Contribution based ESA

NeilCr

I think you may have to go back in history for all this. The idea of insurance based benefits has been around for a long time. Cont based JSA and the requirement for last 2/3 year ni conts has been in since 1995 and ESA was in line with this.

Best guess (and it is a guess) is that part of the idea is that the NI conts pay for quite a chunk of the benefit. If the last NI conts were, say, 15 years ago then the gap would be large.

Interesting topic

antrobus

TinoMclaren wrote: »

With respect antrobus, as humans we are interested to know answers to questions and not to accept things as written. The mathematics/logic behind the two year figure is what im curious about, not that is says so in some legislation....

If you are curious about why it says so in some legislation, then you would have to go back and read the white paper, Hansard record of debates in parliament.

NeilCr wrote: »

I think you may have to go back in history for all this. The idea of insurance based benefits has been around for a long time.

National Insurance Act 1946
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/alevelstudies/1940-origins-welfare-state.htm

NeilCr wrote: »

..Cont based JSA and the requirement for last 2/3 year ni conts has been in since 1995 and ESA was in line with this....

As far as I can recall, there has always been this two year rule, back to the 80s. Although it would have been unemployment benefit and sickness benefit in those days. When it was introduced, and why I do not know. Most people have enough problems dealing with the intricacies of the current benefit system, let alone the history of the benefits system.

NeilCr wrote: »

...
Best guess (and it is a guess) is that part of the idea is that the NI conts pay for quite a chunk of the benefit. If the last NI conts were, say, 15 years ago then the gap would be large.

Interesting topic

NI contributions are supposed to pay for 100% of the benefits.In the last financial year, total benefits paid were £98.7m; £91.7m for the state pension, £4.7m for ESA. You can find the accounts for GB (and NI) here;

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-insurance-fund-accounts

antrobus

Penitent wrote: »

That was my point. I think you might have misread what I said.

No, I think you miswrote what you meant to say.

Dorian1958

TELLIT01 wrote: »

I'm certainly not claiming that anybody who claims income related benefit fits that category, but a hell of a lot do. I actually had one claim form come across my desk for a person in their last 30s. In the section for previous employment they had scrawled "Never worked!!!"

There may be many genuine reasons why someone has never worked, including being in prison, institutional care etc. My paraplegic, wheelchair using son will never work, not quite in his late 30's but he will reach that age without ever working. I hope his claim form does not go over the desk of a judgemental DWP official. There will always be the minority of people who abuse the system, but I believe the true measure of a caring society is how well we look after the most disadvantaged, and somehow we all have to trust the "system" to do that.

antrobus

Penitent wrote: »

Nope. I said they may want to limit CB claims because they don't want to pay those with savings or a partner's income (which those on CB may have). By removing the option of CB, such people would be bound by the IR rules, so would have to rely on the savings/partner's income rather than receiving ESA payments.

i disagree. Your original post was potentially misleading.Which is why I clarified the position.

But thank you for your additional explanation of what you meant to say.

Penitent wrote: »

...
It's the same theory behind putting time limits on CB ESA WRAG and CB JSA. If they force those folk onto IR, they can stop paying them.

That's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. It might or might not be true. I have no knowledge of what was in the minds of those that drafted the benefit legislation.

BorisThomson

antrobus wrote: »

i disagree. Your original post was potentially misleading.Which is why I clarified the position.

But thank you for your additional explanation of what you meant to say.




That's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. It might or might not be true. I have no knowledge of what was in the minds of those that drafted the benefit legislation.

Are you intentionally picking on Penitent? Because that's how you're coming across. Their initial post was perfectly clear (and understood by the OP), and her latter comment is indeed a theory.

Picking fault where there is none makes you look rather foolish.

TELLIT01

Dorian1958 wrote: »

There may be many genuine reasons why someone has never worked, including being in prison, institutional care etc. My paraplegic, wheelchair using son will never work, not quite in his late 30's but he will reach that age without ever working. I hope his claim form does not go over the desk of a judgemental DWP official. There will always be the minority of people who abuse the system, but I believe the true measure of a caring society is how well we look after the most disadvantaged, and somehow we all have to trust the "system" to do that.

I don't dispute any of that. When you get a claim form with somebody clearly glorying in the fact that they haven't worked it's a very different situation. I totally agree that we should look after the most disadvantaged, but not those who play the system.

Ames

TELLIT01 wrote: »

I don't dispute any of that. When you get a claim form with somebody clearly glorying in the fact that they haven't worked it's a very different situation. I totally agree that we should look after the most disadvantaged, but not those who play the system.

But if they've never worked what else should they put? I don't see how just two words can be enough to show they're 'glorying', unless there's a lot more context than you've told us.

TELLIT01

Ames wrote: »

But if they've never worked what else should they put? I don't see how just two words can be enough to show they're 'glorying', unless there's a lot more context than you've told us.

Full context is a bit smiley on the page and the words scrawled across it.

Ames

TELLIT01 wrote: »

Full context is a bit smiley on the page and the words scrawled across it.

Ah, the smiley makes all the difference.