New ESA & Income Support - please tell me I'm reading this wrong...

Three_Dancing_Dragons

As a disabled claimant on both Incapacity Benefit AND Income Support I've been researching the new ESA rules which are coming into force for new applicants next month and for the rest of us in 2010-ish. The IB aspect doesn't worry me much, as having looked at the rules I'm likely to qualify for the Support part of the allowance anyway based on my existing state of health, but the IB I currently get is significantly topped up by both the Disability and Severe Disability premiums on Income Support.

What I've read seems to say that ESA will also replace Income Support and eliminate the Disability Premium entirely. The absolute maximum, Support ESA - INCLUDING the new "Enhanced Disability Premium" - will be £102-odd per week. Only problem is, this is about £35 a week LESS than I'm getting NOW on Income Support due to the two disability premiums.

In what way is this being "better off" on ESA? Is income support considered too generous now?

Please tell me I'm reading this wrong. :mad:

stazi

ESA replaces IB & IS for new non linking claims from 27/10/08.

As you are already on IB & IS, ESA will not apply to you. ESA will only apply to you if you become sick at some future date, and IB & IS do not apply to you.

milliebear00001

ESA is likely to replace IB for ALL claimants from about 2010 onwards.

zappster1966

There will surely be some kind of transitional protection to ensure folks aren't financially disadvantaged when moving from IS/IB to ESA when the time comes (similar to when Income Support replaced Supplementary Benefit way back).

It does beg the question, though, about how much money the long term sick & disabled actually need to receive via the benefits system in order that they can be free to concentrate on their own health rather than on their own finances. I sometimes think the balance is rather out of kilter, especially compared against those plodding along in low paid work. And off to work I go. Mm.

KxMx

It's for new claimants only at first, so hopefully by the time it's rolled out to everyone one, problems like this should have been ironed out.

[Deleted User]

As has been said already ESA comes into force on oct 27th for NEW claimants only,from around 2010 existing I/B claimants will be forced to take the work capability assessment which replaces the personal capability assessment,however at that point being found capable of work under the WCA may not mean a loss of benefits(yes I know its confusing,its designed to be)but by 2013 possibly as late as 2015 all claimants will be transfered to ESA but with some form transitional arrangement

milliebear00001

It does beg the question, though, about how much money the long term sick & disabled actually need to receive via the benefits system in order that they can be free to concentrate on their own health rather than on their own finances. I sometimes think the balance is rather out of kilter, especially compared against those plodding along in low paid work. And off to work I go. Mm

The difference between the two situations of course, is that the sick and disabled have no choice but to exist on benefits - possibly for the rest of their lives - while the low paid could actually improve their lot via hard work and/or education and skills training?

churchrat

milliebear00001 wrote: »

The difference between the two situations of course, is that the sick and disabled have no choice but to exist on benefits - possibly for the rest of their lives - while the low paid could actually improve their lot via hard work and/or education and skills training?

this is, ofcourse, not true for many of the low paid workers. My cousin, for example, has a learning disability. He is a cleaner, a very very low paid job. He could go onto benefits, and take home roughly the same amount of money that he does at the moment, but he likes working and the company are good to him. But the answer to the question "can the low paid improve thier lot via hard work, training etc ?" is in many cases "NO"

There are many reasons why people take very low paid jobs, and the fact that they stay there rarely has anything to do with lazyness.

milliebear00001

churchrat wrote: »

this is, ofcourse, not true for many of the low paid workers. My cousin, for example, has a learning disability. He is a cleaner, a very very low paid job. He could go onto benefits, and take home roughly the same amount of money that he does at the moment, but he likes working and the company are good to him. But the answer to the question "can the low paid improve thier lot via hard work, training etc ?" is in many cases "NO"

There are many reasons why people take very low paid jobs, and the fact that they stay there rarely has anything to do with lazyness.

But it is acceptable for you to imply that the sick and disabled who live on benefits are in some way not fully deserving of the amounts they receive? It isn't a competition. If you can work, you should, if you can upskill yourself to get a better paying job then that is your choice. My point is that the vast majority of sick and disabled people just don't have that choice so why should they not enjoy a good standard of living?

milliebear00001

churchrat wrote: »

this is, ofcourse, not true for many of the low paid workers. My cousin, for example, has a learning disability. He is a cleaner, a very very low paid job. He could go onto benefits, and take home roughly the same amount of money that he does at the moment, but he likes working and the company are good to him. But the answer to the question "can the low paid improve thier lot via hard work, training etc ?" is in many cases "NO"

There are many reasons why people take very low paid jobs, and the fact that they stay there rarely has anything to do with lazyness.

Your cousin would appear to fit into exactly the group of people I describe - he has a disability which prevents him from earning more money. He is however, capable of work and so is not able to claim certain health-related benefits. He may though, qualify for other benefits to bring his income up to an acceptable level - it really depends on how 'disabled' he is. My husband is not able to work at all. In total, he qualifies for about £550 per month in disability benefit - hardly a King's ransom - and that will be for the rest of his life, with no hope of ever being able to achieve any further income. Who exactly are these people that you think are getting an unfair share of the pot?

tom9980

Read more about it here

http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/content/view/917/92/

The way i read it there is a basic payment then they add components on top so you should be fine OP at the moment i qualify for those elements.

I will slip through the cracks i think and ive known this for awhile because when my partner is qualified as a Teacher i wont be eligible for income based and since ive been ill since 15yrs and very bad at 17 i dont have the contributions built up to get anything at all. In short i have been preparing myself to literally force myself to work at least part time which almost certainly will leave me to relapse into ill health again at some point in time.

Still the government have saved themselfs a bit of cash for the tax payer.