Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
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.