More Sickness Benefit cuts leaks...

[anniea]

Me and hubby both on ESACB Support Group plus my ill health pension. Pay all bills, rent, community charge etc. If they take our ESA money we Will be left with just over £100per week plus middle care DLA. I assume the government will then pay this for us. Its just the thought that our finances will be open to their scrutiny at any time, we must jump to their tune. Only two weeks ago we received a phone call asking for information of what came into the home. Was a bit annoyed, it was none of their business. Then received letter asking for copies of my pension award (they already have this, send it each year to them) with dire threats if we did not send it back by 4th July. Seems strange that since then the information has been leaked and I have head of many people on ESACB being asked for this information.

[obiter dictum]

There is no confirmation any of this will happen. Let us wait until it has been confirmed. No good worrying on what may and may not happen. The Government is already in trouble with the ECHR and the United Nations over its current disability discrimination policies. You can always do what i did, move to Northern Ireland and as a disabled person be treated with respect

 

The BBC report states considered, that does not mean it will happen

[carly123]

Did they not say before when this was leaked before that the changes were for new claims?

When they say scrapping wrag do they mean making people jobseekers or are they just cutting the money?

Edited July 2, 2015 by carly123
spelling

[Mr.P]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33353318

 

Ministers are considering forcing all housing benefit recipients to contribute towards their rent as part of efforts to save £12bn from the welfare bill, government sources say.Housing benefit currently can cover the full cost of rent.

Since winning the election, officials and ministers have struggled to find £12bn in savings - a key Conservative manifesto commitment.

 

Housing benefit is thought to be an obvious target as costs have been rising in recent years, to £25bn last year. The average weekly housing benefit payment is £93.

If, for instance, ministers made claimants pay 10%, they would have to find about £9.30 a week to ensure their rent is paid in full.

Once again, those least able to afford it are being targeted. For those of you affected by these hair-brained ideas, I can only offer my apologies that my vote did nothing to prevent these lunatics from taking over the asylum.

[estellyn]

The difficulty is that those who are genuinely too sick or disabled to work, would actually love to work, but are trapped, not by the benefit system, but by their own infirmity and are at the (lack of) mercy of the state. They can't change their situation, they can't escape, they sit (if they are able to sit) and wait to see if the axe will fall on them.

 

I'm lucky in a way - I still have my faculties and a good knowledge of the system and the ability to advocate for myself. There are plenty without help (for the funding for that has already been removed) and no idea what to do or where to turn. How do we protect these vulnerable people from the one sided austerity (austerity for the less well off only) madness of this government that has turned being vulnerable and poor into an issue of morality and blame rather than unfortunate circumstance?

[Lilly_Monroe]

The difficulty is that those who are genuinely too sick or disabled to work, would actually love to work, but are trapped, not by the benefit system, but by their own infirmity and are at the (lack of) mercy of the state. They can't change their situation, they can't escape, they sit (if they are able to sit) and wait to see if the axe will fall on them.

 

I'm lucky in a way - I still have my faculties and a good knowledge of the system and the ability to advocate for myself. There are plenty without help (for the funding for that has already been removed) and no idea what to do or where to turn. How do we protect these vulnerable people from the one sided austerity (austerity for the less well off only) madness of this government that has turned being vulnerable and poor into an issue of morality and blame rather than unfortunate circumstance?

 

I have never more so wanted to work in all my life.

Not just for the money - but because I am fed up/scared of the way the system makes you afraid of what might happen next.

 

Life is hard enough when you are fit and well - trying to stay on top of it all this added worry when ill is not something I would wish on anyone.

[tobyjugg2]

Why don't all people who are not working get the same benefit?

 

I understand that people have different costs, and some of those extra costs are unquestionably more reaosonable than others (hundreds of pounds a week for flats in London for long term unemployed come to mind as unjustified as following that logic would give an unemployed investment banker £1M a year in benefits).

 

Would it not be better for all if unemployment benefit and disability benefit (in fact all benefits) were the same amount - and an amount which someone could live on? (even if not in an apartment in London)

 

I know most DON'T live in an apartment in London, but those sort of issues just cloud the waters in my view. A level playing field would be so much easier to schedule, justify amend and manage - or is that why governments won't do it? Too many people in the same boat with the same issues, rather than divided and conquered?

