Is this legal? (Incapacity Benefit cut).

reactor_3

healy wrote: »

Yes the same benefit you were talking about.

It will still increase but by a lesser amount.

OK but it is a cut in real terms lets be honest about it.

reactor_3

dmg24 wrote: »

Your posts are coming across in rather an aggressive tone reactor.

The DWP has delegated powers that allow them to adjust benefit amounts.

I think the aggression is in your imagination I merely asked a question and for
clarificaion on the answers.

Can you provide any link to verify your statement?

dmg24

reactor wrote: »

I think the aggression is in your imagination I merely asked a question and for
clarificaion on the answers.

Can you provide any link to verify your statement?

Yes, you are coming across as aggressive - perhaps a please or thank you would soften your tone?

No, I can't provide a link. I know it from my own knowledge, not from the internet.

reactor_3

dmg24 wrote: »

Yes, you are coming across as aggressive - perhaps a please or thank you would soften your tone?

No, I can't provide a link. I know it from my own knowledge, not from the internet.

I just asked a question.
You are coming across as very patronising and pompous.
Anyway it's not much help unless you can back up what you are saying.

LizzieS_2

reactor wrote: »

OK but it is a cut in real terms lets be honest about it.

You are running ahead of yourself here. Firstly you need to find the law that says people are entitled to an increase each year - if there was one, there's a lot of employers out there who have fallen foul of it.

reactor_3

LizzieS wrote: »

You are running ahead of yourself here. Firstly you need to find the law that says people are entitled to an increase each year - if there was one, there's a lot of employers out there who have fallen foul of it.

What do we have a parliment for?
Why are the other changes going though parliment but not this one?
Why don't they just do what they like with all the other changes without going through parliment?
I though we had a democracy of sorts. I expect my elected MP to have a say on such matters.

I take it you are not on benefits?
Do you work? If so in what line, if you don't mind me asking?

WestonDave

I'm really not sure what the issue is here.

Every year the chancellor gets up in Parliament and makes various announcements in the budget speech - some of them like changes in petrol duty can come into force within hours. Some like tax allowance changes come into force from the next tax year (6th April) but the enacting legislation - the Finance Act 200X isn't usually passed until later.

This proposal is about benefits from 2009, we are in 2008 so there is still time for it to be passed (or rejected) before actual implementation. In answer to your actual question - maybe it isn't fair but there is plenty of precedent for making people worse off without it actually having been passed by Parliament. The reality is that if this minor element of a major benefits restructuring is put to the vote with the Government having a decent majority the chances of it not getting passed are virtually nil.

reactor_3

WestonDave wrote: »

I'm really not sure what the issue is here.

Every year the chancellor gets up in Parliament and makes various announcements in the budget speech - some of them like changes in petrol duty can come into force within hours. Some like tax allowance changes come into force from the next tax year (6th April) but the enacting legislation - the Finance Act 200X isn't usually passed until later.

This proposal is about benefits from 2009, we are in 2008 so there is still time for it to be passed (or rejected) before actual implementation. In answer to your actual question - maybe it isn't fair but there is plenty of precedent for making people worse off without it actually having been passed by Parliament. The reality is that if this minor element of a major benefits restructuring is put to the vote with the Government having a decent majority the chances of it not getting passed are virtually nil.

What my point is is that this change seems to be part of the " the Finance Act 200X"
or whatever but it sounds like it is being implemented before that act is passed.

Afterall what is the point of having this Act if they can just implement parts of it anyway?

That's my point, which does not really seem to have been passed yet.
All major changes seem to need to be passed, including, I believe the budget?

So when was this passed, if it was passed at all?

"Although a white paper may on occasion be a consultation as to the details of new legislation, it does signify a clear intention on the part of a government to pass new law."

So it seems to me this is in the White Paper and will be implemented before it has been passed, which does not make sense.

That is why I am questioning the legality of it? For example what is they do it and it turns out to be illegal? I guess the people here are not knowledgeable enough in the law to give a proper answer supported by specific laws and legislation?

captainhaddock

It seems that the age related component of IB is being reduced(lower rate reduced from £8.90 to £6.55 and higher rate from £17.75 to £15.65) see page 8 of the new rates for 2009.
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/mediacentre/pressreleases/2008/dec/NewBenefitRates.pdf

cw18

the age related components are showing as coming down, but the IB is going up.

Those on the lower age related will lose £2.35 of this 'extra', but the IB goes up £5.30 -- so there is an increase, just not as much as for people without the age component.