Cable Forum
Page 142 of 179 « First 4292132138139140141 142 143144145146152 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   The state benefits system mega-thread. (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33692770)

RichardCoulter 31-03-2019 13:33
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35989252)
I think the common sense solution is to do away with disability benefits as a top up. They should means test the lot as Universal Credit to ensure money is targeted at those most in need.

PIP mobility should end at 65. Over state pension age it should be State Pension plus Attendance Allowance ending the unfairness of a two tier system based on date of claim.

It’d save a fortune on bureaucracy as well and simplify the processes for applicants.
Means testing is the most expensive way to administer benefits and results in a low take up rate as people resent the Government asking such private questions eg half of pensioners entitled to Pension Credit don't claim it.

Means testing would also undermine the very reason why Attendance Allowance/Mobility Allowance/DLA/PIP was introduced in the first place, which is that nobody, whatever their means, should lose out on this help towards the extra costs of disability. This is why it's tax free and not means tested.

Contributory ESA is means tested to an extent. Blair introduced a means test where most people in receipt of a private/occupational pension had it taken into account if they were over a prescribed amount. Cameron introduced a system where those not in the support group could only claim it for a year before facing a means test.

There's also the question as to whether taking out insurance should be means tested at all. This is akin to saying that if a millionaire takes out home insurance and then gets burgled, s/he should not be able to claim as they can afford to replace the missing items themselves!

It wouldn't save as much as you think anyway. Short term, savings could be made as benefits are withdrawn, but then people would have to live off their savings. Once these reduced to £16,000, they would be back on benefits again. These means tested benefits would then also attract free prescriptions, free dental treatment, free eye tests and a voucher towards glasses, cold weather payments, Social Fund payments, reimbursement of travel costs to hospitals and prisons, free medical appliances eg wigs, fabric supports etc etc. It would be horrendously expensive to administer as the diminishing capital rule would need to be applied on top of all the other costs caused by means testing.

There is also a belief amongst politicians and the middle classes upwards that taxpayers are happy to support the welfare state because they get a little bit of what they pay in tax back in the form of non means tested benefits. If these were withdrawn, they might not be so keen to support the welfare state at all, which would be a disaster for poorer members of society.

Taf 31-03-2019 13:47
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35989252)
PIP mobility should end at 65.
So disabled people over 65 don't need to get around? Lock them indoors where they can't be seen by society?

Another anomaly is that Carers lose their "allowance" (now the princely sum off £66.15 for a MINIMUM 35 hour week) the day they get their State Pension.

No-one steps in to take over their role.

And I believe that Carers Allowance is under threat. Two Carers I talk with have been told to complete a diary over 4 weeks, showing how much time they spend caring. Bureaucracy on top of their already tough roles. :mad:

And letters announcing the 2% rise in Carers Allowance are filled with information on their rights to flexible working, but if you earn too much you lose the "allowance". :mad:

jfman 31-03-2019 14:06
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35989280)
Means testing is the most expensive way to administer benefits and results in a low take up rate as people resent the Government asking such private questions eg half of pensioners entitled to Pension Credit don't claim it.

Means testing would also undermine the very reason why Attendance Allowance/Mobility Allowance/DLA/PIP was introduced in the first place, which is that nobody, whatever their means, should lose out on this help towards the extra costs of disability. This is why it's tax free and not means tested.

Contributory ESA is means tested to an extent. Blair introduced a means test where most people in receipt of a private/occupational pension had it taken into account if they were over a prescribed amount. Cameron introduced a system where those not in the support group could only claim it for a year before facing a means test.

There's also the question as to whether taking out insurance should be means tested at all. This is akin to saying that if a millionaire takes out home insurance and then gets burgled, s/he should not be able to claim as they can afford to replace the missing items themselves!

