Is this legal? (Incapacity Benefit cut).

saintjanet

reactor,i agree with the principle you are making,much of the plans put forward in the white paper are being spoken about as if they are infact law,Purnell says he is going to do this and that as if he assumes he will be allowed to,even though it is not yet law.

As for the increases they have already changed the way they will be calculated, twice, that i know of and covered themselves by saying people will not be any worse off.They forget to say they may be less better off!!

reactor_3

captainhaddock wrote: »

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

Note at the top it says proposed rates (underlined) - for what it is worth.
Note very good when many of those people's 'personal inflation rate' is more like 20%
or more.

real1314

1. It hasn't actually happened yet.
2. If it does happen, it will have been through parliament first.
3. Human Rights, Punishment without trial, any other nonsense like that is just that - nonsense - parliament makes the laws, sets the rates. Not giving someone an increase every year is hardly a human rights issue, nor a "punishment".

reactor_3

real1314 wrote: »

1. It hasn't actually happened yet.
2. If it does happen, it will have been through parliament first.
3. Human Rights, Punishment without trial, any other nonsense like that is just that - nonsense - parliament makes the laws, sets the rates. Not giving someone an increase every year is hardly a human rights issue, nor a "punishment".

So when will it go through?
I don't think it is due to go through before April.
If could be determined as a punishment, it's like a fine. We are supposed to
abide by the act.
Still someone has to pay for the fat cat bankers bonuses I guess.

reactor_3

cw18 wrote: »

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.

Well it is an increase below the rate of inflation so in reality it is a cut in living standards.
Furthermore, for the people on these benefits their own cost of living is up a lot more
than 6%, more like 20%. So the overall effect is harsh.
I'm going to have to cancel my subscription to Oxfam, unfortunaately, most of it went on advertising anyway.

real1314

reactor wrote: »

So when will it go through? How the hell do I know?
I don't think it is due to go through before April. Why? Do you have details of all the scheduled parliamentary activity and some sort of control over changes to it?
If could be determined as a punishment, it's like a fine. We are supposed to
abide by the act. No, not giving somebody more money is not a fine. Otherwise not increasing tax allowances would be a "fine" as would changing tax rates in an unfavourable manner. You really are spinning this to a farcical degree.
Still someone has to pay for the fat cat bankers bonuses I guess. Tax payers pay for benefits.

Whilst everyone might like to see their income rise in line with inflation, there are no guarantees that this will happen, regardless of the source of income.

stazi

The Social Security benefits uprating order usually 'goes through on the nod' and no vote is taken/needed. The opposition parties rarely opposes the Govt of the day on benefits uprating as it's normally an automatic uprating based on the prev Sept inflation rate.

The 2008 uprating order was laid in the House in March 2008. March 2009 is when parliamentary time would be allocated for the next order, as the uprating will take place in April as normal.

The 2008 order is here-
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/pdf/uksi_20080632_en.pdf

Is this legal? - Yes

healy

Thanks stazi, you really know your stuff!

reactor_3

real1314 wrote: »

Whilst everyone might like to see their income rise in line with inflation, there are no guarantees that this will happen, regardless of the source of income.

Most people in work have managed this over the last 30 years, there are people on benefits being made worse of than they were 30 years ago, despite a huge general increase in prosperity, and indeed the money paid into the benefit system
And of course the wealthiest people have seen enormous increases in wealth yet they still want to squeeze more blood out of the poorest.

I really don't understand it. It's like the only way they have any self esteem is through money, but morally they are in the gutter. It's like we are returning to an ugly
hypocritical Victorian society.

You have to remember the people at the bottom don't really have any leeway to suffer cuts. They can't cut out luxuries because they don't have any.

reactor_3

stazi wrote: »

The Social Security benefits uprating order usually 'goes through on the nod' and no vote is taken/needed. The opposition parties rarely opposes the Govt of the day on benefits uprating as it's normally an automatic uprating based on the prev Sept inflation rate.

The 2008 uprating order was laid in the House in March 2008. March 2009 is when parliamentary time would be allocated for the next order, as the uprating will take place in April as normal.

The 2008 order is here-
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/pdf/uksi_20080632_en.pdf

Is this legal? - Yes

"The opposition parties rarely opposes the Govt of the day on benefits uprating as it's normally an automatic uprating based on the prev Sept inflation rate."
Yes but benefit cuts are not 'normal' it' not the opposition so much as the
rest of the Labour party who are likely to have problems with it.

I mean the Labour party was never founded on the principle of making the poorest poorer. A lot of their constituencies have a lot of people on benefits, some of
the Labour MP's may not like the idea of ending up on ESA or whatever it is called.

So is it legal - not yet anyway.

Anyway I do doubt there will be any savings in the long run, just an uglier country in which to live in.You will see a rise in crime and vandelism as unempolyment rises anyway.