is incapacity benefit going to means tested?

agal

sunnyone wrote: »

I IVB started to reduce in April 2009, they are taking my extra amount paid on top of IVB which was an additional pension based on my NI contributions I had made up until I was forced onto IVB due to disability but thats been glossed over.

I think I'm right in saying that the "extra" parts of IVB were frozen at 1994 levels when we were transferred to ICB. I used to receive three "extra" parts (Increase of benefit for an adult, Additional Pension Payable and Increase of Benefit for children) as well as the Basic Rate. Only the Basic Rate has increased since 1994, the other parts have remained at the 1994 levels. Tbh I never really understood the Additional Pension Payable part of IVB - it was something to do with paying above average NI contributions.

Its all academic anyway for anyone with savings or an occupational pension as the Government are "moving the goal-posts" so we will end up eligible for ESA at a rate of £0.00.

BLT_2

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

So how do you factor in and allow for the fact that responsible people are just that, and will make provisions?

You are simply saying don't bother?, the state takes over?. Errrrrr, it's just been said in the last 2 weeks it won't?

You can't factor it in, it is just a sad fact of life. One can work for their whole life and at the end of it the government will treat them much the same as the individual who has spent 50 years watching Jeremy Kyle and popping down the pub for a quick half.

However the basic premise remains. If you have sufficent assets to fund your own existence then you are not in the 'needy' category, this being the category which the welfare state was initially created by Bevin to support.

cyclonebri1

BLT wrote: »

You can't factor it in, it is just a sad fact of life. One can work for their whole life and at the end of it the government will treat them much the same as the individual who has spent 50 years watching Jeremy Kyle and popping down the pub for a quick half.

However the basic premise remains. If you have sufficent assets to fund your own existence then you are not in the 'needy' category, this being the category which the welfare state was initially created by Bevin to support.

Thats the point they don't, they penalise the tryers and as you yourself said in your earlier post; " you should not have one rule for one section of the society and a different rule for others".

zzzLazyDaisy

You also shouldn't move the goal posts once a person is already in receipt of a benefit. People on contributory IB are to be migrated to ESA, and presumably, one year later their benefits will stop, and they will go onto means tested ESA. Since people are going to be migrated over a period of a few years, those who are migrated earlier will presumably also lose their benefits earlier. Which makes the whole process a lottery.

People who worked all their lives and paid into the system, but then became too sick to work through illness or injury, became entitled to contributory based IB, which was not means tested and was paid in addition to other income. They have organised their lives accordingly, many had savings and have eeked them out, scared to spend those savings, knowing they would be needed to supplement their IB until retirement. Now, in retrospect, they would have been better off just spending the money and living more comfortably, as they are now going to be penalised for being thrifty.

People who have been injured by other's negligence (medical negligence, accidents at work and road accidents, for example) may have received compensation to provide for their care. That compensation is reduced by the amount of state benefits the person would receive during their lifetime. Now, it seems that the injured person will lose the state support and will not get means tested benefits because they have the compensation money, so the care that this money was intended to provide will suffer as a result.

Added to all this, for many women in this position, the pension age has been put back 6 years, which means that not only will they lose the IB that they paid into the system for, and understood that they would receive until they qualified for the state pension, but the gap between them losing that safety net and getting the state pension has been extended by 6 years.

If an insurer took your premiums but later changed the rules and refused to pay out because you could afford to pay for the damage yourself, it would be unlawful. Yet this is the same thing.

It is one thing to change the rules so that new claimants are subjected to the new rules (and PHI schemes, and compensation calculations will come into line with the new rules). It is entirely another thing to change the rules so dramatically for existing claimants.

bertiebat

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

You also shouldn't move the goal posts once a person is already in receipt of a benefit. People on contributory IB are to be migrated to ESA, and presumably, one year later their benefits will stop, and they will go onto means tested ESA. Since people are going to be migrated over a period of a few years, those who are migrated earlier will presumably also lose their benefits earlier. Which makes the whole process a lottery.

People who worked all their lives and paid into the system, but then became too sick to work through illness or injury, became entitled to contributory based IB, which was not means tested and was paid in addition to other income. They have organised their lives accordingly, many had savings and have eeked them out, scared to spend those savings, knowing they would be needed to supplement their IB until retirement. Now, in retrospect, they would have been better off just spending the money and living more comfortably, as they are now going to be penalised for being thrifty.

People who have been injured by other's negligence (medical negligence, accidents at work and road accidents, for example) may have received compensation to provide for their care. That compensation is reduced by the amount of state benefits the person would receive during their lifetime. Now, it seems that the injured person will lose the state support and will not get means tested benefits because they have the compensation money, so the care that this money was intended to provide will suffer as a result.

Added to all this, for many women in this position, the pension age has been put back 6 years, which means that not only will they lose the IB that they paid into the system for, and understood that they would receive until they qualified for the state pension, but the gap between them losing that safety net and getting the state pension has been extended by 6 years.

If an insurer took your premiums but later changed the rules and refused to pay out because you could afford to pay for the damage yourself, it would be unlawful. Yet this is the same thing.

It is one thing to change the rules so that new claimants are subjected to the new rules (and PHI schemes, and compensation calculations will come into line with the new rules). It is entirely another thing to change the rules so dramatically for existing claimants.

Thank you so much zzzLazyDaisy, your post sums up my position on so many points.

I was in fact crippled unfortunately by the NHS with chronic MRSA osteomyalitis in the leg . Despite having grounds and documentary evidence sufficient to sue the NHS, I choose not to because it's against my principals and I thought that IB and DLA benefits was a fair way to compensate me. The money I have is all due hard earned taxed savings, not compensation. I did the right thing, the government is not.