It wouldn't save as much as you think anyway. Short term, savings could be made as benefits are withdrawn, but then people would have to live off their savings. Once these reduced to £16,000, they would be back on benefits again. These means tested benefits would then also attract free prescriptions, free dental treatment, free eye tests and a voucher towards glasses, cold weather payments, Social Fund payments, reimbursement of travel costs to hospitals and prisons, free medical appliances eg wigs, fabric supports etc etc. It would be horrendously expensive to administer as the diminishing capital rule would need to be applied on top of all the other costs caused by means testing.

There is also a belief amongst politicians and the middle classes upwards that taxpayers are happy to support the welfare state because they get a little bit of what they pay in tax back in the form of non means tested benefits. If these were withdrawn, they might not be so keen to support the welfare state at all, which would be a disaster for poorer members of society.
If people have savings to live off of then they should do. The purpose of the welfare state isn't to fund the lifestyle of people who have substantial savings in the first place.

Attendance Allowance/DLA as a concept was introduced almost 30 years ago, it was fit for purpose then but it's not fit or purpose now.

If there's a low take up rate as a result then savings are all to the good. Those that don't feel they need it not applying is a positive outcome.

---------- Post added at 13:06 ---------- Previous post was at 13:04 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35989281)
So disabled people over 65 don't need to get around? Lock them indoors where they can't be seen by society?

Another anomaly is that Carers lose their "allowance" (now the princely sum off £66.15 for a MINIMUM 35 hour week) the day they get their State Pension.

No-one steps in to take over their role.

And I believe that Carers Allowance is under threat. Two Carers I talk with have been told to complete a diary over 4 weeks, showing how much time they spend caring. Bureaucracy on top of their already tough roles. :mad:

And letters announcing the 2% rise in Carers Allowance are filled with information on their rights to flexible working, but if you earn too much you lose the "allowance". :mad:
If someone is 66 they can't apply for PIP mobility so it ends the discrepancy of having a two tier system.

nomadking 31-03-2019 14:11
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35989281)
So disabled people over 65 don't need to get around? Lock them indoors where they can't be seen by society?

Another anomaly is that Carers lose their "allowance" (now the princely sum off £66.15 for a MINIMUM 35 hour week) the day they get their State Pension.

No-one steps in to take over their role.

And I believe that Carers Allowance is under threat. Two Carers I talk with have been told to complete a diary over 4 weeks, showing how much time they spend caring. Bureaucracy on top of their already tough roles. :mad:

And letters announcing the 2% rise in Carers Allowance are filled with information on their rights to flexible working, but if you earn too much you lose the "allowance". :mad:
I suppose the assumption is that they're not forgoing a job in order to do the caring.


They may be eligible for other extra benefits.
Quote:
Most Carers aged 65 or over won't be able to receive the Carers Allowance in full, because Carers Allowance overlaps with the state retirement pension. However they may receive an increased amount of the income related benefits (Pension Credit, Council Tax Support and Housing Benefit).
Quote:
If you get the State Pension you won’t be paid Carer’s Allowance. But don’t be put off making a claim, because if you’re eligible then you could be awarded extra Pension Credit or Housing Benefit instead.

RichardCoulter 31-03-2019 15:17
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35989281)
So disabled people over 65 don't need to get around? Lock them indoors where they can't be seen by society?

Another anomaly is that Carers lose their "allowance" (now the princely sum off £66.15 for a MINIMUM 35 hour week) the day they get their State Pension.

No-one steps in to take over their role.

And I believe that Carers Allowance is under threat. Two Carers I talk with have been told to complete a diary over 4 weeks, showing how much time they spend caring. Bureaucracy on top of their already tough roles. :mad:

And letters announcing the 2% rise in Carers Allowance are filled with information on their rights to flexible working, but if you earn too much you lose the "allowance". :mad:
Indeed. Carers are now being monitored much more closely, including by HMRC who are now passing on earnings details to the DWP. ISTR being derided by others when I mentioned this sometime ago.

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/ne...e-overpayments

One pensioner was on the Radio 4 programme 'Moneybox'. He looks after his disabled son and does some taxi driving at night when he's in bed. He was found to be, on average, earning more than the earnings limit for many years. As a result he was overpaid, on average, by 35p a week and the DWP are taking him to court. He has been warned that he may face a custodial sentence.

