing sector called right to buy.
Have you perhaps bolted a pre-existing grudge with ceo bonuses into this issue?
I also don't get the right to buy reference..? This is a generous award to council tenants allowing many working poor ( and some scoundrels) a huge slice of equity, and has little impact on property businesses ( yet alone the vast array of other businesses). Apart from perhaps reducing the stock of affordable housing and opening the door for large property businesses? But that seems marginal to me.
crankedup said:
No wonder increasing numbers of ordinary people are becoming wholly peed off with the so called ‘all in it together’ nonsense.
Pfft. No one ordinary believed that tosh did they? The tory govt are in it for themselves, but tory voters know they'll probably be better off as a consequence. Labour however are the tail being wagged by the unions, and just want to feed your money to their senior member structure. They're not in it "for you" any more than the tories are.
The welfare you speak of relies on actual productivity and wealth creation, and I believe in the longer term a corbyn govt would hugely reduce the welfare offer of this country.
I would be up for a universal income (with some regional variation I think) and perhaps a slightly progressive rate of tax thereafter, but not enough to start building in big welfare traps.
Ian
My point of raising the issue of ‘us and them’ this is the basis of Societial unrest, yes I agree that the elite are a small % however, the elite are being expanded with the power enrichment of ftse bosses. These employees are the group that attract negative reporting in the media who in turn stir up the ‘momentum’ society, so to speak.
All you are saying is that you disagree with my assertions and offering what you think to be a solution. We all know that welfare has to be paid for, the cash is in the pot, albeit rather a small pot, it is the distribution of the pot of welfare that is debatable. It’s no different to the debate regarding wealth distribution from earnings across the spectrum.
Your reference to my grudge, it’s. grudge that has some meaning, for the past ten years I have
said that imo top pay in ftse companies is growing out of control. Now we have another example with persimmon. How long before you open your front door to reality? Next thing is you will be telling me that Carillion is a great Company!
As for Tories and Labour, nope this is my account and opinions. It is perceptions that can cause more damage than reality, both at play during the recent past and growing.
I agree that the Country should not continue with big welfare traps, it is the balance that is out at the present time, as is wealth distribution imo
apologies, the edit quote system seems to have gone awry.
pitchfork said:
An interesting read but only outlines the situation from one perspective, under-scoring the growing problem in the U.K. Be interesting to read of the Scandinavian project results at the end of the year.I’m slightly to the right of Genghis Khan but I quite like the concept of UBI. If applied sensibly (I.e. everyone gets it, from billionaires to tramps) and it replaces welfare, income support, etc.
I’d love to see some numbers of what the U.K. would need (in tax changes) to deliver it (assuming that nothing else changed).
How much would the DWP shrink by?
What would the other perverse incentives look like (more children, single parent).
I’d love to see some numbers of what the U.K. would need (in tax changes) to deliver it (assuming that nothing else changed).
How much would the DWP shrink by?
What would the other perverse incentives look like (more children, single parent).
As said, it’d create a black economy of them. I recall people taking peoples benefit books from them eg to cover debt/loans or varying other reasons.
We used to give Netto vouchers to asylum seeker. The was stopped due to stigma and it made them stand out.
In fairness they’d generally really stand out anyway as pretty different looking, eg race, clothing, fashion, haircuts and obviously language anyway.
Having said that, these days, feasibly far less so.
We used to give Netto vouchers to asylum seeker. The was stopped due to stigma and it made them stand out.
In fairness they’d generally really stand out anyway as pretty different looking, eg race, clothing, fashion, haircuts and obviously language anyway.
Having said that, these days, feasibly far less so.
drainbrain said:
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
......... my brother, earning close to £50K lost his motability allowance. Earning too much according to the rules.
It's not a "motability" allowance (there's no such thing). It's the award of higher rate mobility component of DLA (PIP) which allows access to the motability scheme.Disability living allowance (DLA), personal independence payment (PIP) and attendance allowance are payable whether or not you are working. They are not means tested, so earnings do not affect the amount of your benefit.
Them's the rules.
Edited by drainbrain on Sunday 14th January 14:34
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
drainbrain said:
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
......... my brother, earning close to £50K lost his motability allowance. Earning too much according to the rules.
It's not a "motability" allowance (there's no such thing). It's the award of higher rate mobility component of DLA (PIP) which allows access to the motability scheme.Disability living allowance (DLA), personal independence payment (PIP) and attendance allowance are payable whether or not you are working. They are not means tested, so earnings do not affect the amount of your benefit.
