To be confused by benefits cuts to the disabled and ill?

[AllyHayHay]

As luck would have it, I have not been in this position, but I do know of one disabled lady who has struggled. She was incredibly fortunate to already own her own home prior to her accident.

I am not what you'd call politically astute, but I have been reading about the proposed spring benefits cuts and wonder why people always discuss this ONLY affecting the sick and disabled.
I am also aware that there are many, many rough areas with families who have never worked, people who are struggling with addiction, prison sentences (their kids, spouse, etc) and these people never seem to be included in the Guardian articles and opinion pieces online.

Why would a system wish to make the life of a disabled person worse, yet ignore the growing issues of illiteracy, generational poverty and other issues which are going on in most urban areas just out of sight of the comfortably off?
Why not address the reasons that great swathes of people are living on benefits across the UK who are NOT disabled? I imagine this would drag up questions of why those issues persist - and no one in government wants to address that.

Since benefits claimants who are not in work of on the pension are a minority, are these cuts more of a populist tendency?

Yeah, because high rate mobility is so easy to claim 🙄.

And I hate the way all disability benefits seem to be conflated in this debate. PIP is not just an out of work benefit!

That's great, but how do you think making severely ill people poorer is the answer to that.
Your arguments are reductive. Just because YOU could work doesn't mean everyone can.
If someone with a severe disability can't work, they can't work. Fling as many carrots as you like at them - chuck an entire vegetable patch - all you're doing is punishing them for being disabled.

I don't really believe OP that you aren't aware of any of this and that this is a thinly veiled benefits bashing thread.

I'm not sure Labour will do much. But they have highlighted the issue which means it's easier next GE for someone to pick up on welfare cuts. By then it'll be closer to the £100bn mark if Labour are more headlines than doing much.

My six year old nephew has been waiting for an autism assessment since 2022. He now has to wait another year. He isnt mildly autistic. It is very obvious he is. He really needs a proper specialist school instead of mainstream for his sake and that of the other children that attend (he shrieks and stims constantly).

Then we need to find ways of making people who CAN work, actually work, whether that means encouraging employers to make changes to accommodate them, i.e. grants for adaptations or to cover additional costs etc., provide training opportunities for them to get training/qualifications in jobs that they "can" do, etc.

Obviously those that are so disabled they can't work need to be looked after.

There must be ways of actually reviewing people properly, identifying their needs and abilities properly and putting them on the right "pathway" whether that's lifetime benefits, or training, or support, or whatever to get them working doing what they can.

Yes, it's going to be costly and difficult to evaluate people properly, but we really have no choice.

Either that or make all benefits payments subject to tax along the lines of PAYE, or means test them. "Something" needs to be done. The status quo isn't an option.

This is a rational reaction. Hitting the private sector would only see cuts filter to welfare in time.

Many people are claiming benefits due to work places not paying enough or offering very few hours or offering it and then cutting them back.

@Nadiaelgato I don't think that @Badbadbunny is suggesting that severely ill people can work and don't need support. She's focusing on the increasing numbers of young people who aren't in work or training. What is going to happen if these numbers keep increasing (as seems to be the current projection)?

40% on UC are working. I'm a member of a benefits group on FB. The amount some people pay in rent is ridiculous.

This is copied and pasted from the other thread about supermarkets.
BatchCookBabe · Today 09:35

It's utterly disgusting isn't it how they treat people/workers these days? 30+ years ago people would have gone out on strike for this shit. No WAY would it have been tolerated. This is why several people I know stay in jobs they're not keen on (customer service.) The 23 year old completely inexperienced manager is shit, and some customers are arseholes, but they won't leave, because they have been there since before 2010, and they have an employment contract with 24 to 32 hours a week guaranteed. At their age (50+) they will struggle to find anything with a similar contract.
The people who have come since the early to mid 2010s have got 4 to 8 hour contracts. They do sometimes get 18 to 24 hours, and they occasionally get 30-34 hours, but they do have some weeks with just 4-8 hours, and the employer doesn't have to give them any more than their contracted hours. It messes up their finances so badly that after a while they just start refusing the hours and go and sign on to full time benefits.
So they were willing to work 24 hours a week or more, but their employer wouldn't guarantee their hours. OR when their shifts should be. As someone said earlier, it's hard to plan your life when you don't know when you're going to be working!!! Two people I know are fortunate that they have a reasonable amount of hours, and fixed shifts, (happened many years ago, early 2010s and is in their contract so any new manager can't alter it.)
As I said, pre early 1990s, this would never have happened. There would have been strikes. I remember a factory my brother worked in (in the 1980s,) trying to drop the days from 5 to 4 a week, and the union threw it out and said there would be strikes if they took the food out of their workers mouths. Some places don't even have a union now. And as some people have said, some places pull this shit now to avoid playing national insurance, and sick pay, and so people have less holidays, and less rights. Fucking disgusting.