The cost of keeping a pensioner in prison and having to put his son into care (as well as the upset that this will cause them both) will far outweigh any benefit to the taxpayer.

jfman 31-03-2019 15:28
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 
'May' face a custodial sentence does not mean 'will'. The letters will be standard letters with carefully crafted legal wording. It's quite right that HMRC share earnings details with the DWP to ensure the benefits system remains robust.

RichardCoulter 31-03-2019 15:46
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35989282)
If people have savings to live off of then they should do. The purpose of the welfare state isn't to fund the lifestyle of people who have substantial savings in the first place.

Attendance Allowance/DLA as a concept was introduced almost 30 years ago, it was fit for purpose then but it's not fit or purpose now.

If there's a low take up rate as a result then savings are all to the good. Those that don't feel they need it not applying is a positive outcome.

---------- Post added at 13:06 ---------- Previous post was at 13:04 ----------



If someone is 66 they can't apply for PIP mobility so it ends the discrepancy of having a two tier system.
Savings above £6,000 start to affect the majority of means tested benefits, with them being withdrawn completely if they are over £16,000, which I don't think are substantial sums.

Your argument for means testing them has been considered by various Governments, but rejected time and time again. Not only for the political, social and financial reasons that I previously stated, but because it's unfair to penalise those who are prudent.

Person A drinks, smokes, regularly buys a new car and goes on holiday more than once every year. They have no savings as a result.

Person B doesn't drink, smoke, makes their car last as long as possible and only goes on holiday occasionally. They have savings over £16,000 as a result of their thrift.

Why should person B be penalised for being careful with their money and saving (as the Government want us to)? It's for this reason that Pension Credit (savings) was introduced as a way to reward those who had saved and were subsequently not entitled to the mainstream means tested Pension Credit scheme.

Attendance and Mobility Allowance were introduced in 1976 as a way to help the disabled meet the extra costs of disability. This concept is as strong today as if was 42 years ago, even Cameron did not consider changing this part of the concept with the introduction of PIP.

Half of eligible pensioners don't apply for Pension Credit, not because they are not entitled, don't need the money or can get by without it, but because they find means testing to be intrusive, humiliating and embarrassing. Remember, these people will be able to recall the days when they had to queue for basic food supplies and have someone from the National Assistance Board coming round to check things like how many chairs they had. Any excess for their needs meant they had to sell it and when that had run out, they had to go cap in hand to the National Assistance Board again.

Precluding pensioners from claiming help with mobility when this need arises after pension age was brought in by the Thatcher Government in 1993. I always thought this to be odd after the stated intention of social security reform was said to be to target those most in need.

One of Thatchers reforms was to stop Housing Benefit for many pensioners from April 1988. This caused such an uproar from these (many Tory voting) pensioners that a supplementary scheme had to be introduced- Housing Benefit Supplement.

---------- Post added at 14:46 ---------- Previous post was at 14:41 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35989284)
I suppose the assumption is that they're not forgoing a job in order to do the caring.


They may be eligible for other extra benefits.
It used to be the case that Carers Allowance stopped when pension age was reached. As part of his reforms to help carers, the Blair Government scrapped this regulation. However, most carers still cannot claim Carers Allowance from retirement age due to the 'overlapping benefit' regulations. These say that anyone entitled to more than one benefit can only claim the one that pays the highest amount. As the State Retirement Pension is usually more than the rate for Carers Allowance, most get their pension instead.

It can still be useful for those only entitled to a very small pension or no pension at all.

jfman 31-03-2019 15:54
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35989292)
Savings above £6,000 start to affect the majority of means tested benefits, with them being withdrawn completely if they are over £16,000, which I don't think are substantial sums.

Your argument for means testing them has been considered by various Governments, but rejected time and time again. Not only for the political, social and financial reasons that I previously stated, but because it's unfair to penalise those who are prudent.

Person A drinks, smokes, regularly buys a new car and goes on holiday more than once every year. They have no savings as a result.

