IB changing to ESA

meliek

Thank you all so much for your replies, I will have a look through the lnks sent later on tonight, It is way to confussing to take in all at once.

I had worked prior to my disability for 15+ years with only a few day of sick so dont know the type i would be put on, but its early days as i only got the letter yesterday,

thanks again

sparkycat2

BigAunty wrote: »

Just playing devil's advocate here, to stimulate debate, am not criticising the OP.

An alternative perspective is that the huge broadening of the welfare state means that the bill is unsustainable, particularly now that the spending on benefits exceeds what employees pay in income tax receipts - historically employees taxation more than covered the benefit bill, hence the huge changes in place to cut it back.

The claimant numbers for IB/ESA had been falling for many years before IB was replaced with ESA.

The increase in the welfare bill is down primarily to demographics number of pensioners, and housing benefit increasing rents.

While a argument might be made to cut means tested benefits paid out of general taxation due to falling GDP and tax revenue.
I do not see how such a argument can be made on NI contributions based benefits including contributions based IB.

The NI contributions based benefits bill is less than the NI contributions income and the NI fund has a surplus. The NI contributions surplus over the NI contributions based benefits bill has existed for years. Which is why the National Insurance Acts 2002 chapter 12 provision enabled some NI contributions to be syphoned off to pay towards the running costs of the NHS, I think currently £20bn a year is being syphoned off to the NHS. Even in the recession the NI fund is pretty static, a slight fall year on year, if money was not being syphoned off to the NHS running costs it would still be growing. Also if the fund had not been moved out of UK government gilts in 2007 and in to a Call Notice Deposit Account at BOE base rate, I think it would probably still be going up. The government is slowly looting the NI scheme.

There was no increase in claimant numbers argument for replacing IB with ESA with a new assessment system. That is expected to result in over 800,000 IB claimants not getting ESA. Because claimant numbers for IB had been falling for years.

There was no financial argument for contributions based IB being replaced by ESA WRAG with a reduction in the level of benefit or time limiting of entitlement or the changes in eligibility when a claimant reaches state retirement age. Because it was part of the NI scheme.

princessdon

But NI based JSA has always been only for 26 weeks, at least this pays for 12 months, so they have always means tested NI benefits, just now they are means testing ESA in addition to JSA.

sparkycat2

BigAunty wrote: »

I think you are splitting hairs - the definition provided there is very evidentally one based on the expectation that the claimant has the potential for employment and they will receive support in this area.

People in this group may not be forced to apply for work but clearly there is an inbuilt expectation that those who can, should. They belong to a group that has been purposely set up because the assessments have identified some capability for employment and want to remove the barriers that prevent them from entering the workforce. Whether the person in this group agrees with this is a moot point.

If the work capability assessments identifies some current capability for employment the person is not eligible for ESA they get JSA.

To get into ESA WRAG a claimant needs to score 15+pts at the assessment. That is they have been identified as having significantly limited work capability to the point they are deemed not currently work capable, that is why they do not have to seek employment and can not be put on work placements. The aim of work related activities is to help the person to possibly join the work force at some point.

To get into ESA Support group the claimant has to be assessed as having limited capability for work related activities. This is not done on a points system.

sparkycat2

princessdon wrote: »

But NI based JSA has always been only for 26 weeks, at least this pays for 12 months, so they have always means tested NI benefits, just now they are means testing ESA in addition to JSA.

ESA WRAG is not JSA for disabled people who can work.

What good is a insurance scheme that covers becoming incapable of working due to disability or illness if it is time limited to 12 months. The average claim period for people who got back into work under IB was 2 years. Those on ESA WRAG have been deemed to have significantly limited work capability to the point they are not currently work capable. There is no guaranteed miracle they will be work capable in 12 months. Many of the conditions are incurable or degenerative.

Means testing is on household income and assets. So someone who becomes unable to work due to ill health/disability becomes a financial burden on their family. With no independent income replacement benefit. Unless household income and assets are so low they are eligible for means tested benefit or the person is so severely ill/disabled they meet the criteria for ESA support group.

The change to time limited to 12 months looks purely designed to save money by misrepresenting ESA WRAG as if it is JSA for disabled people who can work. That they should be expected to find a job in 12 months, like non-disabled people are expected to find a job in 6 months.
But those on ESA WRAG have been deemed to have significantly limited work capability to the point they are not currently work capable. They are not expected to apply for jobs or expected to do work placements.

sparkycat2

nannytone wrote: »

it seems ridiculous to me, that if you have worked for 2 years, you can get benefit indefinately!

It is not indefinitely, it is until the person is able enough to work or dies. The NI insurance scheme was a insurance scheme. Would you buy private incapacity insurance to cover you incase of disability or illness that provide income replacement time limited to 1 year. People are not all going to be magically better after 1 year.

nannytone wrote: »

if you are disabled or ill you will get DLA,

how mant iverlapping benefits does any one persin need?

They are not overlapping.

IB/ESA is a income replacement benefit which is to cover things like food, utility bills, clothes, etc...

DLA is not a income replacement benefit.
DLA is paid to those with care or/and mobility needs.
The money is designed to either help pay towards meeting those care or mobility needs, or improve the quality of life of the claimant due to their low quality of life due to having care and mobility needs.

nannytone wrote: »

ESA is already more gnerous than JSA, it acknowledges the difficulties and higher costs that accompany disability.

It is higher because claimants are expected to have to survive on the benefit long term. Those unable to work due to disability or ill health were not all expected to be miraculous cured, many were expected to be reliant on the benefit for years or for life. ESA/IB is to enable people to live their lives.

Able people are not expected to be unemployed for years on end. JSA is subsistance to enable people to survive.

nannytone wrote: »

i worked for 20+ years before my disability made things impossible. im now on income vased ESA.
but while i lived with my partner .... he supported me .... and why shouldnt he? he got the benefit of my company!

The idea is that people who paid NI are covered for incapacity.

It provides a independent income, so they do not have to rely on asking someone for every penny, or feel a burden to their family. They worked paid NI insurance and were covered.

The contributions based IB also covered those born disabled who were never capable of working. Giving them a independent income.

nannytone wrote: »

people need to realise that their tax/NI contributions arent put into a pot with their names on.
the benefits sytem works on need and not want

National Insurance is Insurance. Contributions based benefits are not means tested.

The welfare safety net for the poor needy is means tested and comes out of general taxation.

DLA is paid for out of general taxation but is not means tested. As it is designed to provide more equality to disabled people who have care or/and mobility needs. Enabling them to better take part in society or improving their quality of life.

princessdon

So I should be able to go on ESA with a partner who say earns £100K a year?

Why shouldn't household income be taken into account? DLa is none means tested.

I am not saying I agree with it - I am just saying that there isn't enough money in the "NI Pot" that you stated there was. There are now many more NI JSA claimants - the money isn't there like you think it is, so they made the decisison that those who are not deemed to be in Support Group will only be paid for 12 months based on contributions.

sparkycat2

princessdon wrote: »

So I should be able to go on ESA with a partner who say earns £100K a year?

For contributions based ESA yes. It is a National Insurance scheme benefit. You pay in for the insurance you get the benefit if you become unable to work due to ill health or disability.

princessdon wrote: »

Why shouldn't household income be taken into account? DLa is none means tested.

For contributions based benefits household income is irrelevant because the benefits are part of the National Insurance Scheme it is a insurance scheme.

For DLA household income is irrelevant because the principle is equality, making the disabled person more equal by helping them meet the additional costs they face due to disability or improving their quality life which is low due to their disability.

princessdon wrote: »

I am not saying I agree with it - I am just saying that there isn't enough money in the "NI Pot" that you stated there was. There are now many more NI JSA claimants - the money isn't there like you think it is, so they made the decisison that those who are not deemed to be in Support Group will only be paid for 12 months based on contributions.

According to the DWP
Total JSA bill contributions based and income based.
JSA bill 2007/2008 £2.2bn
JSA bill 2010/2011 £4.5bn
JSA bill 2011/12 £5bn

The increase in cost of JSA is only £2.8bn a year.

According to the National Insurance yearly account.
NI account 2010/11
Opening Balance £48.5bn
Income £97bn
Income syphoned off to help pay running costs of NHS £20.4bn
Income left £76.6bn
Out goings £82.3bn
Closing Balance £42.8bn

Income - Outgoings would be +£14.7bn but for the money being syphoned off. Just over £20bn a year is being syphoned of the income stream to help pay NHS running costs and has been every year since 2002.
Remember the fund is no longer paid UK government Gilt rates but Bank of England base rates since 2007.
Also there have been changes to NI contributions for those on high incomes and for employer NI contributions reducing the income of the NI scheme.

The government is slowly or not so slowly looting the NI scheme. That is the only reason it is not running a operating surplus with a growing fund. It is a political decision to dismantle the NI scheme not a decision born out of financial necessity unsustainability.

nannytone_2

i claim ESA so i now how the systen works.

i became eligable for IB in 1998. i didnt claim beccause i still manged to hold down a job.
143 years later. shpuld i ne entitled to a benefit because i was able to work THEN.

i persomna;;u sont thinki so.

i should get a bwnwfit because my income is low enough.
toure sayibg tgat beause youve worjed fo 2 years in your whole aqdult life, you should be entitled to benefit forever, regardless of your cirvumst6ances.

why would s

sparkycat2

nannytone wrote: »

i claim ESA so i now how the systen works.

i became eligable for IB in 1998. i didnt claim beccause i still manged to hold down a job.
143 years later. shpuld i ne entitled to a benefit because i was able to work THEN.

i persomna;;u sont thinki so.

i should get a bwnwfit because my income is low enough.
toure sayibg tgat beause youve worjed fo 2 years in your whole aqdult life, you should be entitled to benefit forever, regardless of your cirvumst6ances.

why would s

For contributions based IB/ESA the NI scheme works like a insurance scheme that is have you have paid enough recent insurance premiums. That may not seem fair, but it is a insurance scheme.
If I pay my house insurance for decades, then stop paying the insurance and the next year my house burns down, I am screwed, while Joe Blogs next door did not bother with house insurance until just last year, but his premiums are up to date so he is covered. Should I complain to the insurance company saying they should not pay out to Joe Blogs because I have the misfortune of not having current insurance.