Does anyone elsee agree with the benefit cuts?

And where did you get that figure from, as I would be interested to read that report, tbh!

You also have to bear in mind that gaining acceptance of the way your life changes when you are diagnosed with a disability is a LONG process. It took me 6 years to admit that I would probably be unable to work full-time ever again. I still haven't accepted the possibility that I may not be able to work AT ALL yet. Despite getting my diagnosis over 8 years ago. It takes a long time to get to the point where you are WILLING to admit to anyone that you are incapable of work. Especially if you have always worked pre-diagnosis. So that may well account for it being such a LOW figure of disability benefit claimants that are willing to STATE that they are incapable of ANY work. And that HAS been proven, in many different studies - that people with disabilities often UNDERPLAY the true level of their difficulties because they are in denial themselves. How many times have we heard about the older lady, losing her hearing, who refuses to get a hearing aid fitted, because there's nothing wrong with her ears...

That should read "if they LOSE that job through ill-health, and cannot get any other employer to hire them due to their work record and the fact that there are hundreds of other applicants who DON'T have that sort of employment record, they then CAN'T manage without claiming disability benefits.

FFS, I'll make sense in a minute!

Well, I see your point there - but like I did, when I WAS in employment, I didn't BOTHER to claim DLA / Incapacity Benefit. However - when I lost my job DUE to the amount of time off I was having through seizures - I put in a claim straight away. And I know a LOT of people with disabilities that do this. They don't bother claiming (and taking out of the pot) when they can 'get by' on their wages. However, if they LOSE that job through ill-health, they then CAN'T manage.

Does that explain what I was trying to say a little more clearly?

You might be right about premature babies, as far as I am aware our growth rate of DLA is not matched in other countries.
The 29% is people who claim they are not fit for work, ie the claimants position, not the govts.
The point about claim levels in areas of high unemployment is not answered Hunty because, as you have said, it is not an out of work benefit. Therefore claimant levels across the country should not vary by employment levels.

youngermother1 one reason is years ago babies like my dd would have been dead. simple.
the hospital would cock up baby would die ened of.
now the baby is saved thank god.
but it does mean that you end up with more disabled people.
it isn't hard to understand,

Because, youngermother1 - those dc that were kept alive as premature babies in the last 30 years are now reaching adult age, or have already, and are therefore now included in the figures for disability benefits. And also, over the last 30 years, childhood diagnosis of MANY disabilities has improved. When you bear in mind that people who turn 18yo this year were born in 1994 (doesn't seem possible, does it?), they will also be added to the figures of those claiming ADULT disability benefits.

The reason for the disparity between the figures for the amount of claimants that are incapable of work, and those that want to work is this: Most of those who say they don't WANT to work have had previous experience of trying to gain AND KEEP work whilst suffering from that disability. They have maybe been retired on medical grounds, and know that despite the DWP's assertation that they are fit for work, they actually aren't. They may be in the process of appealing against a decision stating that they are fit for work (70% of appeals against a fit-to-work decision are successful at the moment, making a mockery of the figure of just 29% of claimants NOT being fit to work - don't just look at the DWP statistics, they are massaged to show only those that are not in the process of an appeal that has a 70% chance of success). Also, the people that the DWP are classing as fit to work may only be able to work for 5 hours a week WITH support.

You also have to bear in mind that the DWP's idea of 'not sick enough for disability benefits' does NOT mean fit for FT work. To the extent that some people seemingly fall between the DWP's two different definitions of 'not sick enough for disability benefits' and 'fit for full-time work'.

Where are the jobs that will take these people on? And, tending to your last question, the reason for the higher number of disability claimants in areas with high unemployment? I would have thought that that was obvious? Two people apply for a job, 1/2 of the applicants will get it, with a disability or not. 600 people apply for a job - who the HELL is going to pick the 1 disabled person when there are 599 fit and healthy people to choose from? It just wouldn't make good business sense, would it?

I also think that you need to educate yourself on the predjudice that is still faced by a LOT of people with disabilities. Try getting a job when you have uncontrolled epilepsy and may need 1 or more days off sick EACH WEEK. And yet the DWP have classed you as 'not sick enough for disability benefits'. And you have been told that in the future, you will ALSO be classed as 'too sick for FT work', so will fall through the gaping holes that are appearing in the 'safety net' of the Welfare state. I personally am in that situation, was sacked for my last FT job due to my extensive time off sick, yet now I no longer qualify as 'sick enough for disability benefits'. Doesn't make me any less DISABLED though!