[Nystagmite]

We all get different amounts because we all have different needs. I understand that JSA for non-disabled claimants is £73.10 per week because a) it's the minimum the law says you need to live off and b) it works as an "incentive" (I can't think of a better word) for people to get off benefits and into work. JSA is intended as short term and ESA is generally for those of us with long term medical issues.

 

It would also make no sense for me as a severely disabled person on ESA to get the same as my non-disabled sister, would it?

[tobyjugg2]

We all get different amounts because we all have different needs. I understand that JSA for non-disabled claimants is £73.10 per week because a) it's the minimum the law says you need to live off and b) it works as an "incentive" (I can't think of a better word) for people to get off benefits and into work. JSA is intended as short term and ESA is generally for those of us with long term medical issues.

 

It would also make no sense for me as a severely disabled person on ESA to get the same as my non-disabled sister, would it?

 

I do understand your perspective, but I think it would make sense, in many ways, a few of which I mentioned.

Both need to live, don't they?

 

Whether investment banker who was on £1M+, a person who is temporarily sick, permanently ill or unable to find work at the moment, I think they should all have the same amount of state support benefit.

The banker may well not need it (and i think investment bankers are the spawn of satan) but I still think they should be entitled to that amount if genuinely unemployed, BUT NOT support for payments on their £5M mansion.

 

Don't miss the point that those getting that same benefit would then be a united major political force ...

You would not be a small minority among other small minorities, none of whom cares about the other.

[Conniff]

I do understand your perspective, but I think it would make sense, in many ways, a few of which I mentioned.

Both need to live, don't they?

 

Whether investment banker who was on £1M+, a person who is temporarily sick, permanently ill or unable to find work at the moment, I think they should all have the same amount of state support benefit.

The banker may well not need it (and i think investment bankers are the spawn of satan) but I still think they should be entitled to that amount if genuinely unemployed.

 

Don't miss the point that those getting that same benefit would then be a united major political force ...

 

'Live on' are the important words here. There was a young single parent lady on the news this morning complaining about a likely benefit cut and mentioned the amount of petrol she has to use. Hello, benefits are for living, you know like food, not for motoring.

[Nystagmite]

'Live on' are the important words here. There was a young single parent lady on the news this morning complaining about a likely benefit cut and mentioned the amount of petrol she has to use. Hello, benefits are for living, you know like food, not for motoring.

 

If only it was that simple. Not everyone has the luxury of public transport.

[sillygirl1]

Has anyone tried going shopping for a months supply of food when using public transport - it takes two to three trips to carry everything - that is if you CAN carry five or six carrier bags at a time - using petrol to get shopping is a lifeline for some people.

 

I live on my own in a small studio in sheltered housing, have chronic arthritis and can usually only manage 2 bags of shopping at a time. Having stuff delivered is an option but is more expensive and you don't get the reduced priced items that you get if you catch the local shops at the right time of day.

 

Until recently I have worked most of my life and get treated as if I am a 'shirker'. I've been living on some pension money, not a vast sum, under 25K which should hopefully last into next year before I need to claim ESA/JSA or whatever. I am not claiming ANYTHING at the moment even though I should be - does the government care about me - NOPE.

 

At the end of the day this government is about the top dogs staying top dogs and everyone else being underneath them financially and in a lot of other ways.

 

Just because I didn't go to University doesn't mean I don't have a brain, doesn't mean I am doomed to menial jobs and doesn't mean I can't think things through or be 'in with the elite'.

[tobyjugg2]

Has anyone tried going shopping for a months supply of food when using public transport - it takes two to three trips to carry everything - that is if you CAN carry five or six carrier bags at a time - using petrol to get shopping is a lifeline for some people.

 

I live on my own in a small studio in sheltered housing, have chronic arthritis and can usually only manage 2 bags of shopping at a time. Having stuff delivered is an option but is more expensive and you don't get the reduced priced items that you get if you catch the local shops at the right time of day.

 

Until recently I have worked most of my life and get treated as if I am a 'shirker'. I've been living on some pension money, not a vast sum, under 25K which should hopefully last into next year before I need to claim ESA/JSA or whatever. I am not claiming ANYTHING at the moment even though I should be - does the government care about me - NOPE.

