Rather then cut certain benefits why not means test them?

[cadooyahoo]

I know someone who imo does not get enough support for their disability (they are blind) & am aware many disabled people live in poverty so I don't think we should cut benefits. Wouldn't it make more sense to means test PIP, DLA & AA?

I get about £1k a month in PIP and new style ESA, both of which are not means tested. That makes a big difference to my life and it doesn’t seem fair to take that away from me just because I have worked and saved hard for the majority of my life. It doesn’t encourage people to try to support themselves if they see others who haven’t done so getting all the state benefits and housing. That doesn’t mean that I think disabled people don’t need help either before I get flamed.

The welfare system is a luxury afforded to successful and productive countries. The UK has been in decline for decades and we can no longer afford to provide these benefits.

That's the issue isn't it.

It doesn’t encourage people to try to support themselves if they see others who haven’t done so getting all the state benefits and housing.

So you deserve it but they don't? I don't get this argument

I just wanted to add my tolerance for very high earners not getting the lower awards, was very much in the spirit that cuts were being made and it felt more palatable that people with very little kept all thier amount and people who would still have far more than average lost a little.

Obviously the ideal would be no cuts at all!

I get that. However, PIP is the working age disability benefit.

Under 16s don’t work and DLA is their benefit not their parents.

You also need to consider that at the £100k point their parents have lost; all child benefit, tax free childcare, your 30 free hours, they are paying a minimum of £30k a year in tax, and if they have a severely disabled child their partner is unlikely to be working or will be working very part time. At this point their take home would be less than that of a family on average salaries, and they’ll still remain as a net contributor to the system.

Attendance Allowance is for pensioners, so arguably could be included. However a lot of pensioner wealth is assets rather than income, so again how many would actually fall above the threshold.

They could cut the costs of PIP (and other disability benefits) by making correct decisions more often and having far fewer very expensive appeals.

When almost 70% are winning at appeal, and a huge percentage of those winning are doing so despite adding no new or extra information to their claim, then the costs of appeals are massive and should be the first tackling point.

No, we both deserve it but I wouldn’t get it if it was means tested.

There was an AMA on here by a PIP assessor, and when someone asked this, they were told that it could be to check the claimant is still alive. It is not unknown for someone to die, and the family continue to claim the money (which is obviously fraud).

Full on assessments seem daft though. A light touch one every ten years seems reasonable.

because I have worked and saved hard for the majority of my life.

I detest this type of moralising language. It doesn't make you more deserving vs someone born with a disability & never worked.

No, we both deserve it but I wouldn’t get it if it was means tested.

@Punishmentforthis so you disagree with any means testing?

I don't get child benefit it doesn't make me resent people that do. 🤷🏻‍♀️

despite working hard, paying lots of tax & saving...

Read my post properly before responding with your misplaced outrage. Where do I say I am more deserving? I’m saying I am not less deserving just because I have savings.

Because, as has been proven time and time again there aren’t enough rich people, they already bear a disproportionate amount of the tax burden, and if you increase it further they will leave. And the tired old trope about corporations is just bollocks. Do you really think a labour government wouldn’t be doing those things if they were that easy?

Having children is a choice, having a disability isn't. Why should someone who is able to earn a high salary, despite having a disability, be penalised?

Anyway, this isn't about people who, for example, have to use a wheelchair who are able to work and whose disability payments help to cover some of the extra costs of being disabled. It isn't about the people with lifelong disabilities, who rely on carers to live, who have never had a realistic chance at earning a living and living independently.
It's about the massive rise in recent years in people claiming disability benefits who do not work and who claim they are not able to do any sort of work at all, that they are looking at.

You also need to consider that at the £100k point their parents have lost; all child benefit, tax free childcare, your 30 free hours, they are paying a minimum of £30k a year in tax, and if they have a severely disabled child their partner is unlikely to be working or will be working very part time. At this point their take home would be less than that of a family on average salaries, and they’ll still remain as a net contributor to the system.

But why means test child benefit, free hours, tax free childcare?

I would argue the issue with 100k is losing the personal allowance, that should be increased.

I had tax credits taken away because of me being able to progress a little with my work and get promoted, so therefore my income raised. It doesn't mean that my disabilties have disappeared because of the income raising (I found a caseworking job that suits my autism with no phone work required) and because of my increasing problems with arthritis developing, I claimed PIP which is the only benefit left for me to have with working and keeping my income.
If that was means tested, it would go against the whole reason why PIP exists in the first place.

Having children is a choice, having a disability isn't. Why should someone who is able to earn a high salary, despite having a disability, be penalised?

In an ideal world they shouldn't but why should someone who can't work with a disability get less because it's more palatable to cut?

Instead of money perhaps it should be given as aids or services.

@Punishmentforthis why even mentioned you worked hard or saved? it's not relevant

The limb thing is because rates can change depending on their mobility

Someone I know of originally got high rates on both components after losing a limb.

They now only get the lower mobility component because of their abilities with their prosthetic.

It's something people like Help For Heroes have campaigned over.

how about instead of cutting benefits for the poorest in society, we look at getting back some of the money thats been sucked out of the system by the super rich and the corporations over the last 15 years, and carry on doing that on a year on year basis.

It doesn't work like that in the real world unfortunately

Why shouldn't he though, if his disability means he needs extra money to combat it?

Yes the country needs to find more money.
What I find astounding is how the discussion is always about those who have the least getting less.
What about discussions around those who have the most giving a fair amount. Why aren’t the multinationals and multimillionaires being made to pay a fair/equivalent rate of tax. The fact nearly all our media outlets are owned by tax exiles who care more about money than morals may have something to do with it.
My question to everyone on the thread is, should we first focus on PIP, or should the focus be on those who have most paying an equitable rate of tax?

@XenoBitch didn't think of that angle, thank you.

Of course it is relevant when people are suggesting means testing disability benefits.