On the DLA fraud point, agree 0.5% is the official figure (2004 data, no more recent available). However, the same research showed that 9% of the money is going to people who no longer need it. This is not classed as fraud as there is no requirement to reassess, however it is money not going to those who need it.
My question, and I do not know the answer, is why the number of claimants has increased by c.100,000 each year since it was introduced and do 5% of the population (c.3 million people) need it.
Also agree it is not an out of work benefit, and DWP research shows only 29% of claimants claim not to be able to work, only 19% say they would like a job or might like one in the future. here.
This report also suggests that in areas of high unemployment, there are significantly more claimants than in areas of low unemployment - draw your own conclusions as I have no idea why.
Agree with above posters that rent controls do not work and are shown to damage the poor.

Whilst I see your point about the fact that a living wage for a student is going to be less than a living wage for a family - how do you deal with the fact that poor people want to have children? They work very hard, often in manual jobs, why SHOULDN'T they be able to cover the BASIC LIVING COSTS that you have when you have children? How would YOU solve that?

Government top-up for their wages? Oh, yes - that's been done. It's called Tax Credits and Housing Benefit. And it is costing the country 'too much money'.

A reasonable LIVING wage? Oh, you're saying that the poor exploitative businesses can't afford it.

Saying that anyone who earns less than XX amount can't have dc, and carrying out forcible terminations and sterilisations when that doesn't happen? That looks so good to the rest of the civilised world when China does it, doesn't it? And treads ever closer to Eugenicism.

Ignoring the fact that people on NMW will have a family regardless, and ignoring the effects of poverty on their CHILDREN? That takes us back to the Victorian age, and the era of the workhouse and forcible separation of families. That looks so good to the rest of the civilised world, doesn't it?

They, honestly, are the only four options. What's YOUR solution?

And more to the point - there are LOTS of people with disabilities that are told that they aren't disabled enough (any more) to qualify for DLA and ESA, but are ALSO told that as they aren't fit enough for FULL-TIME WORK, they can't claim jobseekers allowance either. And they don't fit the criteria for claiming Income Support either so there are thousands of people, usually with fluctuating health problems such as epilepsy, MS and other disabilities, that are being left with NO income at all. And you think that this is indicative of a responsible reform ?

Amberleaf, you don't. The current plans on the cuts to the DLA are very controversial and in principle, each person having to be assessed for their fitness to work is fine with me. As I've mentioned elsewhere, my own father is registered blind yet can still run a restaurant. I've met many other people with disabilities who all work. So clearly it's not a one size fits all. That's why people should be assessed and help tailored to get them into work

I think you may be confusing DLA with Employment Support Allowance

DLA is NOT an out of work benefit!

I know people on DLA who work, that DLA money helps them to work with things like transport to and from work and better wheelchairs etc, I also know people on DLA who cant/dont work, their DLA can help pay for cleaners/homehelp or whatever disability aids that make their lives liveable

re assessments; my mother has a lifetime award of DLA, she is crippled with arthritis, are they expecting her knarled joints to heal?

Lucky for my mum she is techincally an OAP [dont let her hear me saying that!] so DLA reforms wont affect her

What makes the reforms wrong is at the stroke of a pen 20% of DLA claimants [read people with disabilities] will no longer be officially classed as disabled and as such will not be entitled to other help-not just the DLA that they will lose

Now you can argue that ATOS are a bunch of idiots who couldn't find their own arse in the dark and from what I've read I'd probably agree. But the principle is fine, the execution is troubling

based on what ive said above, the principle is also very troubling

What I don't accept is that if you have any sort of disability that you automatically get given money and written off for life

I dont think any person with disabilities expects to be written off, if they can work they will, taking away the financial support to enable that work is very wrong and will mean they cant work-how is that helpful?

20% of genuinely disabled people are going to lose the support that DLA gives them, if they dont work and need to claim ESA what happens then?, they are at the mercy of ATOS whos assessors are not even medically trained! they could be deemed capable of working when really they arent at all

walnuts and sledgehammers spring to mind

The conservatives here (along with circa 70% of the general population) support the benefits cuts in principle - which is, in itself, a change from the status quo. Doh!

My mind isn't closed to ideas from either side of the political spectrum - give mine an idea which is both feasible in practical and political terms, and economically viable, and I'll listen.

What about you?

As usual, the conservatives come up with a 1001 reasons why change is impossible and the status quo is the only viable option. How sad.

Ok, let's discuss your numerous references to 'a living wage'. The flaw in your assumption is you are assuming that there is only one type of worker. As I've mentioned before, there are many.

Whilst the minimum wage would surely not be enough for many families, for lots of people such as my daughter, young people without kids and maybe the elderly looking for something to keep them busy/pocket money, the NMW is fine.

If you declare it must be a "living wage" based on being able to support a family, all of a sudden you are paying a student/pensioner working in Mcdonald's or a SAHM working at a cafe £20k+. How many businesses could sustain that?

