70,000 people to lose their ESA from today.

[carernotasaint]

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/29/sickness-benefit-cuts

Can someone sort the link out. I cant see it all to C&P. Ta!

here

Well, I'm probably going to have to put a hard hat on here, but, in the article, the first couple they go into detail about, she is working and earning £33000, so I can't see that it is unreasonable that the two of them should be able to live on that. Or am I missing something ?
Ususally in newspaper articles about this sort of thing, they find extreme examples that make out the cuts are really hrrific and people are going to be starving. There are masses of cuts that are being made everywhere, I have more sympathy for a lot of other groups, (for example the families with severely disabled children who don't get the respite care they need) than for the examples given in this article. Apologies if they aren't typical examples, but I'm only commenting on what I've read there.

Hmm, the first example isn't a great case against the government is it? On £33k they can certainly manage. Her point that "How would we manage if I were to stop working?" is hardly a good defence given you could argue that for any family with a SAHP or a working single parent family.

But at the end of the day I do think there is a case to be answered about HOW the cuts are being implemented even if I do support the principle that we need to have tighter controls.

Certainly ATOS seem more hellbent in knocking as many people off the list as they can without any real considerations of people's needs. That sort of system just loses public support.

Personally I'd like to see a system where the needs of the claimant is properly assessed and as part of that if they are deemed fit to work (in any job, not just their old job) then they are given a timescale based on their circumstances, rather than the same time for all. Yes in the short term it may be more expensive, longer term I think it's best for all.

This means that you have savings of less than £16,000 and, if you have a partner or civil partner, they work for less than 24 hours a week on average.

www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Illorinjured/DG_171891

Anyone who's partner works 24 hours a week or more will no longer get ESA -

Minimum wage - £6.08 x 24 = £145.92 per week

Minimum wage annual income - £145.92 per week x 52 = 7487.84

So if your partner's annual income is £7497.84 (regardless of how many children you have) - you will not get ESA if you have cancer - it takes more than a year to cure most cancers

If you have paid 11% of your wages for 20 years (with your employer contributing a further 12% and get cancer) - sorry nothing after a year

The government takes 25% of the nation's earnings every week in National Insurance Contributions - the insurance policy which is meant to pay out when bad luck strikes

I guess the government takes advice from the bankers who invented the PPI policies - how can we sell an insurance policy which does not pay out the benefits promised

It means disabled people have no financial independence - not good

But, as part of a couple, or part of a family, your finances are seen to be a 'household income'. that's not restricted to people with disabilities, that is the same for all situations where one adult is at home.... redundancy, SAHP, etc. The whole idea of a benefits system/welfare state / call it what you want, was to ensure no-one went hungry, or without housing. We'd all like a bit more, but the country can't afford a bit more. Surely whatever Gvmnt was in power now, they would be having to look at everything that it's been spending money on, and see if each and every thing can justify that. We're not living in a situation that is "ideal"

BackforGood
You're talking about aggregation of household income and means testing. Aggregation has long been recognised as bad for women; lots of info on domestic violence and financial abuse.
Tax isn't done by household, but by individual. Why not benefits?
The whole idea of the Welfare State was also to promote social cohesion. Having a group of adults being seen as dependants on their families is incompatible with social equality.

And this 'country can't afford it' is a great spiel to destroy the public sector. How comes the country can afford Royal Wedding, jubilee, olympics? But not disabled people's dignity?

Aggregation/means testing, call it what you will. Basically it's a fact of life with the benefits system. We don't have a money tree so we need to be selective with where our money does go.

We need to target it where it does the most good. So the idea of giving benefits based on an individual would lead to rather bizzare situations where the man earns £100k a year but the wife does not, so she gets full benefits, whereas a couple both earning £25k a year gets nothing.

The whole idea of benefits was to help people temporarily in their time of need. There was never an intention for millions to live off them and we cannot afford them.

As for how we can afford the wedding/jubilee etc, you are clearly not comparing apples with apples.

What niceguy2 said.

Everything Julia Scurr has said.

and what Beingamum said. Looking at the actual figures and seeing how low they are and what people are expected to live on is shocking disgusting and appalling.

The Royal Wedding, Olympics etc are one off events. The benefits bill is constant, and only ever increase. At some point the whole system will collapse, it is up to the government to try and keep it going for as long as possible.

As far as the person that posted about disabled people being denied their financial independence, that is ridiculous. If they are reliant on benefits, they aren't financially independent. I feel bad for the people affected by this but I really don't think there is any way round it at this point. The benefits system has expanded far, far beyond what is was originally supposed to be.

Here here carer.

If you are disabled you are far, far more likely to live in poverty. To me it is not ok to take money from vulnerable people who potentially have shitty enough lives as it is. Most disabled people do not have a partner on £33k (which I agree is enough for 2 people to live on)

And it's not ridiculous to say that these benefits give disabled people financial independence. If you are disabled for life and can't support yourself then benefits do give you independence, in particular from someone who is abusing you. I have personal experience of this; benefits gave me a way out of an abusive situation. If I hadn't had that, I would still be in that situation and be desperately unhappy, with no way of changing it because I'm unable to work (despite desperately wanting to).

This whole 'I feel bad for the people affected by this....' well that indicates to me that you don't know anyone who is going to suffer because of this. People are going to kill themselves. (there are bloggers out there with severe mental health problems who are indicating that that is what will happen) People are going to have no way out of abusive situations. People are going to find themselves without food. There is not necessarily anything they will be able to do about these things, because they are disabled and unable to work to better their situations.

I have a problem with that. A huge problem.

Josephine you may as well say a worker is dependant on their employer for wages. Please bear in mind that some of us paid into the Welfare State for years, others have supported it politically etc. When we come to use i.t, we get all this 'country can't afford it' BS. Could afford 5% tax cut for the rich in the Budget, though. Get a grip.