2 Comments »

1. The proposals to reform the incapacity benefit system cannot come soon enough.

   In my city, we have one in four people of working age on benefits and the tax payers are footing the bill for this.

   We have about 27,000 unfilled vacancies in my city alone and albeit that a majority are of the minimum wage rate, a start has to be made somewhere and if people are under-qualified or under-skilled then they really have to accept what is on offer until they wish to better themselves.

   The welfare state was never intended to be a long term option and was implemented as a result of people who were down on their luck and required some temporary assistance until such times as they got back on their feet.

   In the old days, the poor had to go to their church or chapel or synagogue or mosque, hence the name, ‘I am going to the parish for some help’ came from, but even this was a stop gap measure until they found gainful employment.

   I think it is ridiculous that 4.2 million people can simply choose not to work and live off either incapacity benefit or job seekers allowance, with a number of these people being on benefits for many years.

   The proposals do not go far enough and are not tough enough.

   Comment by Robert Wills — 17 Mar 2006 on 1:02 pm | Link

2. When asked if they would like to work people on Incapacity Benefit generally answer: "Yes, because if I could work I would be better". This is generally misrepresented by the government and press as simply "yes".

   Today the number of people receiving the NI based Incapacity Benefit is about 1.4 million up by about 75% since 1979 when it was then known as Invalidity Benefit and despite a 120% increase in the number of people paying the necessary NI premiums (Source: DWP). This under representation of recipients of Incapacity Benefit is in part due to the many cuts in this benefit over the past ten years so the average payout is now about 60% of the payout of 10 years ago. The number of IB recipients has fallen by four hundred thousand over the past ten years as the value of the benefit has been repeatedly cut (source: DWP) this massive reduction in the benefit payout has been achieved in the face of vast increases in the NI premiums received. This collapse in payouts is referered to by the press as the "spiralling cost of Incapacity Benefit" or similar misrepresentations.

   It has, it seems, always been Blair’s intention to abolish Incapacity Benefit and he has been denied by successive Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions. Such an abolition would be yet another "stealth tax" as he has declared no intention to abolish the NI premiums which would therefore remain in place and used as just another tax. If such an abolition took place then IB claimants would either forced onto the higher paying means tested benefit Income Support or onto their own resources. The Incapacity Benefit which they have paid for would in effect have been taxed at 100%. People would learn not to save for pensions and sickness in later life as their savings and pensions would be taxed at 100%. The system of self reliance and self support engendered by Incapacity Benefit would be replaced by dependence on the taxpayer and the all intrusive, cloying, choking monstrosity that is the Nanny State.

   The consultation document’s following on from the Green Paper suggest it is the governments intention to force more than 85% of claimants of all incapacity benefits (i.e. Income Support and SDA plus NI based IB) to perform work action plans. This cannot happen. It is not possible. There are two many people out there who can not only not work but who would be made worse by any such actions they try to carry out. While there are many good enabling things in the Green Paper the government needs a reality check. The medics say that only 5-10% of benefit claimants can benefit and the government says 90%.

   Someone here has got something very wrong indeed and from my knowledge of the realities it is the government who have consistently misrepresented the supposed quadruppling of claimants since 1979 which actually reflects only a change in benefit names and discounts 2 million hidden claimants from the 1970s.

   Comment by J Midgley — 3 Jul 2006 on 10:48 pm | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.