Them's the rules.
Edited by drainbrain on Sunday 14th January 14:34
The rules regarding Higher rate mobility have changed and it's becoming more difficult to pass the eligibilty criteria required to get the higher rate.
Rovinghawk said:
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
I was aware that the scheme has had changes in name, but the fact still remains. He's someone severely disabled, yet he's not deemed eligible for support.
Does he receive any other form of benefit? What support does he actually need?Meanwhile a partially sighted man 3 doors down gets a £25k car on 'Motab'. A car I've never seen him in, but have seen his wife using as a trinket on many an occasion.
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
Rovinghawk said:
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
I was aware that the scheme has had changes in name, but the fact still remains. He's someone severely disabled, yet he's not deemed eligible for support.
Does he receive any other form of benefit? What support does he actually need?Meanwhile a partially sighted man 3 doors down gets a £25k car on 'Motab'. A car I've never seen him in, but have seen his wife using as a trinket on many an occasion.
Although the need for a car is irrelevant,its JUST about his walking ability or lack of it.
The way the PIP re-assessment is going is generally pretty awful, reports of evidence ignored or wilfully misinterpreted, no wonder so many appeals win. (and even then after being told by a tribunal that he need never be re-assessed unless the LAW changed was told he was fit for work 6 weeks later! Admitedly that was a DWP cock up of the highest order & it was changed)PIP decision makers seem to be worse than the ones who did DLA(although I remember having a real row with one who was totally ignorant of one of the prime reasons to get Mid rate DLA,she thought it didnt even exist!)
But attempts to get people on the right benefit have always caused controversy-I recall 1 project that looked at people awarded max DLA under Special Rules,ie terminally ill,expected to die in 6 months, but still alive after 8 years...so obviously not as terminal as thought! Caused all sorts of rows when it was clear that the decision needed to be reviewed. Was mostly AIDS/HIV patients so a bit of a hot potato. But the current reviews seem cack handed
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
Rovinghawk said:
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
I was aware that the scheme has had changes in name, but the fact still remains. He's someone severely disabled, yet he's not deemed eligible for support.
Does he receive any other form of benefit? What support does he actually need?Meanwhile a partially sighted man 3 doors down gets a £25k car on 'Motab'. A car I've never seen him in, but have seen his wife using as a trinket on many an occasion.
The retail price of the car is an irrelevance.
The higher rate of mobility as defined by the DWP was what was paid to Motabilty for the car on a monthly basis.
This allowance certainly wouldn't cover the cost of a £25k car, and the difference between what was paid by the DWP on a monthly basis and the actual monthly cost would of been made up at the beginning of the arrangement with Motability with a far larger advanced payment direct from the claimant.
Under PIP (DLA no longer exists/or will cease this yr) rules the partially sighted man may not any longer qualify for a Motability car, and he could well lose it.
This^
Bigger cars need more up front, crappy city cars need £0. Then add the monthly allowance,and then the expected resale value. Milegae is damn good for a lease car too.
Partially sighted rarely qulaifies for Mobility High Rate anyway except in very rare circumstances-odds are he is claiming he cant walk far
Bigger cars need more up front, crappy city cars need £0. Then add the monthly allowance,and then the expected resale value. Milegae is damn good for a lease car too.
Partially sighted rarely qulaifies for Mobility High Rate anyway except in very rare circumstances-odds are he is claiming he cant walk far
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
I was aware that the scheme has had changes in name, but the fact still remains. He's someone severely disabled, yet he's not deemed eligible for support.
This may be helpful:Mobility component rules // Higher rate mobility
This applies where someone has a physical disablement and cannot walk at all or either of the following applying:
They are ‘virtually unable to walk’ – this is the phrase used in the law. Speed, distance, time and manner of walking can be looked at. The limits of ability to walk without experiencing ‘severe discomfort’ due to walking are what are being considered.
A decision maker or tribunal will usually be interested in what makes walking so uncomfortable for you, after what distance you must stop, and how long before you can set off again. If you have to repeatedly stop and rest due to being in severe discomfort then the distance walked between each of these intervals should be your assessed walking distance for the test.
