What is National Insurance for?

schrodie

It used to ensure that if you needed help later on in life because you could no longer work due to sickness or disability then you would receive some help. However one of the first things these tories did was slap a time limit on CB ESA to just one year. So you could have worked for say 30 years fall ill and only be eligible for CB ESA for one year despite having paid into the system for the previous 30 years.

richard9991

schrodie wrote: »

It used to ensure that if you needed help later on in life because you could no longer work due to sickness or disability then you would receive some help. However one of the first things these tories did was slap a time limit on CB ESA to just one year. So you could have worked for say 30 years fall ill and only be eligible for CB ESA for one year despite having paid into the system for the previous 30 years.

yes but only if you are in the WRAG if your in the support group you get esa cb for as long as you quallify

System

So the money for benefits IS finite and the payouts to benefits claimants will/should reduce as unemployment increases.

schrodie

richard9991 wrote: »

yes but only if you are in the WRAG if your in the support group you get esa cb for as long as you quallify

That's correct but it still doesn't help all those people placed into the WRAG (which is far more than those who are placed into the SG) who have paid taxes and NICs all their working lives to be told you'll only get sickness benefit for 365days unless you can meet a very tough means test!

schrodie

!!!!!! wrote: »

So the money for benefits IS finite and the payouts to benefits claimants will/should reduce as unemployment increases.

It should also be remembered that about 40% of the welfare bill goes to pensioners many of whom are [financially] pretty well off but given their sacrosanct position amongst the politicians they are immune from any cuts to their [generous] benefits.

bigboybrother

tpl wrote: »

Care services are different - NI does not cover care services. In Bristol if you have over £23,250 in savings you will have to contribute full cost of any care services received. If you have less than that, a contribution to pay towards services is calculated. There are still other benefits that can be claimed depending on need and circumstances (eg. attendance allowance, pension credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit).

Since when, under the National Insurance Act, does it say that 'care services' aren't covered?

Care services are provided by the local authority who receive a substantial sum of money (taken from the National Insurance pot) from the government to provide them.

Unfortunately the government does not tell the council to 'ring fence' that money. Consequently, most council's now use that grant from the government to help pay for other things (council wages/pension contributions, council motor cars, and other non related items, other than what it was intended for in the first place.

Not that many years ago council funded home help was a regular thing. My wife after coming out of hospital having had the twins had a home help 3 days a week for 4 hours a day for 6 months. It could have continued longer but my wife felt that she could then manage on her own. They helped with everything and it certainly wasn't means tested! It was based entirely on needs.

tpl

bigboybrother wrote: »

Since when, under the National Insurance Act, does it say that 'care services' aren't covered?

Care services are provided by the local authority who receive a substantial sum of money (taken from the National Insurance pot) from the government to provide them.

Unfortunately the government does not tell the council to 'ring fence' that money. Consequently, most council's now use that grant from the government to help pay for other things (council wages/pension contributions, council motor cars, and other non related items, other than what it was intended for in the first place.

Not that many years ago council funded home help was a regular thing. My wife after coming out of hospital having had the twins had a home help 3 days a week for 4 hours a day for 6 months. It could have continued longer but my wife felt that she could then manage on her own. They helped with everything and it certainly wasn't means tested! It was based entirely on needs.

I'm not sure why you cut off the top part my original post which said what NI pays for - which is actually laid out in the National Insurance Act. It pays for benefits, not direct care. I'm not sure why you are comparing services that were offered years ago, to services that are offered now - things have changed, and continue to change. As you may note there is a welfare reform going on, and public sector services budgets have been slashed considerably.

