Benefit cuts proposal

[Charliechoosecarefully]

I just wanted it to have a specific thread:-

Kendall says government to consult on merging JSA and ESA benefits.

Kendall says WCA being scrapped, with Pip assessment process being used instead - will be scrapped in 2028.

Kendall says 'right to try' will let people on sickness benefits try work without immediately having benefits cut.

Kendall says UC payments being rebalanced, with standard rate going up, and some health top-ups frozen or cut.

Kendall says reassessments for people on universal credit with health top-ups to be beefed up

Kendall says universal credit claimants with most severe disabilities will not face reassessment

Kendall confirms Pip eligibility rules to be tightened, and assessment process to be reviewed - 4 pointed needed in one descriptor.

Kendall says under-22s could be prevented from claiming health top-up for universal credit

Sourced from the guardian.

My son gets the highest rate for both. The mobility rate all goes towards the wheelchair accessible car that we'd really struggle without as an example.

It was also a difficult process to claim. I needed a lot of evidence from healthcare professionals to prove what I was saying in the forms and then it took 18 weeks for it to all go through, it was incredibly stressful. Especially as my son was in hospital at the time.

Nope. They get free accommodation, free healthcare, pocket money, access to Wi-Fi, phones and other benefits. They are just not included in the benefits bill. Wonder why that is ?

Why should people be ashamed of claiming benefits - assuming they are legitimate, of course.

We need to have an honest conversation.

Haha, you don't give up do you. Well, I disagree with your dismissal of that group, but not to worry there are many other respected and well qualified researchers and research groups who have written about wealth taxes.

You might want to check out some of the following:

• Thomas Piketty, Professor, Paris School of Economics, Economics.
• Gabriel Zucman, Professor, University of California, Berkeley, Economics.
• Emmanuel Saez, Professor, University of California, Berkeley, Economics.
• Joseph Stiglitz, Professor, Columbia University, Economics.
• Kate Raworth, Senior Researcher, Oxford University, Economics.
• Danny Dorling, Professor of Human Geography, Oxford University, Economic Geography and Inequality.
• Arun Advani, Associate Professor, University of Warwick, Economics.
• Andy Summers, Associate Professor, London School of Economics (LSE), Economics.
• Richard Murphy, Professor of Accounting Practice, Sheffield University, Accounting.

Wealth Tax Commission (UK): A group of UK academics that researched the feasibility of a wealth tax in the UK.

World Inequality Lab: A research group at the Paris School of Economics led by Thomas Piketty, studying wealth inequality.

Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS): A UK research institute that analyzes tax and fiscal policy, including wealth taxes.

European Network on Inequality (EQUALS): A European network researching inequality and tax policy.

Columbia University’s Initiative for Policy Dialogue (IPD): A think tank at Columbia University focused on global economic policy, including wealth taxes.

Hope that helps 🙂🙂

They shouldn’t. But just reading the multiple threads on mumsnet, you can understand why many of us don’t shout about it!

I don’t know why they are going after contribution based ESA. It’s a drop in the ocean compared to overall benefits. It’s also not just an ‘out of work’ benefit and can be paid to people in work who can no longer claim SSP.

I guess they are doing it as they’ll have no way of assessing eligibility once they scrap the WCA.

Bollocks

2 per cent for a wealth tax is inordinately high though. It was the percentage I was referring to. We can look at France, Norway and Switzerland for comparisons. Switzerland’s highest wealth tax is around 1 per cent in some cantons I think and some of the rich leave to the other cantons. The ones in Norway and France did not work, we know that. A lot of people in Norway explained why. It discourages building of businesses in the early years if you are having to pull the money out at that point. None of the top tech companies would be in their current form in the US had they had to pay an annual 2 per cent wealth tax in the first X years. Or so they claim.

That needs to change as there should not be any stigma for those who legitimately require tax-payer support.

And, let’s be clear - it is, ultimately tax-payer support.

Personally, I have no issue - although I, and evidently many others, strongly resent those who abuse the welfare system, either subtly or openly.

Illegal immigrants are not technically on benefits but they are looked after, fed and housed at the taxpayers cost. A bit like prisoners really. Comes at a cost and a big one at that. It is better to pay people benefits to live than let them commit crimes and pay for them in prison.

I totally agree with you! John Crace, a journalist in the Guardian who puts a satirical spin on the 'news' quoted in his article yesterday titled:

'Liz Kendall’s stages of welfare cuts: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance'....
Quote: 'Anyone under the age of 22 would be prevented from claiming health top-ups for universal credit. Yes. Liz had been informed that a young person could never be properly described as disabled until they were at least 22.'

