The state benefits system mega-thread. - Page 57

Osem · 27-01-2014, 08:01

@ Solitaire - please keep us informed of what actually happens. I'm sure we're all interested in the outcome. Best of luck.

weenie · 27-01-2014, 09:31

Quote:

EDITED (The max allowance 'normally' for ESA is 3 years, the majority has to redo the form on a yearly basis - though just been told that some do get awarded with no set period which is new info for me so

).

Maybe I was mistaken about the ESA. I know it she was awarded a indefinite award for the DLA for the attention she needs at night I thought because she was awarded this for DLA it would be applied to her ESA as this would make sense if they declared it for ESA if you get what I mean ...

peanut · 27-01-2014, 09:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by weenie

EDITED (The max allowance 'normally' for ESA is 3 years, the majority has to redo the form on a yearly basis - though just been told that some do get awarded with no set period which is new info for me so

).

Maybe it was that for ESA but I know it was indefinite for the DLA for the attention she needs at night ...

Actually I can't find any info on an indefinite award for ESA, 3 years seems to be the maximum (or indefinite if you keep on qualifying for the support group).

As for DLA being indefinite, well that's all about to change. In 2015 PIP is going to be introduced and if you think it's bad now, it's going to get a whole lot worse.

weenie · 27-01-2014, 11:35

I just do not understand why???

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut

Actually I can't find any info on an indefinite award for ESA, 3 years seems to be the maximum (or indefinite if you keep on qualifying for the support group).

As for DLA being indefinite, well that's all about to change. In 2015 PIP is going to be introduced and if you think it's bad now, it's going to get a whole lot worse.

dilli-theclaw · 27-01-2014, 11:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut

Actually I can't find any info on an indefinite award for ESA, 3 years seems to be the maximum (or indefinite if you keep on qualifying for the support group).

As for DLA being indefinite, well that's all about to change. In 2015 PIP is going to be introduced and if you think it's bad now, it's going to get a whole lot worse.

My ESA is / was 18months (due for review in November) I'm already getting my crap together for it

As you say My first PIP review is coming 2015 and judging from what's coming out of the RNIB I doubt it will go well.

peanut · 27-01-2014, 11:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by weenie

I just do not understand why???

Because the sick etc are an easy target for the cuts. That's all it is. People fall for the negativity surrounding benefit claimants and the sick gets grouped with the frauds and all the other benefits, enough to make it look like something needs to be done. So to those that believe what they read or hear it's become a popular choice to kick the sick back into work as we're all on the fiddle.

Ok a little bit cynical there but you get the gist.

weenie · 27-01-2014, 14:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut

Because the sick etc are an easy target for the cuts. That's all it is. People fall for the negativity surrounding benefit claimants and the sick gets grouped with the frauds and all the other benefits, enough to make it look like something needs to be done. So to those that believe what they read or hear it's become a popular choice to kick the sick back into work as we're all on the fiddle.

Ok a little bit cynical there but you get the gist.

well said ...

peanut · 18-02-2014, 06:05

Well here's hoping..... (for the better). Though will believe it when I see it.

Atos may lose fit-for-work tests contract as ministers line up rival firms

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...tests-contract

I don't think it'll get any better whilst IDS is still being protected.

peanut · 18-02-2014, 08:53

Having just watched the last episode of Benefit Street and the debate that followed I think the subject is by far too wide to be able to be discussed evenly. The amount of benefits there are all come with different problems, from the jobless (JSA, Income support), those that will not work, the sick (ESA, WRAG, Support group), disabled (PIP DLA), pensioners, housing benefit, Bedroom Tax, child support, working tax credits, I'm sure there's a lot I've missed out. Each comes with their own problems and can't be discussed as a whole.

The debate itself was interesting (but a bit pointless) and I gained nothing from it again, (The C5 one was utterly useless). But I do hope some good comes from it.

Gary L · 18-02-2014, 09:12

That one last night was a bit more focussed on the bigger problem. such as people in work claiming benefits.
it can be the case that somebody working is receiving more benefits than a benefit scrounger.

you have to ask at the start of these debates whether it's hate towards people not working. or the actual cost.

if it's the cost. then focus on the unpaid taxes from the rich. the winter fuel payments to the rich. there's many places where there's millions, if not billions of pounds to be had in an instant.

but we're stuck either arguing about **** not working. or **** costing us what is a few pence compared to the bigger problem that we ignore.

dilli-theclaw · 18-02-2014, 09:21

I recorded this to watch later on I am hoping that at least there will be a debate and not just s slanging match like the ch5 one.

peanut · 18-02-2014, 09:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

That one last night was a bit more focussed on the bigger problem. such as people in work claiming benefits.
it can be the case that somebody working is receiving more benefits than a benefit scrounger.

you have to ask at the start of these debates whether it's hate towards people not working. or the actual cost.

if it's the cost. then focus on the unpaid taxes from the rich. the winter fuel payments to the rich. there's many places where there's millions, if not billions of pounds to be had in an instant.

but we're stuck either arguing about **** not working. or **** costing us what is a few pence compared to the bigger problem that we ignore.

My opinion would be a taxpayer doesn't like to see someone who's on the dole having more than them.

There's been too much bad press now, but now I do hope some people get the right info to see that it's not always black and white, that their ideas of someone on benefits isn't just job / workshy related. And life isn't a bed of roses on benefits.

I do understand how taxpayers feel, they are paying for the likes of me, I wouldn't like the idea of someone having a cushy life if I had to work and end up with less, but that's the kind of message that seems to be coming across.

Dave's message of making work pay is correct, but as you say it's aimed at everyone, the sick included and those that will never find a job.

I like the comment saying that it's ok (nothing get said nor done) for the bankers and the big corporates to spend all the taxpayers cash but not ok to go on benefits.

peanut · 18-02-2014, 19:19

I hope I'm right by saying that the public opinion doesn't seem as bad as what the media is making out when it comes to attitude towards claimants.

Oh and that White Dee really gives people with depression a bad name (IMO).

weenie · 18-02-2014, 19:36

Peanut the people who get to me are the one's who work and claim, everyone else I'm fine with as they need it IMO ... and these are the people who give benefit claimants a bad name as many people are brain dead and believe the media hype ... when they print stories about these cheats they assume all claimants must be the same ... sadly

Pierre · 18-02-2014, 23:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut

My opinion would be a taxpayer doesn't like to see someone who's on the dole having more than them.

Not " having" as that is different.

But someone not working and on benefits should not receive more money than somebody who does work, and whose taxes are paying for the others. That is immoral.

There are bound to be certain individual cases, of course, but as a general rule, I think it is good one.