Benefits reforms to be introduced - Will this effect people on Income Support.....


S

Section

Will this effect people on Income Support with or with out the Disability
Supplement?

News item from the BBC
A new benefits system making it tougher for sick and disabled people to
claim benefits is due to be launched later. Claimants who are neither
terminally ill nor severely disabled could have their benefits cut if they
refuse to attend interviews with jobs advisers.

About 2.6 million people claim incapacity benefits but ministers say most
want to work and the Employment and Support Allowance should help. But
campaigners fear rising unemployment will be a barrier to many. Any new
claimants will have to pass a tough new test intended to identify the sort
of jobs claimants may be able to do.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7692364.stm
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Robbie

Section said:
Will this effect people on Income Support with or with out the Disability
Supplement?

News item from the BBC
A new benefits system making it tougher for sick and disabled people to
claim benefits is due to be launched later. Claimants who are neither
terminally ill nor severely disabled could have their benefits cut if they
refuse to attend interviews with jobs advisers.

About 2.6 million people claim incapacity benefits but ministers say most
want to work and the Employment and Support Allowance should help. But
campaigners fear rising unemployment will be a barrier to many. Any new
claimants will have to pass a tough new test intended to identify the sort
of jobs claimants may be able to do.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7692364.stm
The new benefit and its rules apply for the time being only to new
claims. The Government intend to extend its scope to all existing IB /
IS claimants within the next few years. In the meantime, people already
on IB / IS because of sickness should be unaffected by these changes.
 
R

Robin T Cox

Section said:
About 2.6 million people claim incapacity benefits but ministers say most
want to work and the Employment and Support Allowance should help.
This change has been spun by New Labour as a way to 'help' incapacitated
people to find work.

However in reality no extra help is being given to this end, and instead of
receiving incapacity benefit new claimants (initially) will get a lower
work-seeking related benefit.

It's all part of New Labour's way of cutting public expenditure whilst
showing the tabloids that they are tougher on so-called social security
scroungers than the Tories.

Meanwhile, billions and billions are being paid to the banks to enable them
to go on paying bonuses and conducting mergers which cost jobs.
 
M

mart2306

This change has been spun by New Labour as a way to 'help' incapacitated
people to find work.

However in reality no extra help is being given to this end, and instead of
receiving incapacity benefit new claimants (initially) will get a lower
work-seeking related benefit.

It's all part of New Labour's way of cutting public expenditure whilst
showing the tabloids that they are tougher on so-called social security
scroungers than the Tories.

Meanwhile, billions and billions are being paid to the banks to enable them
to go on paying bonuses and conducting mergers which cost jobs.
Many companies already have their quota of disabled, they take a
larger risk taking someone from long term sick than just someone who
is in employment much of the time.
The positive discrimination given by the guaranteed interview scheme
means many get interviews (costing time and money for both the company
and the applicant) when there's no intention of a job.

I'm not a big fan of the new scheme, though I do like the little
change they've had from 'we'll see that you can't work so get benefit'
to 'we'll see what you can do'.
A little more positive.

Martin <><
 
G

ghostwhistler

More governmental madness, possibly as a result of MAggie cooking the
books back in the day to massage the jobless stats by shunting people
onto the sick (though the idea that there 'must' be a lot of fraud
going on because a lot of people, per se, are claiming IB is entirely
fatuous and highly prejudicial).

In the end where does the government think that all these jobs for
these people are going to be found? How many employers are going to
pass over a bunch of competitive unemployed candidates who haven't a
history of illness in favour of those who have?

I would assume it does apply to IS as that is paid in lieu of IB
credits.
 
G

ghostwhistler

This change has been spun by New Labour as a way to 'help' incapacitated
people to find work.

However in reality no extra help is being given to this end, and instead of
receiving incapacity benefit new claimants (initially) will get a lower
work-seeking related benefit.

It's all part of New Labour's way of cutting public expenditure whilst
showing the tabloids that they are tougher on so-called social security
scroungers than the Tories.

Meanwhile, billions and billions are being paid to the banks to enable them
to go on paying bonuses and conducting mergers which cost jobs.
Exactly right. And in the end, when unemployment peaks and we start
seeing the troubles of the kind that graced us when the tories last
took over (never again!), we will have a nicely divided society where
the vulnerable will be reviled by the public who should be on their
side.
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

mart2306

Exactly right. And in the end, when unemployment peaks and we start
seeing the troubles of the kind that graced us when the tories last
took over (never again!), we will have a nicely divided society where
the vulnerable will be reviled by the public who should be on their
side.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
The conservatives took over because of the mess we were in under
labour.
Then they created some of their own messes while sorting out the
previous messes.

Then later on labour took over and sorted out some messes while
creating others. And probably next time it will be the conservatives
in power etc.


I suspect its simply a cycle. I for one am damn glad that the unions
were knocked back from what they were.
Still need them, just don't need them trying to run companies. Or the
country.

Martin <><
 
M

Mike

Many companies already have their quota of disabled, they take a
larger risk taking someone from long term sick than just someone who
is in employment much of the time.
The positive discrimination given by the guaranteed interview scheme
means many get interviews (costing time and money for both the company
and the applicant) when there's no intention of a job.

I'm not a big fan of the new scheme, though I do like the little
change they've had from 'we'll see that you can't work so get benefit'
to 'we'll see what you can do'.
A little more positive.

Martin <><
The earnings disregards for people on ESA are far better - I assume
there are caveats around permitted work however ESA(IR) the equivalent
of IS, can disregard between £20 and £90 odd pounds of earnings.
I forget the details but the work has to be supporting the customer back
into full time work and off ESA.


Mike
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

Marvin

I think it a mixed bag.
Certainly not all bad.

The good points - at least for people who are going onto ESA for
between 14 weeks and 52 weeks:

Getting ESA qualifies you for an corresponding £24 or £29 HB premium
after only 14 weeks.
Under Incap Ben you would only get a disability premium after 1 year -
when you went onto IB Long term rate.
Same exception with immediate premium boost for the terminally ill.

For couples where one is on ESA and the other gets a disability
premium or enhanced disability premium in their own right, there is a
process whereby the member of the couple whose circs lead to a higher
award of HB is directed to adopt the claimant role.

I'm sure there are some terribly bad points - I'll let other people
point those out.

I'm just passing on the not so bad news today.

Don't forget though, like any government initiative to do with
benefits and "cutting back" on this group or that group, it is mainly
for the benefit of daily mail readers.
They are the ones who complain about scroungers - and the Gov
(whatever flavour) has to be seen to be "doing something about it".

In practice however, the individual civil servants who implement the
rules on a local basis are given a lot of leeway in how hard-core to
be.

I have seen this plenty of times.

Clamp down on the unemployed or single parent in the media - whilst at
the benefits office it is business as usual.

Civil servants tend to be punch-in-the-mouth averse. Ministers know
this. They massage some stats and everyone is happy.

We will see how this one pans out.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top