Universal Credit for [merged]

Weary_soul

Maybe the difference is that most adults know what they're getting into when they choose to start a family, but nobody gets up of a morning and says "Do you know today I think I'll develop a chronic life long illness/disability, that'll be a good laugh".


As a disabled person then you'd know that you have that problem for life, where as most children become less dependent and leave home eventually. Some illnesses never 'leave home' and so it makes it finically very difficult to survive long term.

Sixer

Weary_soul wrote: »

Maybe the difference is that most adults know what they're getting into when they choose to start a family, but nobody gets up of a morning and says "Do you know today I think I'll develop a chronic life long illness/disability, that'll be a good laugh".


As a disabled person then you'd know that you have that problem for life, where as most children become less dependent and leave home eventually. Some illnesses never 'leave home' and so it makes it finically very difficult to survive long term.

I agree that some people in society are more "deserving" than others.

But the benefits system doesn't take this into account. It acts to ensure those without sufficient income to survive have that income.

I agree that having children is a choice.

But the benefits system is acting to ensure the children have their costs met, not to give free money to the parents. Are you saying children should be punished for the !!!!lessness of their parents so the ill and disabled can be treated better?

I agree that chronic illness or disability incurs extra costs.

But the benefits system already takes this into account. DLA exists and is not means tested and ESA pays more than JSA. This takes into account that those with illness and disability likely need to survive long term as you say, rather than people temporarily out of work.

In fact, you could say that the system treats the ill and disabled preferentially in times like this where the economy is shot and unemployment is a massive issue. Quite a few of the unemployed will need to survive long term on JSA.

NEH

Killmark wrote: »

The same applies to any group in society, this is why we have means testing in the first place. We have DLA for the increased costs that people incur for health reasons.



Your arguing that people with health conditions shouldn't be means tested but everyone else should? For example there are 3 couples.

couple 1.
2 adults working on low wage, no children so minimal welfare support.

couple 2.
1 adult working, other adult caring for 2 children because the costs of childcare equal the second wage.

couple 3
1 adult working, other adult ill and unable to work.

All three couples have low incomes, if it is determined by the state that they have a household income sufficient to meet their basic needs then why should any group get priority? This is of course ignoring non means tested benefits like DLA.



No I don't forget that.



People struggle when their Outgoings exceed their Incoming, giving more money doesn't solve the problem if people can't priorities their spending if the first place.

But anyway as a person with a disability and health problems I have no problems with means testing.

I never called for no means testing. Those that are on non means tested benefit tend to be those that got sick when they were very young and despite picking themselves back up when in remission and getting a job they would still be short of NI.

As a disabled person yourself I find your attitude surprising....

Yes people struggle when their outgoings exceed their income but sometimes the bare essentials exceed their income. Yours is a very naive point of view if you think those that struggle just need to cut back here and there. If you're disabled or ill you get used to a lifetime of juggling money and cutting back......

Rents these days are nearly half of some folks income.

You think everyone gets DLA that has to pay for extras??? DLA is to cover personal care and mobility, where does it cover medicines, extra heating even help with housework is excluded....???

DLA is very tough to get in the first place.

As for this example, "1 adult working, other adult caring for 2 children because the costs of childcare equal the second wage."

I repeat it's a choice to have children, childcare should be considered before people have children and how they should pay for things, yes accidents happen and they can't be planned but planned children should be just that and how you intend to pay for them is part of that consideration.

Killmark

NEH wrote: »

As for this example, "1 adult working, other adult caring for 2 children because the costs of childcare equal the second wage."

I repeat it's a choice to have children, childcare should be considered before people have children and how they should pay for things, yes accidents happen and they can't be planned but planned children should be just that and how you intend to pay for them is part of that consideration.

Some people have blended families, its a lot more common then it used to be. Secondly you can't guarantee you won't get made redundant or face a huge wage cut.

People who have been most badly affected by the recession are those who work but haven't had increases to their wages for several years, have higher costs of living due to inflation or who have had partners lose their jobs, after 6 months they won't even get CB JSA.

At least those on benefits normally get adjusted upwards even when their has been deflation, the same can not be said of people who work.

Your point about people who become unwell early in life who haven't significant contributions and are therefore more likely means tested is an interesting point, in my opinion as they have contributed the least then it is only fair that if they have a household income above the means tested threshold then they should be supported by their household.

Yes disabled people have higher living costs but if life gives you lemons then make lemonade, people should stop looking after their own interests as it would allow those who can not support themselves greater state support.

Killmark

NEH wrote: »

I never called for no means testing. Those that are on non means tested benefit tend to be those that got sick when they were very young and despite picking themselves back up when in remission and getting a job they would still be short of NI.

I take it your referring to IB and IS(sickness) claims, so what about those who are means tested for ESA currently?

Should they have different treatment just because they made their claims after ESA was introduced?

ESA merely make it a fairer system with regards to what exists for CB and IB ESA claims when compared to the sickness benefit system.

NEH

Killmark wrote: »

Some people have blended families, its a lot more common then it used to be. Secondly you can't guarantee you won't get made redundant or face a huge wage cut.

People who have been most badly affected by the recession are those who work but haven't had increases to their wages for several years, have higher costs of living due to inflation or who have had partners lose their jobs, after 6 months they won't even get CB JSA.

At least those on benefits normally get adjusted upwards even when their has been deflation, the same can not be said of people who work.

Your point about people who become unwell early in life who haven't significant contributions and are therefore more likely means tested is an interesting point, in my opinion as they have contributed the least then it is only fair that if they have a household income above the means tested threshold then they should be supported by their household.

Yes disabled people have higher living costs but if life gives you lemons then make lemonade, people should stop looking after their own interests as it would allow those who can not support themselves greater state support.

Rose tinted glasses I think you see the world through....

So if you're young when you get ill and despite numerous attempts to get back to work, well tough go back to your family find a partner or whatever isn't that just giving up on folk?

It gives them no independence, to have to borrow money off someone on £16,000. Isn't their life worth something? What's to stop their partner being unable to cope with not only having to look after someone sick after they do a 40 hour week and having to pay even more bills? What's to stop them walking out and leaving, plenty of people do leave folk because they're ill and they can't cope looking after them.

As for benefits going up, yes they do by about £1 or £2 per two weeks. They still have living costs going up they don't get subsided for gas and electricity for example. Bills still go up even when you're disabled or ill.

As for ESA it does mean a lot of people now get no help at all. I dread to think of any young person getting sick today as they won't get any income and will have to rely on ever increasing elderly parents is it right to put the stress on them?

ESA has already been proven that in theory is should work but it doesn't....It's not a fairer system at the moment. ESA folk get more than some of the older benefits anyway so i hardly see how they have been treated unfairly when they get more.

Killmark

NEH wrote: »

Rose tinted glasses I think you see the world through....

So if you're young when you get ill and despite numerous attempts to get back to work, well tough go back to your family find a partner or whatever isn't that just giving up on folk?

But they would be entitled to means tested benefits if they don't have a partner.

NEH wrote: »

It gives them no independence, to have to borrow money off someone on £16,000. Isn't their life worth something? What's to stop their partner being unable to cope with not only having to look after someone sick after they do a 40 hour week and having to pay even more bills? What's to stop them walking out and leaving, plenty of people do leave folk because they're ill and they can't cope looking after them.

Ah because we are in the era of "me, myself and mine"? People have independence when they are alone, when you join yourself to a partner you accept everything that comes with them, In sickness and health, for better or for worse?

Plenty of people leave one another for financial reasons all the time, perhaps we should also protect all stay at home parents?

NEH wrote: »

As for benefits going up, yes they do by about £1 or £2 per two weeks. They still have living costs going up they don't get subsided for gas and electricity for example. Bills still go up even when you're disabled or ill.

True but why should people with partners who have the means of supporting them require help from the taxpayer?

NEH wrote: »

As for ESA it does mean a lot of people now get no help at all. I dread to think of any young person getting sick today as they won't get any income and will have to rely on ever increasing elderly parents is it right to put the stress on them?

They can appeal decisions or claim alternative benefits. It is something that comes down to personal responsibility and there are always options and organisations who are willing to help with this. Its a shame people find this so hard to understand but I guess after over a decade of people being spoon fed by the state that its a wake up call.

zagfles

john539 wrote: »

Simplifying rules means people get things they shouldn't or don't really need or people are denied because the rules are too simple & don't take into their circumstances.

Less means testing means many well off pensioners getting benefits they don't need, getting tv licence free when they can afford, getting winter fuel allowance they can afford.

Similiarly for other benefits people falling one side of fence or other on a rule.

Benefit rules are simple but complicated for good reason, as you would expect.

Saying that benefit rules should be simple is a meaningless comment.
They can never be that simple.

Then you have people using rules to their advantage, so you create more rules to close loopholes & stop abuse, then you create more rules & more rules .........ad infinitum !

Because that is what government does & systems do to control & manage the situation !

It's perfectly possible to have simple benefits. Child benefit is a perfect example. You have a child, you get child benefit. Simples.

DLA is also quite simple, you have a disability, you get DLA. OK the definition of disability may not be straightforwards but at least there are no complicated income, capital or conditionality rules.

And so what if people get benefits they "don't need"? If someone "doesn't need" the benefit because they have other income, then they're likely to paying lots of tax, and who pays for the benefits? The taxpayer.

As I've said before I'd abolish all means testing completely and have a citizens income plus flat rate tax.

Sixer

zagfles wrote: »

As I've said before I'd abolish all means testing completely and have a citizens income plus flat rate tax.

I'd have a citizens income plus a land value tax! I'd get rid of VAT, NICs, Income Tax, Inheritance Tax, the lot. Although I suspect my tax and income might be set at slightly higher levels than yours would be if you were in charge. Still leaves people something to vote for. It could even be done locally.

zagfles

Sixer wrote: »

I'd have a citizens income plus a land value tax! I'd get rid of VAT, NICs, Income Tax, Inheritance Tax, the lot.

That sounds quite regressive - generally land value used doesn't rise at the same rate as income (eg someone on twice your salary may have a house 50% bigger rather than 100% bigger). It would also penalise families as they need a bigger house than a couple with no kids.

I don't mind the idea of taxing land as it's in short supply and is often "wasted" eg people buying second homes which they leave empty while others can't afford to buy due to sky high prices. But I'd have an "allowance" eg x value of land or property area per person before tax kicks in.

But I can't see it being realistic to replace all other taxes with this particularly if you'll need to raise more than now to pay for the CI.

Although I suspect my tax and income might be set at slightly higher levels than yours would be if you were in charge. Still leaves people something to vote for. It could even be done locally.

I'd set it at a level enough to live on but not an amount most people would really want to live on. That way you could probably get rid of conditionality rules and all the bureaucracy which goes with them. Nobody would starve, everyone getting a low paid job would be significantly better off, no hassle or complications if you move in and out of work regularly.