React
Report
JenniferBooth · Today 14:10

So they were willing to work 24 hours a week or more, but their employer wouldn't guarantee their hours. OR when their shifts should be. As someone said earlier, it's hard to plan your life when you don't know when you're going to be working!!! Two people I know are fortunate that they have a reasonable amount of hours, and fixed shifts, (happened many years ago, early 2010s and is in their contract so any new manager can't alter it
Its impossible to plan things like doctors appointments around this too Coupled with the fact its a struggle to get a GP appointment to start with its not hard to see how more people are getting sick

I honestly think the answer in the long term will be UBI. I have read some positive things about it where it has been trialled in other countries.
You can't force disabled people into work by reducing their benefits, it just won't work.
I don't think the general populace is ready for UBI though, due to a lack of understanding, and so lots of other unsuccessful things will be tried first, which is a shame.

https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/reports/employment-economic-inactivity-and-incapacity-past-lessons-and

This is a link to a recent report commissioned on this subject. Hopefully the labour government will be looking to only make small changes to bendfit amounts, at the same time implementing more support systems for people who can do some work, there are suggestions in the report.

This is a link to a recent report commissioned on this subject. Hopefully the labour government will be looking to only make small changes to bendfit amounts, at the same time implementing more support systems for people who can do some work, there are suggestions in the report

This doesn't address the issue of the proposed cuts plunging disabled people into poverty.

It's utterly shameful. I would be embarrassed to say I agreed with the proposals. They stink of self interest. It's easy to yell "but action has to be taken" when you're not the one being impacted. Even if I wasn't disabled I couldn't, with integrity, admit supporting a policy that wants to take already measly sums away from cancer suffers and people ravaged by terminal illnesses. And people who respond "oh well they won't be impacted?" Yes, they will. All disabled people who need support will. You can stand on the side of fairness and kindness or the side of selfishness and greed. It's grotesque. And from a 'Labour' government.

Yes There is AI too You (not you personally) cant be blaming ppl for being unemployed when they keep losing jobs to AI

As I've said, the benefits look to be cut or frozen for everyone. So you basically are agreeing ALL disabled people should be punished. That's sickening. And my answer would be to tax richer working individuals and businesses. She ignored my question - rhetorical - about how she'd feel if they decided to slash child benefit. Interesting. Regarding working people: invest in education, make w/p more disability-friendly, enable wfh, ban zero hours, grants.

What do you think OP? As one who has never been in this position?

You can add your name to the 'open letter' that has been sent to the government by Scope, and a collection of other charities. What good it will do - I don't know.

@Nadiaelgato I don't see where I've said that all disabled people should be punished. I'm saying that the increasing number of under-25's not in work or training is concerning and if this upward trend continues, their situation will be dire in the future.

I agree that child benefit is amazing, and I wish we had it here in the US.

But their proposals will have the blanket effect of worsening the situation for all disabled people. In this case "getting young people into work" translates as "reducing disability benefits for all".

Ok so, firstly…. Why are so many people claiming to be disabled and or mentally ill? Have you actually seen the amount of money a benefit claimant gets for job seekers allowance? Do you know the figure? The amount is so excruciatingly low that people have to say they have a disability. There is almost no other option. It’s not about morals or virtue anymore. It’s about maths. It’s not some mysterious head scratcher. If you are out of work, basic job seekers allowance leaves a pittance to live off so people are left with no other choice than to say they have a disability. Re mental health- it’s worth bearing in mind the assessment process for PIP extremely stressful for a claimant. Often sending genuine claimants into deteriorating states. A very degrading process indeed.

I feel sick not knowing what the cuts to UC are going to be. The gov want to encourage people to sign themselves as fit for work and go in the jobseekers group with the dangling carrot of more money... the group where they can sanction you and cut your money anyway.
How many vulnerable people are going to do this in order to not starve? There are not enough jobs to go round as it is. And for the people that keeping trotting out the line that the structure and routine of a job helps mental health.... the low paid jobs that people will be scrabbling over will be zero hour contract ones, which seem to cause more stress. No structure or routine with them.
Also, will this affect people on ESA?

I know, I do too.

Pointless me saying, try not to worry! I was so hoping it wasn't true. There's been a huge amount of pushback from charities so perhaps they will row back on some of the proposals.

I haven't been able to find anything that suggests ESA is going to be cut or "reformed", and I have been looking a lot so hopefully that will remain as is.

There are differences in all scenarios. Compare someone who is surviving alone, on benefits and someone with a working partner. For instance, after DH had to give up his self employment due to illness, he was never able to hold down a full time job. But I worked. We sold our home, bought a smaller, cheaper one, and after a bit of voluntary work, he did find a part time, low stress, low paid job. His confidence was shot, scrap heap at 50 was not good for his M/H, and he never claimed disability allowances - because we didn’t know he could. But that’s another story, and I’m a lot better informed now.

Having a reason to get out of the house was good for him, and he continued with a few shifts a week past retirement age. His poor earnings from 50 meant he hasn’t a great pension.

We are just one example of how serious illness and/or disability can impact on households. Another example, a cousin developed Parkinson’s at an early age and has never been able to work in his profession since, as it’s so severe. He depends on benefits, and a small occupational pension. Not the life he planned, but at least enough to live on. A neighbour has a degenerative neurological condition, his mobility and speech are seriously affected, but he still holds down a job in IT. We’re all different, but the benefits system rarely allows for that.

I really want to see the most severely impacted people get proper financial and practical support to live a reasonable life. I’d also support considerably more money for full time carers. They save the taxpayer a fortune, and they often have little respite. However, I’d like to think that those with less disabling conditions, especially the young, are supported into appropriate training and/or work opportunities. It must be a bleak outlook to feel that barely surviving on benefits is all there is.