@Amberleaf, you don't. The current plans on the cuts to the DLA are very controversial and in principle, each person having to be assessed for their fitness to work is fine with me. As I've mentioned elsewhere, my own father is registered blind yet can still run a restaurant. I've met many other people with disabilities who all work. So clearly it's not a one size fits all. That's why people should be assessed and help tailored to get them into work.

Now you can argue that ATOS are a bunch of idiots who couldn't find their own arse in the dark and from what I've read I'd probably agree. But the principle is fine, the execution is troubling.

What I don't accept is that if you have any sort of disability that you automatically get given money and written off for life.

Well said, AmberLeaf!

The only way Capitalism can continue to be thought of as working is if we go back to slavery, and not allowing the poorest in society to have the BASICS in life. Is this what you are saying by the SME's can't afford to pay a living wage to their employees? Should it be OK to make a profit on a persons productivity and hard work while not treating them as if they deserve the same BASIC standards as any other human being? I happen to think not.

The vast majority of employed people are working for small/medium enterprises and public sector workers of some description. Just how do you with a stroke of a pen declare everyone must be paid a living wage?

For that small business employing say 10 people, struggling to keep afloat that would be a disaster

How with the stroke of a pen do you declare the disabled are no longer disabled? That is what is happening and that is disasterous.

So are you saying that it OK for ANY employer to pay ANY of their employees LESS than a LIVING WAGE and let the state pick up the tab? Because it shouldn't be.

I may be on the left of the political divide, but for what it's worth, as a current Housing Association tenant, I have NO problem with downsizing when my dc leave home if they ever do due to SN. Less cleaning! . Shorter tenancies - reviewed every 3 years would be about right IMO. Bob Crowe is a twat who should move out of his house, and I totally disagree with him 'blocking' a council house from a family in need. I don't see that as an issue - even my 82yo Granny didn't see it as an issue when she downsized from a 3-bed, to a 2-bed, to a 1-bed bungalow as her dc left home, and her and my grandad got more infirm. No argument there.

No rent controls - then how do you propose people earning NMW can house themselves in a home they can afford to get to work from without as much of a top-up from Housing benefit? They are taking away the safety net without fixing the issues that caused that safety net to be necessary.

I wonder what the long term results of that will be? No-one able to live near a NMW job OR afford to travel to that NMW job? Higher unemployment? No bin men / hospital porters / hospital cooks? What then? Who will do those jobs than? Workfare participants? Which is just indentured slavery for the 21st century - look up the dictionary definition of indentured slavery. And a way to get out of the NMW laws by the back door, as the Tories never agreed with NMW in the first place.

I just knwo that they are cutting too much, too quickly, and it's not going to stop us from having a double-dip recession anyway. All it is is ideology, it's NOT making things better for anyone, and for a vast swathe of the country's population (IN WORK TOO, not just unemployed), it is going to make life not just worse, but totally bleak. They don't care who they hurt as long as those at the top of the pile are OK.

We're all in this together my arse.

"If the SME businesses can't afford a living wage, then they aren't profitable enough"

Great - let's just close them down then. A few more unempolyed people, a bit less tax revenue to the Exchequor - where's the problem?

1. "Get employers to pay ALL their staff a LIVING WAGE"

First, we live in a global economy. Why pay workers, say, £10/hour to manufacture goods in the UK when there are highly educated, motivated and industrious workforces in places like China, India, Thailand and The Phillipines who will work harder for less than a tenth of the UK wage?

Second, if wages go up, employment will go down. Say you run a cafe (so no scope for outsourcing to China) - if you have to pay staff higher wages, then the employer's costs will rise. The employer then has the choice of either accepting reduced profits (and at some point may decide the low profits stop the business being worthwhile) or raising the prices for customers, and possibly losing trade as a result, meaning the cafe is no lonegre seen as a worthwhile business venture. Or the cafe owner could simply decide to employ fewer workers/reduce their hours.

2. "Create enough AFFORDABLE childcare places for everyone that needs one in order to work. By subsidising childcare."

I'm in favour of creating more affordable childcare places. This would, of course, have an associated cost which might reduce the benefits bill, but would presumably just be moved elsewhere - to the education budget, perhaps.

3. "Place rent controls on ALL Landlords"

Basic economic theory tells us that at capped rates, quantity supplied is
reduced and so less rental housing will be available. If it is to have any effect, the rent level must be set at a rate below the current market rate. But if rents are established at less than their equilibrium levels, demand will necessarily exceed supply - so rent control will lead to a shortage of dwelling spaces. There is near unanimity amongst economists about this.

Gunner Myrdal, a left-winger who was given the Nobel prize economics and was one of the architects of Sweden?s welfare state wrote: ?Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision.? According to his fellow Swedish economist (and socialist) Assar Lindbeck, ?In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city?except for bombing.?

4. "Build more social housing with affordable rents".

