Tests claim few benefit claimants 'unfit to work'

Generali

macaque wrote: »

To be fair, it's probably a bit of a stretch to expect lots of disabled people to become one of the great theoretical physicists.

Having said that, I've worked with a smattering of people who would qualify as disabled I would imagine but chose instead to hold down a demanding job.

vivatifosi

Generali wrote: »

Having said that, I've worked with a smattering of people who would qualify as disabled I would imagine but chose instead to hold down a demanding job.

Should the two categories be mutually exclusive though? I know a couple of people with MS who work but get additional funding from the government to help them work due to their disabilities. One gets a paid taxi to work as they would struggle to park (in London) and can't get up and down all the stairs on the tube nearby. The other gets their parking paid in a town centre car park. That's the sort of pragmatic solution that should exist.

IronWolf

Those figures are shocking, I'm glad this is being sorted out

Percy1983

I hope they follow up on many, how many chavs have panic attacks if they go outside, apart from on a satuday night of course.

It a shame the system is such a bad state that everybody needs checking.

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

I hope they follow up on many, how many chavs have panic attacks if they go outside, apart from on a satuday night of course.

Percy, if you know many many chavs that claim to have panic attacks when they go outside but still manage to go on the lash then why not simply report them or take a photo. I would.

You'd be doing them a favour. They'd have their benefits cut and would be more likely to look to the world of work to maintain their lifestyle. Once in employment they would benefit from the well documented health benefits of employment.

Remember recently the lady who claimed benefits because she couldn't walk from one room to another? She then went skydiving and had the whole event filmed - the film clip was forwarded to the benefits office by a member of the public.

Loughton_Monkey

So let me outline two cases:

1. Arthur used to drive lorries until he was made redundant 7 years ago. He lives in an area of extremely high unemployment. He has long since ceased to look actively for a job. But he has family responsibilities [wife and two kids] and therefore receives needs-based benefits which are enough to continue living in the council house, paying the bills, and feeding the kids.

2. Barry used to drive lorries until a back injury forced him to quit the job 7 years ago. Since that time, he has sucessfully been claiming disability benefit, which means that after paying his council house rent, bills, and feeding his wife and two kids, he has quite a bit left over for Ladbrokes, Yates's Wine Lodge, and a reasonable car.

If we assume that Barry is someone who has just been 'caught out' by the new criteria, it appears that his benefits will now drop to the same level as those of Arthur.

Can anyone explain any logic why taxpayer's money should be used to be more generous [i.e. the Status Quo] to Barry than to Arthur?

Kennyboy66

Wookster wrote: »

I read that in the paper today. Its pretty appalling.

Another one of Labour's marvellous legacies.

You couldn't make it up.

This really is a legacy of Thatcher - even sane Tories would admit this.

Subsequent governments (including Labour) basically failed to do anything about it, which is pretty shameful.

Really2

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

You couldn't make it up.

This really is a legacy of Thatcher - even sane Tories would admit this.

Subsequent governments (including Labour) basically failed to do anything about it, which is pretty shameful.

Incapacity benefit was introduced in 1995, she was not in power then.

Within two years of introducing it they were not in power.

So it is hard to make out it was a Thatcher (though it was not)/ Tory legacy as they only oversaw it for a breif period.

It was the overseeing it that was the failure, not the benefit itself.

There is a world of difference to introducing something and poor monitoring of it's use.

There is nothing wrong with the benefit if applied correctly.

MacMickster

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

So let me outline two cases:

1. Arthur used to drive lorries until he was made redundant 7 years ago. He lives in an area of extremely high unemployment. He has long since ceased to look actively for a job. But he has family responsibilities [wife and two kids] and therefore receives needs-based benefits which are enough to continue living in the council house, paying the bills, and feeding the kids.

2. Barry used to drive lorries until a back injury forced him to quit the job 7 years ago. Since that time, he has sucessfully been claiming disability benefit, which means that after paying his council house rent, bills, and feeding his wife and two kids, he has quite a bit left over for Ladbrokes, Yates's Wine Lodge, and a reasonable car.

If we assume that Barry is someone who has just been 'caught out' by the new criteria, it appears that his benefits will now drop to the same level as those of Arthur.

Can anyone explain any logic why taxpayer's money should be used to be more generous [i.e. the Status Quo] to Barry than to Arthur?

OK - So Arthur definitely could work but basically can't be a!sed to actively look for a job. Why should he receive any benefits at all?

Barry has a back injury. If that injury is so severe that it is accepted that he is effectively never going to be able to work he would be placed in the ESA support group and receive about £30 per week more than those on JSA - hardly sufficient to live a life of luxury. If he is categorised as being in the 17% of claimants unable to work now due to their illness or disability but likely to be able to work in the future, then he will be placed in the work-related activity group. Provided that, as the name suggests, he undertakes agreed activities to help him to be able to get back into the employment market in the future then he will receive ESA, but less than those on the support group. If he is found to be capable of work then he will be able to claim JSA provided that he actively looks for work. This sounds reasonable.

The problems arise particularly where people have variable conditions - eg some MS sufferers who may go a few weeks without symptoms, but then would need to take a few weeks off work when their symptoms reappear. Few employers would want to take someone on who is likely to regularly be absent long-term due to sickness, but these are people who are being found fit for work per the new tests.

Loughton_Monkey

Possibly accurate, but still doesn't fully get at my confusion.

1. Arthur - as you say - doesn't deserve benefits. Agreed. The point is, though, that someone like him (and there are millions) do actually get various benefits and credits.

2. Barry has been [properly] diagnosed as 'fit for work' (but not necessarily heavy manual). So he can work. OK, this is news to him, but it might spur him on to look for work. But he's not successful and so JSA runs out. He ends up in exactly the same situation as Arthur. He'll get the same as Arthur.

So we've saved a bit (Barry's disability benefit). Anything is better than nothing, but I feel the amount saved will be a drop in the ocean. If either family wants to 'up' their income, they merely have to have another child.