Disabled Person on UC and Cohabiting

RobinHill

I beg your pardon ruthber but I have paid more than my fair share into a health insurance scheme, which as I understood it was just for such an event. So I think you will find that I am "supported" as you put it but by merit of contributions to a insurance scheme. Those payments afford my financial independence. Go back to reading your Daily Mail.

Spoonie_Turtle

RobinHill said:

I beg your pardon ruthber but I have paid more than my fair share into a health insurance scheme, which as I understood it was just for such an event. So I think you will find that I am "supported" as you put it but by merit of contributions to a insurance scheme. Those payments afford my financial independence. Go back to reading your Daily Mail.

I fail to see the problem of UC being reduced then, if you have other means of supporting yourself?

RobinHill

Spoonie_Turtle:

Thank you for the detailed reply.

Re. the insurance scheme I was referring to is National Insurance. Though technically this isn't required for UC.

I agree with you in that the UC disabled allowances where there is a working partner are very good. 

However if we were to cohabitate such are my partners earnings I would not be eligible for UC at all, and it is a very difficult and delicate subject to broach when trying to progress a relationship. Perhaps the best option would be to at some point both buy the respective parts of two semi-detatched bungalows :-)

Can you imagine attempting to start a relationship whereby you need to make it clear to the other party that you will be financially dependent upon them should the relationship progress to cohabitation, without any prospect of otherwise?

I am disappointed that you have cause to "like" ruthber's somewhat rude post. How anyone can object to the notion that the benefits I receive afford me financial independence is down right bigoted and straight from the pages of the Daily Mail hate brigade. It is attitudes like that that cause those who are less fortunate no end of difficulties.

Spoonie_Turtle

RobinHill said:

Spoonie_Turtle:

Thank you for the detailed reply.

Re. the insurance scheme I was referring to is National Insurance. Though technically this isn't required for UC.

I agree with you in that the UC disabled allowances where there is a working partner are very good. 

However if we were to cohabitate such are my partners earnings I would not be eligible for UC at all, and it is a very difficult and delicate subject to broach when trying to progress a relationship. Perhaps the best option would be to at some point both buy the respective parts of two semi-detatched bungalows :-)

Can you imagine attempting to start a relationship whereby you need to make it clear to the other party that you will be financially dependent upon them should the relationship progress to cohabitation, without any prospect of otherwise?

I am disappointed that you have cause to "like" ruthber's somewhat rude post. How anyone can object to the notion that the benefits I receive afford me financial independence is down right bigoted and straight from the pages of the Daily Mail hate brigade. It is attitudes like that that cause those who are less fortunate no end of difficulties.

UC as you rightly say is not based on NICs, whereas ESA is, New-Style and the old Contribution-based - both of which are not affected by a partner's earnings, and thus irrelevant to the discussion of reduced benefits with a working partner.

I liked ruthber's post because it simply pointed out that our benefits are sourced from public money, which includes money from people's taxes. The comment does not appear to have been edited so I'm not sure why we have a different understanding of what was said; I saw no objection to the fact.

Benefits are my only source of income (survival) too, and while it means I'm financially independent of any one specific person, I am entirely dependent on the welfare system ... which is funded by public money, including from people's taxes. Anyone who's used the NHS, been to state school, worked in the public sector, or accessed *any* government scheme of any kind, has at least been subsidised if not entirely funded by public money. It's just a fact, the same as the source of our benefits. Whether we are able to then give back financially is an entirely separate matter, as it should be. Those who can, should do so, for the benefit of all including those who can't.

As for financial independence in a relationship, maybe I'm old-fashioned but I don't understand why moving in together in order to share a life wouldn't include sharing finances (a part of the life being shared). But this certainly seems to be a subjective area and others may understand your point of view. Regardless, the rules are what they are right now.

RobinHill

Ruthber's post did not as you state "simply point out" that benefits are source from public money, it primarily stated that I was not financially independent, when in fact that is exactly what the payments allow for, and as for the payments being generous? Really? I would calculate that they are ok but I fail to see how they could be described as generous.

I think that you will find that the vast majority of people when first cohabitating do not combine their finances, more likely both share household costs etc, rent, insurance, heating, food etc, with the remainder comprising their own private disposable incomes. Only later do some couples completely combine all their finances.