Well worth a read: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/18/liz-kendall-stages-welfare-cuts-denial-anger-bargaining-depression-acceptance

It would end up like Blue Badges, where people who have one because of their disability but don't always use a mobility aid or 'look disabled' would get harassed in public. I get enough funny looks and comments when I stand up from my wheelchair to get something off the supermarket shelf as it is, without someone then suggesting I must be faking it for the vouchers I use to pay with.

Do enlarge on your erudite post. What I wrote is fact - true!

Would you be happy for everyone to know what you spend child benefit on ? Or how much you claim via UC for nursery fees ? And how would you know whether the spending was justified if you have no knowledge of disability ? To require disabled people to account for their spending, without applying the same compulsion to all other benefit recipients is ableist and discriminatory - and would cost a fortune to administer. And the notion that a single parent can earn £80k in benefits for disabled children is just ludicrous. The disabled are damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

I've been very lucky (so far) in that I've never needed to claim benefits as I've always worked. Am very proud of this tbh that I've managed to get to my 40s.....I do not get paid a lot at all (never have been paid a lot) but managed to scrape by with lots of planning/budgeting etc. And from what I see.....I seem to earn less than people who get benefits.
Except for severely disabled people and people who are SAHM (which is a hard job all in itself🤣) WTF do young working age people who don't work/claim benefits actually do all day ? I'd be so bored and depressed with no job

Yep. Not bollocks but fact. But they’re not called benefits and don’t come out of the benefit budget - I think the cost is covered by the home office. But still a cost to the tax payer whichever way you look at it - accommodation, food, healthcare, pocket money, access to Wi-Fi and phones.

Well, it should be looked at as part of the education process.

People need to be educated.

You can book taxis in advance if needed or avoid school run times, which you did. School hours are not flexible in the same way.
It's not a question of begrudging the elderly home visits. It's a question of very limited GP resources. Some surgeries will only visit bed bound patients because they simply do not have the resources. GPs are not responsible for their patient's transport issues, whether they are young or old, just their medical problems.

I object to the mumsnet posters who seem to feel qualified to judge who is disabled enough and who isn’t. That should be left to professionals. Getting PIP was the most brutal process I found. Having to lay out my life to a team to determine if I was as unwell as my psychologist, psychiatrist and GP said I was. You then have to go through really stressful reviews at regular intervals. But I do it because I have to.
Im appalled by threads recently where people have decided who is worthy and who isn’t. You get a snapshot on here, not reality.

Tell them to fuck off and mind their own business. I have to use a wheelchair outdoors and in supermarkets as I haven’t the physical ability to get around in any meaningful way. I carry elbow crutches in a pouch at the back of the chair and on the rare occasions I have to get up and use them to pick something off an upper shelf, there always seems to be someone around to ask why I’m in the chair if I can do this. My answer is always that disability is complex and varied and not a one size fits all situation, and that if they want any more information google is available !!

On the eve of the pandemic 2.14 million people were eligible for PIP - by January this year the number is 3.66 million. The workshy epidemic is a British phenomenon. This hasn't happened in other countries after the pandemic.
The welfare system has lost the plot - is totally out of control and unlikely to be brought to heel by Kendall's reforms.

I'm sorry but you can't just keep authoritatively declaring that no one supports a wealth tax when this is simply not true. I've provided loads of evidence to contradict it.

I can see why you want to turn away from the discussion now though. It hasn't gone well for you.

I think the defensiveness on all sides needs to stop, but, even this Labour Government said the current welfare system is broken.

So, whilst I can try to empathise with your post, I hope you can also see the position of those who agree with the Government. After all, you would hope that they are the ones who are in the best position to judge. Many on here voted them in.

With reference to PIP as just one of those benefits, one intelligent cut they have made is to require all claimants to score at least four points in at least one of the daily living components. If they don’t do this it doesn’t matter how many points they go on to score, they won’t be able to claim the daily living component. And this will have a knock on effect on the mobility assessment because many of the daily living descriptors have a direct bearing on mobility. This means that claimants with low level needs will no longer be able to cruise through the assessment scoring 2 points in every category, which in some cases leads to an enhanced award even when there are no ongoing costs. In my view this is a very clever cut and one the Tories must be kicking themselves about. It will result in significant savings - if only before the cheats find a way around it. But that’s not the concern of the genuinely disabled is it ?

That’s very interesting - thanks for sharing.