Unfortunately, many people are excluded as the test is very restrictive. Those who can only walk 200 or even 100 yards before having to stop would quite rightly regard themselves as having very limited walking ability. However they would likely not qualify for the higher rate mobility component. In practice, in most cases, the test has effectively become a ‘50 yard’ test unless the speed of walking or the persons gait is exceptionally restrictive.
Where ‘the exertion required to walk would constitute a danger to life or would lead to a serious deterioration in health’. This can apply where someone may have, for example, extremely severe cardiac or lung problems or has been advised to limit their walking for some other reason.
There are also routes to qualifying if someone has no legs or feet (even if they can walk with prosthetic limbs), have a severe visual impairment, are both deaf and blind, or have both a severe mental impairment and severe behavioural problems.
Edited by drainbrain on Sunday 14th January 23:06
The issue with UBI in the UK will be housing. 6k in Wisbech (so call it 12k for a couple) will go much further than it will In Cambridge due to housing costs. I think this is acceptable (move, or work to get better standard of living) but it does make setting a universal UBI tough, unless responsibility for housing is removed from local councils/ right to housing is removed on introducing UBI
Many Disability benefits I think need to be on TOP of UBI. I.e UBI is survival level, but extra costs of disabilities mean that survival level is higher
Many Disability benefits I think need to be on TOP of UBI. I.e UBI is survival level, but extra costs of disabilities mean that survival level is higher
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Well at present it is just theoretical ideas for such a scheme. Someone earning £30K a year may be in receipt of working tax credits (which would be scrapped). But lets keep it simple, no children, and the personal allowance is scrapped as part of the move to the new system.
They would gain £6,000 a year and lose £2,300 (20% x £11,500). Net gain £3,700 a year.
I like the idea of UBI, but I cannot see how it is affordable.
Roughly 75% of the UK population is aged 20+, we'll say that these people are eligible for UBI.
48.75m * £500 * 12 = £292.5 billion per year.
Current welfare spending is £264bn. Of this, £111bn is Pensions (which I assume aren't going away), and £44bn is disability type benefits (ditto).
If you paid these on top of UBI, now the cost is getting close to £450bn/yr. That's 58% of this year's budget, or three times what we're spending on Healthcare.
How can it be affordable?
Roughly 75% of the UK population is aged 20+, we'll say that these people are eligible for UBI.
48.75m * £500 * 12 = £292.5 billion per year.
Current welfare spending is £264bn. Of this, £111bn is Pensions (which I assume aren't going away), and £44bn is disability type benefits (ditto).
If you paid these on top of UBI, now the cost is getting close to £450bn/yr. That's 58% of this year's budget, or three times what we're spending on Healthcare.
How can it be affordable?
amusingduck said:
I like the idea of UBI, but I cannot see how it is affordable.
Roughly 75% of the UK population is aged 20+, we'll say that these people are eligible for UBI.
48.75m * £500 * 12 = £292.5 billion per year.
Current welfare spending is £264bn. Of this, £111bn is Pensions (which I assume aren't going away), and £44bn is disability type benefits (ditto).
If you paid these on top of UBI, now the cost is getting close to £450bn/yr. That's 58% of this year's budget, or three times what we're spending on Healthcare.
How can it be affordable?
The affordability does depend on the exact structure used.Roughly 75% of the UK population is aged 20+, we'll say that these people are eligible for UBI.
48.75m * £500 * 12 = £292.5 billion per year.
Current welfare spending is £264bn. Of this, £111bn is Pensions (which I assume aren't going away), and £44bn is disability type benefits (ditto).
If you paid these on top of UBI, now the cost is getting close to £450bn/yr. That's 58% of this year's budget, or three times what we're spending on Healthcare.
How can it be affordable?
Personally I think it is tantalizingly close to being affordable but would create too many losers at this point in time to be politically feasible.
In terms of the structure. Pensioners are in receipt of the basic state pension and also, typically, have lower spending requirements. If, say, the UI went to a half rate once in receipt of basic state pension then you have just taken a massive chunk out of costs. The majority of pensioners would still be better off.
Then take the under 21s, who are currently not entitled to some benefits. If you put in place a three year adult residency period to become entitled to UI, which could then be applied to recent immigrants, then you have just taken another large chunk out of costs.
I make spending on disability benefits forecast to be £20bn, not £44bn. Incapacity benefit should be one of the benefits scrapped when this is brought in.
Spending on administration by the DWP is over £6bn and most of this could be saved.
You also haven't factored in any tax revenue raised from abolishing the personal allowance.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff