We want to hear from you: please tell us about your experience of the online community.
it's what you call manipulating the figures …. across all disability benefits the figure will be roughly the same but PIP will have risen because of the transition from DLA to PIP
Don't forget that some past claimants of DLA will no longer be claiming PIP (on transfer - some don't meet the criteria threshold) - but first time claimants of PIP will be added to the total.
Also we need to keep in mind that due to the rise in the Pension Age there are people claiming PIP who previously would have had to claim Attendance Allowance. I also assume that since 2015 the population has increased and so we would expect an increase in the number of claimants.
We also have to take into account in 2015 scotish claimants were included in the total whereas now they are not
Must admit I was shocked about a benefits stat I saw in the news last week, but it wasn't for PIP. It was saying 1 in 5 (20%) working age people were not in work or looking for work. That mostly means LCWRA. I am one of those people, as are many on here, but when I considered just the number of houses in my local area, 1 in 5 suddenly seems like a huge number!
I tried to find the percentage for 10 years ago, but couldn't see a reliable figure. (I do not count Google AI as reliable!) Does anyone know the figure for back then?
That is a huge number/percentage and bigger than I thought! I can't see it anywhere else, is it of a particular age group?? I can only see the overall unemployment rate at 4.4%
I understand that the 1 in 5 figure includes not just those who have been found too ill to work but also individuals who do not work for other reasons including students, carers and people who have taken early retirement.
Our opinions will differ on this, I know you won't agree with mine.
As we live in a capitalist society where simply existing costs a huge amount of money, anyone who isn't adding to the country's money is not just mutual, but is instead taking away from it. If too many people are taking without enough providing, the economy and the country can't continue to exist.
You're right that disability has existed forever. But were disabled people really better looked after in the past? Or were they generally unable to live for long without being able to provide their own food? Welfare has only existed in more recent times. Prior to that, if you couldn't provide, you were unlikely to last very long.
I can't remember where I saw it unfortunately.
I have since found this graph of economic activity within 16-64 year olds. It looks like it's always been around 20-30% interestingly.
As mentioned above, this isn't purely LCWRA, as it will include carers and early retirement for example but it is still a much larger figure than I thought. To put it in perspective, PIP claimants are only around 5% (1 in 20).
LFS: Economic inactivity rate: UK: All: Aged 16-64: %: SA - Office for National Statistics
Herd immunity but each to there own way of thinking
Not at all. That would leave the country with fewer working people and a larger percentage out of work. Literally the opposite to that argument!
I'm afraid you're projecting your own ideas onto what I wrote.
It is just basic maths that if there are more people taking money from a capitalist society than providing for it then it cannot be sustained. It really is that simple.
The complex part is deciding how to manage finances for those who can't work for whatever reason. But clearly that needs to be a small percentage compared to those who are in work.
The value must be greater than or equal to 1.
Get more out of your online community by signing in or registering
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://us.v-cdn.net/6027153/uploads/defaultavatar/nM12UT844LQMJ.jpg)
