Pip and the government decisions

[Differentstarts]

I don't understand why the government are going for an all or nothing approach with getting disabled people back into work. I think there is a significant amount of disabled people who could work part time but if they lose pip and lcwra then this won't be an option as nobody can live on a part time wage. I think expecting people to suddenly be able to work 50/60 hour weeks just isn't realistic. I work part time and claim pip and lcwra and it works when I worked full time in the past i actually worked less as I was always ill and in hospital. I should be still able to claim pip and lcwra with the changes but I don't have a lot of trust in the system that this will definitely be the case and if I lost that money then what as I wouldn't be able to pay my bills, get to hospital appointments pay for aids etc. I would lose my home, my job everything. I just don't understand why there isn't a middle ground and part time work isn't being encouraged as surely the aim is to get more people working. I just don't get it.

I don’t agree with the changes. In terms of current claimants from what I can tell LWCRA will continue at the current rate but no increase each year, presumably until 2029/30. I expect the same for those who are under 22 with LCWRA now u
They haven’t really explained what happens when just PIP
However there is the risk that someone will be reassessed and then lose LWCRA and if they get it again a year later because they get worse (not through challenge or appeal) it will be at the lower rate or by then be linked to PIP and they don’t qualify.

The Benefits and work site has a good summary - I’m very worried about what it says about consultation

However, because the DWP has chosen not to consult on most of the major issues, including the changes to PIP scoring and the freezing of the health element of UC, it does not have to wait until the consultation ends before bringing forward new legislation for these changes. The DWP have said they want to introduce legislation in this session of parliament, which ends on 21 July.
So it is possible legislation to enact some of the changes, especially to PIP scoring, could be introduced as early as May to try to prevent opposition to the cuts building.

Your story sums up the issue. Piss takers abused a provision for disabled people. That is what is happening across the board now. Instead of governments having the courage to target the piss takers they are going after disabled people.

Do you think Sallie the Scammer will be phased by needing 4 points in one area? Of course she won't, she will lie like a rug, which is what she's already doing. Meanwhile anyone working will find it difficult to evidence 4 points even when it's true.

I have seen a lot of stupidity on MN over the years but the absolute lack of common sense on these changes has been amazing to see. But cheer up, some of you or your loved ones can look forward to becoming disabled yourselves in years to come. Then you too can have the super fun times of trying to live with some sort of dignity in a society that hates and resents you for being disabled.

I agree actually it seems ridiculous that a person on ££££££ wages or savings can qualify when they can fund their own care. Its purpose should be for those who can’t work or can only work part time. To top up their income or pay for things they wouldn’t otherwise have.

If your wage isn’t well paid then you would be one of the low earners.

But where would you put the cut off for a single person? 35 hours working a week at minimum wage is £22k should that be the cut off?

what about people with adult disabled “children” stil living with them should it be means tested on the parents income? That doesn’t happen for benefits of non disabled people

But what is the cut off, put a figure on it? We could maybe say £100k and you are no longer entitled but I’d hazard a guess that the number of people claiming pip but on more than £100k that it would be a minuscule amount of money, plus you’d then have people purposefully reducing their hours

Yes but most benefits are based on household income. We aren't eligible for anything other than PIP because my husband hasn't left me - unlike the spouses of many people with my condition. You're allowed to earn the princely sum of £800 a month on things like ESA. All he has to do is decide he wants a non-disabled model and I too can join the ranks of 'single disabled woman desperately claiming benefits'. Or alternatively I can use PIP to help me stay in work albeit on lower hours than most. It keeps me out of the mental health services at least.

I mean individual means tested like carers. Not joint.

Yes well they make bloody sure not to do that. Because my husband has the audacity to have a decent job we are entitled to nothing other than PIP.

My husband joked that he should move out so I could claim all the things. The system is a total nonsense punishing people for staying married and in work. It's just one of the many reasons Britain is heading down the toilet.

The people with the most severe disabilities should get the most.
It should be awarded on the effect of a disability not as a means to prop up poor pay or other benefits

It is not awarded as a means to prop up poor pay, etc, but as things stand, what with the cost of living, gas, and electricity soaring, and so on, then it stands to reason that some people will have no choice but to use their PIP for these things.

I’m not suggesting means testing is the way forward re those with disabilities. My comment was purely based on a pp noting that because
it can happen unawares to anyone at anytime means that it should be exempt.

Im sure that is not why it is exempt because suddenly finding yourself unemployed puts people in exactly the same situation financially
Of note I don’t agree with means testing on many things….the same people always miss out and, as we’re seeing now, often end up worse off

This is the same with UC.
If a couple live together they get less than if they live apart
Hence many single adult households ( with kids ) with the partner living with their mother, apparently

But they're not necessarily saving money. Those who are would be those who lie that they pay rent to their mum or mate somewhere and show some fabricated proof of rent but nothing else.

Otherwise, if a spouse moves out, they'd have to start paying for rent, council tax, utility bills on another home. So while you'd be able to claim all the things, your family is losing the same (more or less) still from another source (those 2nd home expenses). In other words, it doesn't matter if you're single or a couple.

I agree with the poster that individual income should be taken into account for means tested.

Unemployment benefit isn’t means tested either though in short term

Agree in the short term……6 months I think.
After that of course it is means tested

Fundamentally missing the point of why PIP is paid as a universal benefit. Means testing thresholds are alwas set low. So as well as screening out the better off, it would also screen out those who need it and are just slightly above the thresholds.

I agree completely . I don’t think the threshold should be low like it is for other benefits but also know if it every became means tested that’s exactly what would happen! If it was means tested though it should be like carers where the only income counted is that of the recipient.

Yeah if it was to be means tested, it should be the claimant only. I have a few female friends who cant work but cant claim ESA or UC because their partner/spouse earns too much. The PIP they get is their only income.

It is said disability costs someone an average of £1k per month. So if PIP was to be means tested, it could be argued that the threshold should be high enough where that £1k wont make much difference to someones income.

That is not to say I agree with means testing at all anyway. PIP is often a gateway to other support.

That is not to say I agree with means testing at all anyway. PIP is often a gateway to other support.

Agree. The philosophy behind PIP being a universal benefit, is because disability is universal. The extra cost is the same regardless of income, and it would be very difficult to justify where to place the means testing threshold. Personally I think means testing is a race to the bottom, not to mention making the benefit more expensive to administer.