The issue as I see it is that for me this has to happen from day one and as per the comment from MalMonroe, should the relationship breakdown the impact on the disabled party can be quite severe. It places a disabled person at quite a disadvantage if not possibly discrimination. So it means as a disabled person who is reliant on UC to be extra sure they may have to wait longer to properly cohabitate, however it is often only by living together that you then really know. A bit of a catch 22.

onwards&upwards

RobinHill said:

Re. the insurance scheme I was referring to is National Insurance. Though technically this isn't required for UC.

Can you imagine attempting to start a relationship whereby you need to make it clear to the other party that you will be financially dependent upon them should the relationship progress to cohabitation, without any prospect of otherwise?

You haven't 'earned' your support by paying NIC, had you been born with a severe disability you would be just as deserving of state support despite never being able to contribute. 

I expect that if your partner knows you don't work, they will be well aware quite early on that cohabitation means supporting you.  Its not a secret that people living in couples are expected to support each other rather than claiming benefits, its actually pretty common knowledge and most people think its correct.  After all, would it be right for a couple where one partner is a high earner to take money from the state that was genuinely needed elsewhere?

poppy12345

RobinHill said:

I beg your pardon ruthber but I have paid more than my fair share into a health insurance scheme, which as I understood it was just for such an event. So I think you will find that I am "supported" as you put it but by merit of contributions to a insurance scheme. Those payments afford my financial independence. Go back to reading your Daily Mail.

That's not quite correct. Claiming UC doesn't give you any entitlement to any New style ESA. UC pays class 3 NI credits towards your state pension, there's no entitlement to benefits from that. Now who should go back to reading their daily Mail....

RobinHill

Poppy1234: Your reply seems muddled and inaccurate. I never discussed anything about entitlement to New Style ESA. I have paid over 30 years of what I understand to be Class 1 NI, however yes it is irrelevant as I was incorrect about NI and UC entitlement. My gripe was regarding the comment about the benefits not affording my financial independence, which is nonsense, they provide exactly that. They were having a Daily Mail like dig in stating that I am dependent on the state, and generously at that. Obviously I am dependent upon the state, only a bigoted fickw##t has need to point that out on a disability money matters forum page.

yksi

Here's my take. An aspect that hasn't been mentioned here. I am 100% supportive of people who, for no fault of their own, are completely incapable of working in order to support themselves, or partially support themselves. However, I also see people with disabilities time and time and time again, express themselves with great eloquence, obvious intelligence and not inconsiderable knowledge and skills on a variety of topics. While there is no doubting that finding work can be challenging at the best of times, the pandemic has made it obvious that an incredibly vast number of fields can be done as work from home or in flexible ways. I take issue with the concept of people who self-declare themselves completely unable to work due to a disability. That's a gross underappreciation of their own merits and abilities, and the valuable skills they have to offer, and how awful to write a person off and label them unable to contribute to society in such a way! Challenges, limitations, difficulties, reduced hour capacity, adaptions needed. All better descriptors than "cannot contribute".

So. I am not privy to your individual challenges or the reasons you are not currently working, and nor are they my business. I see your perspective that someone who in theory is totally reliant on income support is discriminated against in comparison to, for example, an able person unemployed, because you are inferring that the unemployed person is unemployed by choice and could attempt to support themselves so that they could cohabitate without relying on their new partner's money. We will put aside whether being unemployed is always a choice. If it's a torch you wish to hoist and something you want to take further and to challenge, all power to you and I wish you the best of luck with your campaign for change, it's going to be an incredibly hard slog (and you're probably going to have to prove that able-unemployment is a choice). But my gut feeling is this. With your kind of intelligence, perspective, fire, determination, ability to argue your point and to campaign etc, then you have invaluable personal assets which would greatly benefit any employer with enough foresight to recognise your skills, and the payoff would benefit you directly. 

RobinHill

Hi wksi, That was a very well balanced reply bar perhaps your topic of disabled being able to work. That may well often be the case. Whilst you did refer to caveat, in my instance UC DM's have accepted that this is not appropriate if I so need, hence the award. Some disabled people find just "living" to be a full time job. In my case in addition to just living which can be arduous and onerous, at times I even feel that have just had enough of the daily battle. I have a progressive neurological disorder causing nerve damage and muscle atrophy and so need to partake in several hours of physio and exercise every day just to try and keep going, unfortunately it is progressive and cannot be halted. This in itself is essentially a full time job and an exhausting one at that. The only bonus that comes to mind is that I can eat like the proverbial as a consequence :-) ps. I wasn't implying that a person is unemployed by choice, moreover that they have the choice to seek employment, whereas as realistically I do not.