Incapacity Benefit

lilac_lady

The OP has paid into the system that he feels has let him down. On the other hand, to have a spare property or two to sell is a safety net so that's his option. He has a valid point though. The welfare state was never meant to keep give people more for not working than working.

Oldernotwiser

lilac_lady wrote: »

The welfare state was never meant to keep give people more for not working than working.

You're absolutely right but neither was it intended to fund people who owned 4 properties.

sospanfach1

lilac_lady is spot on with what she has said.If i am right IB is a non means tested benefit not based on income or savings.The problem i have is the contribution period WHY? If you have paid in, you have paid in wether it was the last 2 years or 10 years ago as long as you have paid in.

Oldernotwiser

sospanfach1 wrote: »

lilac_lady is spot on with what she has said.If i am right IB is a non means tested benefit not based on income or savings.The problem i have is the contribution period WHY? If you have paid in, you have paid in wether it was the last 2 years or 10 years ago as long as you have paid in.

I can see why you're miffed about this but there's got to be some borderline somewhere. How would you do it, paid in for 40 years, 4 years ago: paid in for 20 years, 10 years ago: paid in for 4 years, 40 years ago? There's always going to be somebody on the wrong sode of the line.

Of course, if you'd been the one claiming the CA then, I think, you'd've been eligible for IB now. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this.) Sometimes it's worthwhile to plan ahead.

stazi

You are correct ONW, that's why I asked the question about CA in my earlier post.

What the OP must understand is that National Insurance is like any other insurance scheme- only its compulsory to pay when you work. For any insurance scheme- be it house/car/travel/medical/life- there is a premuim to pay for that years policy.

With insurance companies- you pay your premium in advance, with NI, it's the contributions you've paid in the past relevant income tax years. For State benefit, the law says it's the last 2 tax years before the claim- for claims in 2008 that means 05/06 and 06/07- and nothing else. All insurance policies, including the State's have the same basic principle- if you don't pay in- you don't get out.

Sorry, but no insurance company - including the State- is going to pay a claim if the premium wasn't paid on time -and its no good saying 'I haven't paid this year, but I paid a premium with you 5 years ago'.

sospanfach1

How can you plan ahead for being ill At the time of my wife claiming ca i was perfectly ok should i have thought hang on a minute i might get ill so claim in my name ?? come on you cant do that.As for contributions yes i still think if you have paid in doesnt matter when, you should be eligible,looking at some of the tax credits the way they work those out you have to be a professor of maths to understand them,surely ib would be a lot easier to run.What you are saying is doesnt matter what you pay into the system if you are unaware of the ways of the "system" (claiming CA instead of wife)you lose out .Someone who is savvy on the system and in the town i live in there are a lot of them claim all benefits they can.Vast majority of jobs now being taken where i live are going to eastern europeans Poles etc. Benefits seem to me to be to easy to get,no incentive to work and when genuine people like myself who have never claimed before come along oh sorry but you have,nt paid in for the last 2 years Thats not right cant be

Oldernotwiser

No, you can't plan for illness, but I was assuming that your health hadn't gone downhill overnight if you're at a level where you might be awarded IB.

It's up to individuals to educate themselves on the financial situation in which they live. I'm sure you're financially savvy in ways that many people know little about (I'm thinking about the property empire); others have chosen to educate themselves about benefits. As long as the law isn't broken there's little harm done.

Although you think it's easy to claim benefits, many people don't find it so; if it's any consolation, you might well have been ineligible for IB anyway as many people here have found out.

seven-day-weekend

But as stazi says, if you were not contributing, why do you think you should be eligible for a contributory benefit??

Your past contributions would have covered you had you have needed IB/JSA in the past . If you had needed to draw IB then you could have done so, because you were contributing. They have also contributed towards your State Pension.

Other people who you think can claim benefits easily have either been contributing or are entitled to means-tested benefits.

I have 38 years equivalent NI contributions. However I have not paid any for four years. If I became ill I would be in the same situation as you, ineligible for IB. And because I have savings, I wouldn't be eligible for means-tested benefits either.

It seems fair to me that if you are not contributing, either by paying NI or being credited through something like Carers' Allowance, then you can't claim a contributory benefit.

sospanfach1

Seems like my thinking is out of sync with most of you online.I appreciate all of your comments,you all seem to be very well informed on this subject.I understand what you all are saying,and i never have wanted something for nothing,just thought it a bit unfair thats all, there again life isnt fair is it, life is what you make it. I would like to thank all of you once more for your contribution to this debate,i have learnt a lot.

seven-day-weekend

Thank you for an interesting and gracious discussion sospanfach.

I agree, life is not fair!