 

At the end of the day this government is about the top dogs staying top dogs and everyone else being underneath them financially and in a lot of other ways.

 

Just because I didn't go to University doesn't mean I don't have a brain, doesn't mean I am doomed to menial jobs and doesn't mean I can't think things through or be 'in with the elite'.

 

 

and if the system worked as I said you would get the state benefit. The money you have worked hard for and saved would not penalise you.

[sillygirl1]

I am being penalised for being ill - some idiots say that arthritis can be prevented by diet and lifestyle - well I'm not on steriods or painkillers because I know how to adjust my diet to prevent flare-ups of the condition but some days it is impossible to move without causing a lot of pain. If I take medication it sparks of another medical condition.

 

I would like to go swimming but I can't afford the fees to join the nearest gym with a pool, and some days getting there would be very difficult. I can't even get myself out of a bath - which is why I have a walk in shower - and yet the government gave me 0 points on a recent PIP assessment (which I am appealing as it is completely inaccurate in their 'assumptions').

[sillygirl1]

Government policy in lumping disabled people with job 'shirkers' is inaccurate, misleading and downright discriminatory.

 

The government don't seem to have any idea of how it is to live on very little for a long time - which is why all MPs should spend 6 months every 3 years on basic benefits to see 'how the other half live'. They also need to have NO access to private funds during that time. That way we might get a decent system in place that doesn't make a mockery of people who for whatever reason are ill or unable to find employment.

[SabreSheep]

2 things need to happen

 

1) the poor and sick get a figurehead that can actually do public speaking

 

2) the poor and sick get organised

[sadone]

Yeah I agree. The nearest we had to that was Sue Marsh, and that didn't end well.

 

Sadly we need a politician to act as a figurehead and as you know nowadays nobody seems interested as they know its not a vote winner after all the countless anti disabled/poor propaganda drip fed to the public over the years.

[tobyjugg2]

Yeah I agree. The nearest we had to that was Sue Marsh, and that didn't end well.

 

Sadly we need a politician to act as a figurehead and as you know nowadays nobody seems interested as they know its not a vote winner after all the countless anti disabled/poor propaganda drip fed to the public over the years.

 

 

Sadly, That politician would need the visible and active support of 100's of thousands, which we already know is highly unlikely to occur.

 

Too many people are only interested in their own position and that under the current system is highly divided as all government parties undoubtedly prefer it.

[Nystagmite]

Has anyone tried going shopping for a months supply of food when using public transport - it takes two to three trips to carry everything - that is if you CAN carry five or six carrier bags at a time - using petrol to get shopping is a lifeline for some people.

 

I've taken to shopping 2-3 times a week (assuming I can actually get out, which depends on the weather) because taking shopping on public transport isn't an option. I'm lucky that Lidl and Aldi are about 5 minutes up the road from me.

 

I do understand your perspective, but I think it would make sense, in many ways, a few of which I mentioned.

Both need to live, don't they?

 

But being disabled costs far more than not being disabled. I, for example, need to use far more water than the average person. I have severe OCD, I have a bowel condition, my medication makes my dehydrated and if I don't drink enough, it can seriously mess up my kidneys. (I've got to drink more than the recommended amount) I've also got to buy things like non-prescription medication because of the side effects of the medication I'm on, which get expensive. Legal stuff, I should add!

 

Even small things like lock laces (because I can't do my own laces up) can get expensive over time.

 

That's why as a disbaled person I get more money - because being disabled is expensive.

[estellyn]

Why don't all people who are not working get the same benefit?

 

I understand that people have different costs, and some of those extra costs are unquestionably more reaosonable than others (hundreds of pounds a week for flats in London for long term unemployed come to mind as unjustified as following that logic would give an unemployed investment banker £1M a year in benefits).

 

Would it not be better for all if unemployment benefit and disability benefit (in fact all benefits) were the same amount - and an amount which someone could live on? (even if not in an apartment in London)

 

I know most DON'T live in an apartment in London, but those sort of issues just cloud the waters in my view. A level playing field would be so much easier to schedule, justify amend and manage - or is that why governments won't do it? Too many people in the same boat with the same issues, rather than divided and conquered?