Person B doesn't drink, smoke, makes their car last as long as possible and only goes on holiday occasionally. They have savings over £16,000 as a result of their thrift.

Why should person B be penalised for being careful with their money and saving (as the Government want us to)? It's for this reason that Pension Credit (savings) was introduced as a way to reward those who had saved and were subsequently not entitled to the mainstream means tested Pension Credit scheme.

Attendance and Mobility Allowance were introduced in 1976 as a way to help the disabled meet the extra costs of disability. This concept is as strong today as if was 42 years ago, even Cameron did not consider changing this part of the concept with the introduction of PIP.

Half of eligible pensioners don't apply for Pension Credit, not because they are not entitled, don't need the money or can get by without it, but because they find means testing to be intrusive, humiliating and embarrassing. Remember, these people will be able to recall the days when they had to queue for basic food supplies and have someone from the National Assistance Board coming round to check things like how many chairs they had. Any excess for their needs meant they had to sell it and when that had run out, they had to go cap in hand to the National Assistance Board again.

Precluding pensioners from claiming help with mobility when this need arises after pension age was brought in by the Thatcher Government in 1993. I always thought this to be odd after the stated intention of social security reform was said to be to target those most in need.

One of Thatchers reforms was to stop Housing Benefit for many pensioners from April 1988. This caused such an uproar from these (many Tory voting) pensioners that a supplementary scheme had to be introduced- Housing Benefit Supplement.

---------- Post added at 14:46 ---------- Previous post was at 14:41 ----------



It used to be the case that Carers Allowance stopped when pension age was reached. As part of his reforms to help carers, the Blair Government scrapped this regulation. However, most carers still cannot claim Carers Allowance from retirement age due to the 'overlapping benefit' regulations. These say that anyone entitled to more than one benefit can only claim the one that pays the highest amount. As the State Retirement Pension is usually more than the rate for Carers Allowance, most get their pension instead.

It can still be useful for those only entitled to a very small pension or no pension at all.
In both of your analogies Person A and Person B have lifestyles over and above the minimum that the welfare state should provide.

Establishing savings of £16 000 at say, £20 a week, would take 15 years. Someone on benefits, in these times of austerity, able to do so is likely to be committing benefit fraud.

RichardCoulter 31-03-2019 16:11
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35989291)
'May' face a custodial sentence does not mean 'will'. The letters will be standard letters with carefully crafted legal wording. It's quite right that HMRC share earnings details with the DWP to ensure the benefits system remains robust.
This wasn't a standard letter, he has lost his appeal and been told that he may go to prison. Nobody will know until the outcome until the case has been heard. Being told that you only "may" be going to prison must be very frightening for anybody, let alone an elderly man.

The salient point I am making here is that this man has saved the country a fortune and given his son a better quality of life by caring for him for less than someone gets on the dole. In return the DWP are going to put him through the ordeal and shame of a court appearence. Even if he doesn't end up in prison, the cost of the trial will be wholly disproportionate to an average overpayment of 35p a week.

How it works with Carers Allowance is that, as soon as the earnings limit is reached, the whole of the benefit is cancelled- there is no taper. By working at night after caring all day, he did not need to claim Income Support to top up his Carers Allowance.

The DWP have, therefore cancelled his CA and worked out that he would have been entitled to Income Support even after taking his earnings into account. On occasion, he wouldn't have been entitled to I/S, resulting in an average O/P of 35p a week.

HMRC have only been sharing earnings details more quickly relatively recently, so problems like this shouldn't be happening in the future. Claimants will then know whether It's worth reducing their hours or stopping remunerative work altogether. What they have been doing to carers is going back as long as 20 years to try and find any overpayments that they can raise.

It would serve the Government right if carers said sod it, you can pay for them to be looked after yourself, but they take advantage of the fact that carers often love the person they care for.

It beggars belief that these people, who save taxpayers a fortune and improve the quality of life for some of our most vulnerable citizens, are being treated like criminals, in this case, for 35p a week.

