ESA - income or contributions based

seaniboy

daska wrote: »

Take two people in exactly the same financial circumstances. One qualifies for ESA(I) the other has contributed enough to claim ESA(C). The person on ESA(I) gets the obvious automatic benefit of free prescriptions which the ESA(C) claimant can also apply for on means tested grounds. In addition the ESA(I) claimant also qualifies for other benefits e.g. Cold Weather Payments, which the ESA(C) claimant is not even allowed to apply for.

It sounds as if in your case you benefit from being on ESA(C), in my case I'd be better off if I'd never worked.

I know it's disgusting really, I have been underpaid/cut off from DWP disabilty benefits for 9 years, it was dad whom knows better than anyone how ill I get that paid for all the expenses off his retirement fund, I am extremely lucky for that and the help over 9 years. I estimate he has helped me out to about minimum £25,000 over the years (excludes above £10,000) & put himself through driving lessons when he retired as he could not on a pension pay for my essiential taxi's anymore. I am fortunate for my dad & unfortunate for the DWP, I really am considering suing them. The struggle my dad financially has had to pay that the UK benefit system failed me on over 9 years beggers belief !

NASA_2

daska wrote: »

Take two people in exactly the same financial circumstances. One qualifies for ESA(I) the other has contributed enough to claim ESA(C). The person on ESA(I) gets the obvious automatic benefit of free prescriptions which the ESA(C) claimant can also apply for on means tested grounds. In addition the ESA(I) claimant also qualifies for other benefits e.g. Cold Weather Payments, which the ESA(C) claimant is not even allowed to apply for.

It sounds as if in your case you benefit from being on ESA(C), in my case I'd be better off if I'd never worked.

ESA(C) claimant lives with other half, other half works 50 hours a week and earns £75,000 a year, ESA(C) claimant continues to receive ESA(C) because they paid their NIC's all their life (Or even for a short period).

It all depends on how you dress it up I guess.

The thing that both amuses and irks me is that people have some idea that they are paying into a personal pot to draw on. They arent.

GlasweJen

No you are wrong, HC1 is purely a financial thing, what you are possibly meaning is that the doctor is signing a form for you to get a medical exemption card which will entitle you to free prescriptions. This is not an HC1 as HC1 letters (which become HC2 or HC3 certificates depending on income) give the holder access to other services such as help towards dentistry, optical costs, NHS wigs etc.

daska

daska wrote: »

Take two people in exactly the same financial circumstances.

NASA wrote: »

ESA(C) claimant lives with other half, other half works 50 hours a week and earns £75,000 a year, ESA(C) claimant continues to receive ESA(C) because they paid their NIC's all their life (Or even for a short period).

It all depends on how you dress it up I guess.

The thing that both amuses and irks me is that people have some idea that they are paying into a personal pot to draw on. They arent.

In your scenario the ESA(C) and the ESA(I) wouldn't exist because ESA (I) couldn't be claimed in the same financial circumstances...

Yes, it's possible for an ESA(C) claimant to be better off than one who is dependent entirely on benefits. But for those of us who don't have a partner and have, through necessity, expended what we had carefully put by for the proverbial rainy day (or rainy few years) - we get less than someone who has never contributed.

BTW, having worked for many years in finance I am fully aware that what I contributed was spent within weeks, if not days of my contribution being paid. And I don't agree with the open ended cheque of ESA(C) either.

NASA_2

daska, that was entirely my point, that ESA(C) does leave some people better off.

I'm trying to illustrate that ESA(C) isnt always a bad thing.

seaniboy

daska wrote: »

In your scenario the ESA(C) and the ESA(I) wouldn't exist because ESA (I) couldn't be claimed in the same financial circumstances...

Yes, it's possible for an ESA(C) claimant to be better off than one who is dependent entirely on benefits. But for those of us who don't have a partner and have, through necessity, expended what we had carefully put by for the proverbial rainy day (or rainy few years) - we get less than someone who has never contributed.

BTW, having worked for many years in finance I am fully aware that what I contributed was spent within weeks, if not days of my contribution being paid. And I don't agree with the open ended cheque of ESA(C) either.

Or like me whom has not worked through disability for 10 years and ends up in CONTRIBUTION based with no savings...granted it is luck I have compensation cash coming from 3 sources but if I didn't I'm expected to cover nhs medical costs off all my ten years of NO savings ! :rotfl:

ESA is a joke really ! On IB paid as IS with FULL disabilty premuims I got all costs covered & I got more for that than ESA ???

I have been through physical, mental & financial hell over 10 years & I'm still on the right side of 30 !

At least I wont lose out on ESA (C), karma has a funny way of working itself out !