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?

Only you’re still missing that the money saved through means testing would be less than the money spent on the programme. In addition there are hardly any people with high incomes actually claiming DLA.

You have an opinion but is it based on facts? As in do you know the amount that would be saved with cuts versus money saved if you means test?

I agree OP

If its a choice between the sledgehammer to crack a nut cuts affecting the most vulnerable in our society versus a threshold eligibility cut off I know which one I'd choose.

If they can do it for child benefit they can figure out a way to do it for PIP. I'd make it a high threshold but I'd rather the David Cameron type claimants were excluded over the poorest.

See comment above. The savings for child benefit made it worth while doing as everyone was eligible. That isn’t the case for DLA. Means testing a universal benefit is quite different from means testing a limited access benefit.

Also as everyone knows the CB means testing is not fair.

Couple A both earn £49999. They get CB.
Couple B. One earns £51000 one earns £14000. They don’t get CB.

or my personal favourite. Single parent earns £51000. Nothing.

I'd rather there weren't any cuts tbh but I think means testing of sorts is the lesser of two evils.

There's some good arguments against it here. I was already on board with the cost of administering it. I'm also pretty suspicious that there aren't that many pip claimants on very high salaries so it would raise that much..

The ones that have unsettled me most are worries about savings levels and the doing it per household rather than an individual. I'd hate the idea of my spouse having to be responsible for paying for my care like that and disabled people should be able to save for house deposits etc.

One will save money. The other will not. The other therefore is not worth doing.

Really sad that the disabled are being targeted by so many people including the government. Anything other than perhaps pay more tax eh?

I am far better off in work than I was for the couple of months after my temp contact ended when I was unemployed. Not just a small amount- hundreds each month better off working.

You also need to consider the other aspects that make work financially worthwhile e.g. pension contributions, sometimes a work car or similar too.

That’s the other issue. Our tax rate is already at the higher end. They will know if they increase tax rate professional services will leave. They already are to some extent with the higher earners taking their tax elsewhere.

But that then comes down to logistics doesn't it. I'm not sure why it would be so hard to marry up with declared income at HMRC.

Certainly preferable to driving to most vulnerable into the most miserable existence.

If the country takes that approach, expect to see an awful lot of people cutting their hours to get below the thresholds. You’d have to earn very considerably more than £100k to make it worthwhile losing entitlement to £220 per week for the rest of your life.

Did you deliberately miss where I said the cost of doing this would exceed the money saved? Disabled households are near enough exclusively low income.

No I didn't miss it. I responded by suggesting that was logistics and there must be easier ways.

I know they are lower income but some aren't. That's my entire point. I'd rather target those least affected and there are some wealthier households that do claim PIP.

There literally are not. Because the saving is minuscule it’s not worth doing.

I'm not advocating for cuts, I just think if there has to be any it's the lesser of two evils. Miniscule or not.

Not sure how I feel about means testing but I regularly help older people to claim Attendance Allowance and they have a couple of hundred thousands in the bank plus significant private pensions or second homes etc.

It can’t just be the lesser of two evils. If they’re trying to save a billion they’re not going to settle for a cut that saves £100.

It wouldn't be £100.

Taking just one high rate claimant off would save £700 plus.

Approx 825,000 of PIP or DLA claimant aren’t entitled to any other benefits (likely working and out of threshold for UC)

4% of the working population earn over £100k a year. Let’s be generous and assume this is also the case for the PIP/DLA claiming population. Meaning 33,000 people would loose their PIP/DLA, but in reality likely less as the 4% is likely to a lot less among the disabled population.

In comparison 1.4 million people claim PIP for Psychiatric disorders. The people it appears Labour want to target.

I’m not saying it’s right. But you can see why the government are targeting this group of people and not means testing.

Yes, it’s been a long term strategy of squeeze those with the least (especially least power) while pandering to those with the most. No responsibility if you’re wealthy.

I was clearly exaggerating. The point is, again, the savings wouldn’t make it a worthwhile exercise but also undermine the entire point of disability benefits.

Exactly this. They savings going after higher earners isn’t the group they want.

How can you means test PIP? Will a person's disability suddenly disappear when they are left to starve? Ditto re. LCWRA.

Converting tax credits to Universal credits has taken over a decade since they were first introduced in 2013 after a few years of planning beforehand. So that's been a longer term plan well over 5 years.

Most people on just over £100k will already be taking steps to get their income under £100k because of the ridiculous 60% marginal tax rate on incomes between £100k to £126k.