Currently in my part of the world all local government care homes are closing and the private sector will replace them (all the staff have been redeployed mainly to unrelated jobs, or made redundant); about 100 other direct care support workers in day services are (as I write) being made redundant; as day services are closed with people losing their services; and 60 social workers are just about to lose their jobs due to budget cuts/streamlining of services - which means the SW;s left will be working under even more pressure. Even through all this, people are still being provided with essential services. You only get a service now if you have 'critical' or 'substantiall' needs - not moderate or low needs. If you have savings you contribute or pay for them yourself, so they are essentially means tested (which I don't have a problem with personally - it means the more wealthy pay and others still get a service).

It might not be what those with savings want to hear, but there is no other choice in this current climate. It's also central government (Tory) policy. Please make more suggestions about how more care can be given when budgets are being severely cut, services closed, and the people providing the services are losing their jobs?

Unfortunately and bordering on criminally, the public sector (and associated care services for all of us) has taken the wrap for the collapse of the financial sector. I'll also repeat what I have written in a post above, as it is is relevant:
The strain on social care and health services (and staff) is immense, and current systems are coping with circumstances that are very different from when they were originally set up (including NHS (v. sadly currently being privatised) and the welfare state). People are living longer and longer due to medical advances, with associated demands on health and social care systems, which is only going to get worse according to population statistics.

Oldbiggles

Originally posted by tpl.
It might not be what those with savings want to hear, but there is no other choice in this current climate. It's also central government (Tory) policy. Please make more suggestions about how more care can be given when budgets are being severely cut, services closed, and the people providing the services are losing their jobs?
……………. …………… ………….. …………. ………… ………… ……………………….
‘Bigboybrother’ probably cut off some of your post because it was rather long and appears to be taken from a party political broadcast concocted by fat cat politicians.

You ask for some alternative suggestions, one would be that ‘charity begins at home’ and until such time that this financial crisis is resolved no further aid payments should be made to other countries. Despite evidence that the money has been misused by unscrupulous governments, our silly politicians continue to send money as if it were their own whilst cutting services at home.

This crisis was caused by greed amongst bankers and other financial services, not the people who have paid their taxes including National Insurance. Rather than penalising the people who desperately need help more should be done to bring those responsible to justice

tpl

Having telepathic powers must be interesting. BBB's post was not particularly useful and was just trying to flame the situation. Not sure how council wages are 'non-related items' to direct care anyway, (even if NI paid for them)..they pay the people to provide the care. Not sure what he meant by council cars either - maybe he means council owned minibuses for transporting people with disabilities or the elderly, or all those 'company' cars that local government workers, of course, have. Local government workers were being attacked for some reason - when they actually try and provide the public services everyone gets in very difficult circumstances - they put themselves on the line, and do the jobs that not many people actually want to do.

Anyway. This was just about establishing the fact there isn't enough money currently in local government to provide the care services everyone wants, and that NI contributions pay for employment related benefits (that most people have used at one time or another). So the people you gave as an example, will have had some benefit from this at some point in the lives. At least the people who can't afford anything still get a service (phew), and those with more money have a bit more choice about the services they receive - what, where and how. Those who are extremely wealthy will a lot more choice, than those with a lesser amount of savings, and those with none will have no choices. I'd prefer to be in situation of having savings then none (and having no savings doesn't neccesarily mean that you don't work b.......y hard either!). People also still receive a lot of services that are free at point of contact - eg. if they need care related equipment (which can be really expensive) or short term rehab for example. Different people will receive different services throughout their lives, and some people will have received a small amount, and have worked hard, and others will received a large amount and will have not have worked as much - either because they can't, or because they choose not to.

Personally, if I had the money - which I don't - I wouldn't mind paying for my own services - but I've been brought up in a culture where you 'pay for what you get', and have always had to be as independent as possible and pay my way, with not a strong family background. I guess I just don't expect that much! - from my experience of government (centrally and locally) - which may or may not be a good thing! When I am in need, I will have access to essential services - which I would luckily get at the moment - unless we turn into the USA - which would be horrendous.

Yes, we agree on the financial sector crisis causing the problems in the first place.
Anyway, i've probably gone off topic, and yes my posts are far too long....!!!