 

The idea is that benefits that are supposed to be temporary - for instance jsa are at the very lowest that a person can live on, a safety net so the person can barely live. Longer term benefits are supposed to be more generous, taking into account the additional cost of an infirmity, the additional expenses incurred over a longer time period and reducing the misery of living on such a low amount as jsa for an extended time period. Would you think it fair that someone disabled and legitimately unable to work for the rest of their life should have to spend their one and only life not only having the misfortune of a disability and the inability to change their circumstances but also having less than enough to live on until they die.

 

Sadly all benefit levels in this country are pretty crappy, so even on esa people struggle to survive, often go without food etc. Their only hope is either death or living long enough to reach pension age (when benefit increases).

[estellyn]

Sadly, That politician would need the visible and active support of 100's of thousands, which we already know is highly unlikely to occur.

 

Too many people are only interested in their own position and that under the current system is highly divided as all government parties undoubtedly prefer it.

 

The government has been clever with their propaganda campaign to pit the less well off against each other - all blaming a different group for their perceived ills while ignoring the true cause. While the campaign continues to succeed there will be no large coming together of the poor to challenge the government.

 

We now have a 'sink or swim' culture, very like the U.S. with the populace being encouraged to believe that if you weren't taught to swim or didn't spontaneously learn to swim, then it's your own damn fault, you didn't try hard enough or are morally flawed, or are having some other poor person holding you under, and you deserve everything that happens (or should kick the other poor person preventing your swimming in head).

[Lilly_Monroe]

'Live on' are the important words here. There was a young single parent lady on the news this morning complaining about a likely benefit cut and mentioned the amount of petrol she has to use. Hello, benefits are for living, you know like food, not for motoring.

 

Why should she be criticized for having a car - you are making as if to be on benefits and have a car is a crime.

Are we not already under enough scrutiny for even daring to breath by those who would see us on the streets - I would have thought people who understood the system would have more understanding.

As already said a car to a lot of people is a must - even the DWP accept that as they offer (or did) do they still, help for some people with transport.

[suziebear67]

The government should be sorting out low pay and high rents, that's where all the problems started, around 10 to 15 years ago my rent was around a quarter of my take home pay now rent is around half the take home pay of someone on minimum wage and people are having to claim tax credits to top the wages up.

 

A decent living wage would be the incentive to work instead of letting employers pay peanuts while letting the tax payers foot the bill as employers profits soar.

[brighton333]

I blame Channel 4/5 for all their benefit programming. I think the difficult area is when it comes to Mental Health issues. If someone's got a broken spine no one would expect them to work as a postman. But if you suffer from anxiety, depression, OCD, etc, then ironically (as someone who has suffered from all three) the WORST thing you can do is just throw money at me in an ultimately condescending way, saying "there, there, never mind, here's some money, just wibble away in your own mental fantasy for as long as you want".

 

It's not helpful.

 

The best thing is to show tough love and say "get over yourself, the state will no longer indulge you".

 

The Welfare state has only been around for about 60 years. Human society has been around for 20,000?

 

I'm not a Tory or Labour, but I don't like the way all these threads become so politicized as if the "Tory's" are undoing 20,000 years of good work?

 

The woman who had arthritis on that BBC news report, who still managed to look after children and drive round town quite happily and became indignant when told she might lose money given to her, never earned?

 

I honestly don't get it? I'm grateful for my HB and JSA at the moment. I don't see it as a right. I don't have kids because I can't afford them, I don't have a car because I can't afford to run it.

 

The Left-wingers here will say "Oh, you're an idiot, it's divide and conquer" - Erm, no it really isn't.

 

Go to anywhere outside of western Europe and see how those without jobs or with disabilities are treated.

 

THAT is reality.

 

We'd still live in a wonderfully generous country even if all benefits were cut by 50% overnight!

 

It's not "government money".

 

It's the people's money paid through tax doing jobs they mostly despise.

 

And it would seem the people have spoken.

 

Deal with it.

x

[sadone]

The Left-wingers here will say "Oh, you're an idiot, it's divide and conquer" - Erm, no it really isn't.

 

 

Erm, yes it really is.

 

As for the rest of your post, yea gods....