I don't have many issues with this. However, the low rents increases demand for such properties (basic economics) and I think we need to ensure that it is those whose need is greatest who live in such properties. (Yes, Bob Crow - I'm looking at you!). The low price also discourages mobility, so that people tend to stay in such housing for longer than they might do otherwise and so I think shorter tenancies need to become the norm. And yes, maybe people will have to get used to the idea of down-sizing, once their children leave home.

If the SME businesses can't afford a living wage, then they aren't profitable enough. Are you trying to say that it acceptable for ANY employer to pay a wage that DOESN'T cover BASIC LIVING COSTS and then for the state to pick up the tab?? Because THAT is what has brought the welfare system to it's knees. Having to subsidise wages that don't cover BASIC LIVING COSTS in order to ensure that people have a home, heat, light and food. BASIC NECESSITIES. The Welfare state wasn't designed to cope with that, it was designed to be asafety net for those who had fallen on hard times, which is the reason the money can't spread far enough now.

It's all well and good calling them wooly socialist ideas, NiceGuy2, but they were based on the premise that everyone should have enough money to cover their BASIC LIVING COSTS. Which the current NMW doesn't DO without state subsidy.

Would you rather the people working bloody hard on NMW to create profits for those further up the chain didn't have enough to cover their basic living costs? Which would surely result in homelessness, starvation, loss of productivity, causing loss of profits and loss of tax revenue on those profits?

Taking away the safety net before fixing the problems that necessitated the safety net in the first place is just mind-boggling stupidity.

Hunty, your 4 'ideas' are great in theory but unworkable in practice.

How do you just get employers to pay a living wage? Remember most people are not working for the banks or supermarkets earning billions.

The vast majority of employed people are working for small/medium enterprises and public sector workers of some description. Just how do you with a stroke of a pen declare everyone must be paid a living wage?

For that small business employing say 10 people, struggling to keep afloat that would be a disaster.

For the government, where would they get the money from? Use tax credit money? The very thing you are claiming is a subsidy for business and wanting to cut?

Rent controls? Again with the mighty pen you think you can control rents? I doubt it. Many landlords would be forced to sell up. There's noone in the market to buy properties at the moment, result would be a massive housing crash triggering another recession. Great stuff. Whilst rents would probably go up to the maximum because all of a sudden you've much less houses on the market. Not good for the majority of tenants who were coping just fine before controls were implemented.

Build social housing by taxing those who earn over £100k.....again great idea in theory. First problem....where? I mean I assume you'd need a large scale building of homes? It would make most sense to build these in the south east since that's where the demand is highest. No point building them in say Scotland. Last time I looked, the SE was pretty densely populated already.

Second issue. taxing those who earn £100k+. How many people do you really think there are who earn that much? Not many. The 10% tax rise which Labour brought in was estimated to net £3billion per annum. Let's for arguments say you bring in the same again. That's not many houses, assuming you find somewhere for them to go. Plus then you have a frankly ridiculously punitive 60% tax rate for £150k+ earners. A 1-2% rise is barely worth it and wouldn't get you any homes really.

The fundamental problem Hunty is all your ideas are woolly socialist ideas the cost of which don't add up and paid for by someone else.

And seeing as the government have decided to cut the 'pot' for DLA by 20%, and there is a fraud rate of less than 0.5% - That means that the Government have decided to take disability benefits away from at leats 19.5% of GENUINELY DISABLED CLAIMANTS. By re-classifying them as no longer disabled. Which is funny, because they are STILL DISABLED. They are no less disabled than they were before the changes to the Welfare system - yet they no longer get our help.

I wonder, again, if the Government is piping water from the fountain at Lourdes directly to ATOS test centres?

How do we decide who is 'worthy' of getting disability benefits? Is it the amputee? The person suffering from cancer? The person with epilepsy? The person with MS? The wheelchair user? The person with Autism? The person with MH problems? The blind person? The deaf person? The person who has had back surgery and is immobile? How exactly do you decide WHICH 19.5% of these GENUINE claims should be made to lose their disability benefits?

Not being funny, the combined fraud AND DWP error rate for DLA is 0.5%. So MORE THAN 99.5% of claims are GENUINE claims - because that figure INCLUDES DWP error (turning people down for it who should be getting it is just one form of DWP error...).

So if less than 0.5% of DLA claims are fraudulent, how does that stack up with, say, the percentage of expenses fraudulently claimed for by politicians...?

DLA works as it stands. It doesn't need reforming. There is NO system that will be 100% effective at stopping fraudulent claims (Though the 40+ page claim form that needs to have medical evidence sent with it, your own GP's and consultants contacted, and often a medical assessment TOO comes very close) - does that mean that the genuinely disabled should be made to suffer? Should the many be punished for the few?

who said DLA doesn't work? the only ones I have seen are the people who post about fictional scroungers.
in rl DLA is hard to get, but once got works very well as it is.