---------- Post added at 15:11 ---------- Previous post was at 15:07 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35989294)
In both of your analogies Person A and Person B have lifestyles over and above the minimum that the welfare state should provide.

Establishing savings of £16 000 at say, £20 a week, would take 15 years. Someone on benefits, in these times of austerity, able to do so is likely to be committing benefit fraud.
In the examples given, both are working and not on benefits. I'm talking about the time when they need to claim benefits due to sickness or unemployment.

Means testing would result in the prudent person getting nothing and the feckless person getting the maximum help available. This wouldn't encourage people to save, which is what the Government wants to encourage.

jfman 31-03-2019 16:18
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 
Benefit tribunals have no right to tell people that they will go to prison. So the conversation is being misrepresented in some way.

Means testing already applies for Universal Credit, so I don’t see why PIP or Attendance Allowance, or Carer’s Allowance should be exempt. I think savings of £16 000 is probably quite reasonable for the same principle to apply.

RichardCoulter 31-03-2019 19:02
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35989299)
Benefit tribunals have no right to tell people that they will go to prison. So the conversation is being misrepresented in some way.

Means testing already applies for Universal Credit, so I don’t see why PIP or Attendance Allowance, or Carer’s Allowance should be exempt. I think savings of £16 000 is probably quite reasonable for the same principle to apply.
It wasn't a tribunal that said it, the programme will probably still be on the iPlayer if you want to listen to it.

UC is classed as a last resort benefit for the poorest in society, so it is means tested. For the reasons already given, I doubt any Government would means test the benefits that you refer to and it wouldn't save much, if anything and could actually cost more as disabled people end up in residential care.

When Cameron was looking to cut the benefits bill, scrapping Carers Allowance and Attendance Allowance was actually considered, but the idea was eventually scrapped.

The current Prime Minister has said that there will be no more cuts to benefits in the foreseeable future, the benefits freeze is to be lifted next year and some people will be spared the draconian tests that Cameron introduced.

The capital limit has been massively eroded over the years. When Supplementary Benefit was introduced in 1966, the limit was £2,000.

Had this been updated with inflation, it would now be £36,600. This compares to the actual current limit of £6,000, with notional income applied from £6,000.01 to £15,999.99 and no benefit payable after £16,000.

denphone 17-04-2019 08:16
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 
Billion pound bill expected for fixing botched disability benefits.

https://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/bil...11364355766261

Quote:
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) claimed to have corrected the underlying problem, but in February was forced to admit that 30,000 extra cases had been identified – despite new guidance being issued.
Quote:
Labour MP Mr Field criticised the “awful, painful, error-ridden” assessment process and “miserable and lengthy” appeal process, which has meant tens of thousands of disabled people have not been given money they were owed.

Taf 17-04-2019 11:40
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 
Today it 4 weeks since I requested a Mandatory Reconsideration for my daughter's PIP.

I have spent hours trying to get through to them to conform they are processing it, often stints of 40 minutes before the phone battery dies.

nomadking 17-04-2019 11:53
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35991406)
Billion pound bill expected for fixing botched disability benefits.

https://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/bil...11364355766261
It was almost certainly "botched" before 2010.

It's related to being transferred from contribution based IB to ESA, but possibly being entitled to income based ESA. Rather than delay and complicate the transfer, they weren't assessed for income-related benefits, which in certain instances pays additional premiums.

It was the post-2010 rule of limiting contribution based ESA to a year that provided MORE money for claimants. Those that had been contribution based for more than a year, were suddenly income-related and possibly entitled to MORE money.

Overall the mistake happened as a result of trying to be helpful(claimant not having to submit additional info), and being more generous with additional benefits.

RichardCoulter 17-04-2019 14:59
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 
It's been accepted by the Government that this was an erroneous way to manage the migration and was nothing to do with the DWP being "helpful" or "generous".

The one year restriction on Contribution Based ESA for those in the WRAG was brought in on 1/5/12 by the Cameron Government.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:51.
Page 142 of 179 « First 4292132138139140141 142 143144145146152 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum