ESA question re' means testing

sparkycat2

BigAunty wrote: »

The govt have rightly realised that many people on IB have prematurely written themselves off from re-entering the workforce and there are many people claiming it that can and should work.

That is justification for changing the assessment system and moving people off IB/ESA on to JSA if they are now deemed work capable. (Although ESA assessment system is either clearly not designed for this purpose or blatantly not fit for purpose in design or in implementation)

It could even be justification for WRAG ESA having some conditionality and even sanctions forcing people to undertake appropriate activities to help them become able to work, or take a drop in benefit entitlement. (Although with ESA such systems are again blatantly not fit for such a purpose)

But what has that got to do with the underlying right to claim ESA WRAG as a contributions based benefit. The people eligible for ESA WRAG are deemed not currently work capable. The means tested version is until the person's health improves or they die. The contributions based version should be the same. People in households with savings or other income or living abroad do not get miraculously cured after 12 months. The national insurance based benefit should have it's insurance honored.

BigAunty

sparkycat2 wrote: »

...

But what has that got to do with the underlying right to claim ESA WRAG as a contributions based benefit. The people eligible for ESA WRAG are deemed not currently work capable. The means tested version is until the person's health improves or they die. The contributions based version should be the same. People in households with savings or other income or living abroad do not get miraculously cured after 12 months. The national insurance based benefit should have it's insurance honored.

I haven't queried the merits or not of a time limited contributions based versus income based ESA.

What I have said is that IB is not fit for purpose and Boots888 simply has to suck it up and admit to themselves they made a wrong call about assuming that they were immune to changes in their sickness benefit - they made big decisions based on a belief that they would receive IB in perpetuity.

This poster waltzed off into the sunshine several years ago under IB but, for starters, could have been binned off that benefit at any time through being called for an assessment, so it was a bit daft investing in property overseas when they were totally reliant on IB as their main source of income. Secondly, an absolute quick review of the benefits system shows that there are benefit policy changes made every single year.

Under IB, claimants could legitimately write themselves off as not fit for any employment - that was the message sent out by the benefit itself. Consequently some long term IB claimants who have absorbed this message simply cannot comprehend that the premise for that benefit was wrong and they have to put their nose back on the grindstone of employment.

In Boots888 case, they are in the minority of IB claimants who may have to sell up and come back to the UK because they took the message sent out by IB one step further and made premature plans to retire early overseas, expecting they would just transfer from IB onto their state pensions like many IB claimants have. It's an extra constraint they have to face when they decided to put roots down by buying a foreign property to try and protect their inheritance rather than eroding it paying rent because they Boots couldn't conceive as IB as a temporary or interim or changeable benefit, their sense of entitlement is so strong. Wilful deafness.

Boots888

Big Auntie, Wow!

You're so hung up on my situation, I see from your posts today.

I'll not get defensive and explain myself as you're happy to assume my position.

So carry on....as you were!! I'll give you a shout when I've sucked it up, sold up and returned to Hull the long way round, pregnant and maybe you could be so kind as to voice your kind words of wisdom to me then.

xx

sparkycat2

BigAunty wrote: »

What I have said is that IB is not fit for purpose and Boots888 simply has to suck it up and admit to themselves they made a wrong call about assuming that they were immune to changes in their sickness benefit - they made big decisions based on a belief that they would receive IB in perpetuity. This poster waltzed off into the sunshine several years ago under IB but, for starters, could have been binned off that benefit at any time through being called for an assessment,

If their health has not improved and they are not work capable why would they assume suddenly they would not be eligible for the benefit. We are talking not about people now deemed fit for work go get a job. We are talking about people deemed currently unfit for work who are eligible for ESA.

BigAunty wrote: »

so it was a bit daft investing in property overseas when they were totally reliant on IB as their main source of income.

The benefits was exportable. So why shouldn't they have moved abroad and carried on claiming. It is a contributions based NI benefit. It is not the claimant's fault they trusted the government would honor the insurance.

BigAunty wrote: »

Secondly, an absolute quick review of the benefits system shows that there are benefit policy changes made every single year.

What gets changed frequently are assessment systems and for non contributory benefits conditionality and sanctions regimes.

Find one single example before this government of non time limited NI contributions based benefit being turned into a time limited benefit. Find one single example before this government of a time limited NI contributions based benefit. Where the time limit is changed for new claimants and that is applied to existing legacy claimants.

BigAunty wrote: »

Under IB, claimants could legitimately write themselves off as not fit for any employment - that was the message sent out by the benefit itself. Consequently some long term IB claimants who have absorbed this message simply cannot comprehend that the premise for that benefit was wrong and they have to put their nose back on the grindstone of employment.

ESA WRAG and ESA Support Group do not have to seek employment or take part in work placements. Due to significantly limited work capability.

Before the introduction of ESA, IB assessment system had been changed several times and the benefit had undergone at least one previous name change. It is not being reassessed under a new assessment as work capable that is the issue. It is being assessed as not work capable but having entitlement to contributions based insurance based benefit removed anyway after 12 months. It is the failure to honor the insurance that is the issue.

BigAunty wrote: »

In Boots888 case, they are in the minority of IB claimants who may have to sell up and come back to the UK because they took the message sent out by IB one step further and made premature plans to retire early overseas, expecting they would just transfer from IB onto their state pensions like many IB claimants have.

It was paid to people who were not expected to work, like state pension.
It was a NI contributions based benefit, like the state pension.
It was a exportable benefit, like the state pension.

Just as a old person has not miraculously grown younger and no longer eligible for state pension. They have not miraculously become work capable due to improving health or even the moving goal posts of assessment system. They have become ineligible due to the imposition of a time limit on duration of receiving the NI contributions based benefit.

BigAunty wrote: »

It's an extra constraint they have to face when they decided to put roots down by buying a foreign property to try and protect their inheritance rather than eroding it paying rent because they Boots couldn't conceive as IB as a temporary or interim or changeable benefit, their sense of entitlement is so strong. Wilful deafness.

Maybe because they did not believe they would be miraculously cured and suddenly be work capable.
Maybe because they believed in the insurance principle of NI, that a contributions based benefit is something they would remain entitled to as long as they were unable to work due to ill health or disability.
Maybe because they believed the government would like all previous governments honor its obligations under the NI scheme.

It is not the claimant being willfully deaf it is this government's unprecedented betrayal of the principle of the NI scheme and those reliant on the insurance based benefits.

BigAunty

sparkycat2 wrote: »

The benefits was exportable. So why shouldn't they have moved abroad and carried on claiming. It is a contributions based NI benefit. It is not the claimant's fault they trusted the government would honor the insurance.

It is not the government's fault that claimants for Incapacity/Invalidity benefits once numbered a few hundred thousands in the 70s and then boomed to an unsustainable 2 million plus with an estimate that without any intervention it might reach 3 million and that some cities would see 1 in 5 people of working age claim it.

Anybody who makes significant lifestyle decisions based on an assumption that their eligibility for a benefit will never change, it hasn't occurred to them that the benefit will be replaced, is a fool.

It has been widely publicised since the summer of 2008 that Incapacity Benefit would be scrapped and replaced with ESA. Boots888 has had 5 years so far to get their head round this fact. Anyone would think it was just announced yesterday.

FBaby

My partner and I are planning to retire abroad early and to this end, we are making sacrifices to save and secure this future. This is our plan and we should expect it to go through without trouble....that is assuming we continue to be in employment. We are both pretty secure this way for various reasons (beside being valuable employees, we would cost to much our respective organisations for them to consider making us redundant and no risk of the companies going bust). Still, we are accepting that unexpected misfortune could get into the way. Something could happen that we can't work any longer, in addition to disability as we are both insured for this eventuality. We could lose our jobs and have no choice but to use the savings we've built so far to survive and have nothing left to consider moving.

I really don't understand the principle that just because you are suffering from a disability that prevents you from working -even if indefinitely- you should be entitled to the right to live abroad that no other people can be guaranteed.

Boots, you are clearly very much affected by the possibility of having to change your entire life when you really don't want to. It is totally understandable, but your feelings about it doesn't give you more rights than other people who face the same sorrow every year.

Your reference to child benefits is very personal. You see it like this because you have never had children, but it is not more unfair than DLA being non mean tested, especially when many claimants, especially those working do not need to spend the extra money on their disability. At least a child always does cost money, yet it is CB that will become mean tested, not DLA.

iolanthe07

I've not had kids and didn't ever want to have to pay for anyone elses,

So who do you think is going to pay to keep you in your old age? Today's kids - that's who.

(State pensions are paid out of current taxation, in case you thought your NI contributions went into some sort of magic pot).

sparkycat2

BigAunty wrote: »

It is not the government's fault that claimants for Incapacity/Invalidity benefits once numbered a few hundred thousands in the 70s and then boomed to an unsustainable 2 million plus with an estimate that without any intervention it might reach 3 million and that some cities would see 1 in 5 people of working age claim it.

As previously posted we are not talking about people re-assessed under ESA and found work capable. We are talking about people who have been reassessed and found to be currently not work capable, eligible for ESA. That is having so significantly reduced work capability that they are deemed genuinely unable to work due to ill health or disability and are not required to seek employment, etc...

BigAunty wrote: »

Anybody who makes significant lifestyle decisions based on an assumption that their eligibility for a benefit will never change, it hasn't occurred to them that the benefit will be replaced, is a fool.

The benefit was exportable. They were told they could move abroad and as long as they remained deemed unable to work due to ill health or disability they would continue to receive support.

As previously posted IB has had it's assessment system changed over the years and at least one previous name change. With existing claimants re-assessed under the new assessment systems. To reduce the number of claimants eligible on grounds that they are no longer deemed not work capable. People could expect changes in the assessment system and to be regularly re-assessed.

But had no reason to expect that those deemed unable to work under new assessment systems would get their insurance based benefit removed regardless after 12 months. Because removing the benefit from people deemed by the assessment system as genuinely not work capable by not honoring the insurance principle is unprecedented.

BigAunty wrote: »

It has been widely publicised since the summer of 2008 that Incapacity Benefit would be scrapped and replaced with ESA. Boots888 has had 5 years so far to get their head round this fact. Anyone would think it was just announced yesterday.

It is not the change from IB to ESA that is the issue. We are talking about people still deemed not currently work capable under the new ESA assessment.

It is the not honoring the contributions based ESA WRAG insurance principle of being until the claimant was deemed work capable or died. For existing legacy claimants and new claimants. That change was only introduced last year, quickly after being announced and was unprecedented. Never before has any government done such a thing. It is a unprecedented betrayal of the principles of the NI scheme

sparkycat2

iolanthe07 wrote: »

(State pensions are paid out of current taxation, in case you thought your NI contributions went into some sort of magic pot).

State pension is not paid out of general taxation. It is paid out of National Insurance Contributions with any shortfall being paid out of the National Insurance Fund.

sparkycat2

FBaby wrote: »

I really don't understand the principle that just because you are suffering from a disability that prevents you from working -even if indefinitely- you should be entitled to the right to live abroad that no other people can be guaranteed.

If you become unable to work due to ill health or disability and have private income replacement incapacity insurance. Do you think the private insurance comes with restrictions as to where you can live.

When your pass state retirment age and receive your NI contributions based state pension. Do you think that comes with restrictions as to where you can live.

People with a disablity reliant on means tested benefits paid out of general taxation. Are restricted on where they can live. They are going cap in hand to the general tax payers and saying please help me a fellow UK resident in need.

People receiving NI contributions based benefits are not restricted in where they live. As it is a benefit paid on the basis of the NI scheme, insurance, that they paid in to the NI scheme and are claiming the benefit as a right as a member of that NI scheme. NI contribution based benefits are the claimants by right. Where they choose to live is up to them, as it should be.