I have expenses over and above what I now receive in income, so the savings are diminishing anyway but I budgeted originally for a retirement age of 60. Retirement age moved to 63 and now its over 65. I have fully contributed state pension (over 30 years) but can't help feeling it's now out of reach.

My assessment date is next Sept, so yes, I will lose out on that as well. Not just because of the extra years that I may have been entitled to benefits, but because my body's now deteriorating to an extent that I would at some point have qualified for the higher support group that would have protected my benefit. It's a one shot at getting into the right group as then nothing unless I reach mean testing levels.

I promise you I'm not being greedy, I'm actually a bit scared with not being self sufficient and the IB (which I always saw as a compensation benefit) helped me.

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

You also shouldn't move the goal posts once a person is already in receipt of a benefit. People on contributory IB are to be migrated to ESA, and presumably, one year later their benefits will stop, and they will go onto means tested ESA. Since people are going to be migrated over a period of a few years, those who are migrated earlier will presumably also lose their benefits earlier. Which makes the whole process a lottery.

People who worked all their lives and paid into the system, but then became too sick to work through illness or injury, became entitled to contributory based IB, which was not means tested

If an insurer took your premiums but later changed the rules and refused to pay out because you could afford to pay for the damage yourself, it would be unlawful. Yet this is the same thing.

It is one thing to change the rules so that new claimants are subjected to the new rules (and PHI schemes, and compensation calculations will come into line with the new rules). It is entirely another thing to change the rules so dramatically for existing claimants.

I actually agree with you here and I'm very surprised that no disability groups are challenging this,since it is an income related benefit and old claimants did receive it under specific conditions.
For the sake of people like yourself I do hope that this is "questioned".
I have mentioned before that a friend I care for has a payment for "reduced earnings" along with her industrial injuries disablement benefit which was awarded for "life".The reduced earnings award is dated to her actual retirement date but both are paid as one payment together.
Reduced earnings is no longer a benefit you can claim,like IB but her award for reduced earnings has'nt been changed since it became obsolete and on asking she was told that she will recieve it as usual as stated on the award letter.
Surely old IB claimants should be treated in the same way.

cyclonebri1

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

You also shouldn't move the goal posts once a person is already in receipt of a benefit. People on contributory IB are to be migrated to ESA, and presumably, one year later their benefits will stop, and they will go onto means tested ESA. Since people are going to be migrated over a period of a few years, those who are migrated earlier will presumably also lose their benefits earlier. Which makes the whole process a lottery.

People who worked all their lives and paid into the system, but then became too sick to work through illness or injury, became entitled to contributory based IB, which was not means tested and was paid in addition to other income. They have organised their lives accordingly, many had savings and have eeked them out, scared to spend those savings, knowing they would be needed to supplement their IB until retirement. Now, in retrospect, they would have been better off just spending the money and living more comfortably, as they are now going to be penalised for being thrifty.

People who have been injured by other's negligence (medical negligence, accidents at work and road accidents, for example) may have received compensation to provide for their care. That compensation is reduced by the amount of state benefits the person would receive during their lifetime. Now, it seems that the injured person will lose the state support and will not get means tested benefits because they have the compensation money, so the care that this money was intended to provide will suffer as a result.

Added to all this, for many women in this position, the pension age has been put back 6 years, which means that not only will they lose the IB that they paid into the system for, and understood that they would receive until they qualified for the state pension, but the gap between them losing that safety net and getting the state pension has been extended by 6 years.

If an insurer took your premiums but later changed the rules and refused to pay out because you could afford to pay for the damage yourself, it would be unlawful. Yet this is the same thing.

It is one thing to change the rules so that new claimants are subjected to the new rules (and PHI schemes, and compensation calculations will come into line with the new rules). It is entirely another thing to change the rules so dramatically for existing claimants.

Superb post, agree totally with you and the other posters, exactly in my agreement but put much more acurately than I ever could. :T:T:T:T
There are many people caught in this section where we lived within the existing programe but now are close to retirment, or official retirement and do not have the ability to accomodate the changes

cyclonebri1

After following this excellant post from the begining and relating my position as a pension (private) receiver on IB, I sumise this is how things will affect me. I have tryed to ask the question in a few ways but as everyones circumstances are different I didn't get a definative reply.

By 2013 1 will have approx 4 years to go to Off ret. My IB that is reduced by pension to 1/4 at present will be reviewed and assuming I qualify I will be moved to esa, which will increase the figure by approx 300%? ie no pension reduction and the benefits of a similar level??

This will last a further 1 year at which stage I would receive nothing as I have been fortunate enough to have been too prudent/forward thinking to fall within the means testing limit. That leaves me 3 years off retirement when IB would stop anyway but over those last 4 years I would have received exactly the same amount in benefits as I would have done pre reform?? Confused to say the least.:o

All very approx I know but someone sence check that and comment please

BLT_2

I have said it before but I feel the need to repeat it, I constantly see complaints from women that the pension age for them has been increased. For decades they complained about inequality, and now it has arrived. Sadly it appears only the good parts of equality are wanted, having to work till 66 like their male counterparts appears to be an equal step too far :-)

Brassedoff

BLT wrote: »

I have said it before but I feel the need to repeat it, I constantly see complaints from women that the pension age for them has been increased. For decades they complained about inequality, and now it has arrived. Sadly it appears only the good parts of equality are wanted, having to work till 66 like their male counterparts appears to be an equal step too far :-)

:money::rotfl: True. Some people want their cake and to eat it. As a 40 year old. When I started my working life I paid into a pension and expected to retire at 65. That will not happen now! Even then I knew you could not pay in £6.50 and expect to get back £60.