Means Testing PIP - Whats everyone thoughts?
I found out recently that they might starts to means test pip. Whats everyones thoughts on this?
To me personally I think its a good thing to means test it. It'll stop people who don't need to claim it who have their own money to use. It can then be solely used for those who really need it.
I know some people claim pip when they still have alot of their own money in savings, or claim it and live abroad. This is wrong to me and should be means tested.
Thoughts?
Comments
-
How would you means-test PIP?
- UC claimants only?
- Tax it as income?
- Limit it to people paying the 40% and above tax rates.
The whole point of PIP was, like DLA and AA, was the it's universal and based on need.
Maybe it doesn't seem "fair" to you that millionaires are getting the same or more support than you but most of us are not millionaires.
I am not entitled to means-tested benefits or any means-tested support. This is not because I am wealthy. I simply have a few savings and pay tax on the puny interest. My only income is CB-ESA. I live very frugally. No treats.
I was better off when I was eligible for income-related benefits expect I can deal with financial emergencies better.
I also use my "own" money to finance disability related support, etc.
Do you think the State Pension ought to be means-tested too? It's already taxed as income.
No. I don't think PIP ought to be means-tested.
6 -
I think it should be means tested in the terms of if you have something like 16k+ in savings you can't claim.
I know of so many people who have multiple properties, have so much in savings and sometimes live abroad mostly who still claim pip. For a system that is struggling financially this surely isn't fair.
There is something that has to give eventually.
I know there is secret talks going on discussing it, but it seems like a logical thing to do to me.
0 -
But most PIP claimants do not own multiple properties. Some don't own their own home ( I do) yet still have more than £16 K, which is quite a small sum today.
PIP claimants do not "live" beyond the UK. Payments stop if you leave the country for more than 13 weeks or 26 weeks if you're having medical treatment.
2 -
I get your views thanks for that. But my point would more stand at those that do own multiple properties, or do have alot of savings (not 16K but maybe higher). I know your saying most don't, but the fact is there is many still that do. My point being this isn't fair, and should be means tested so people who really need it, get it.
0 -
So how who you means-test PIP ? You said it ought to be taken from anyone with savings of 16K or higher. You seem to be having second thoughts:
- UC claimants only?
- Tax it as income?
- Limit it to people paying the 40% and above tax rates?
- Some other criterion/ criteria?
2 -
Just because people may have savings etc..this should not stop them getting additional support for helping them cope and get on as best they can with their disability why should people who have saved and are able to work be treated differently! No it should not be means tested! I struggle with work and had to reduce my hours and this benefit helps me greatly
3 -
Let’s begin with the facts. PIP is only payable outside the UK under very specific and limited reciprocal arrangements, such as those with certain EU countries, or for members of the Armed Forces. You can also receive PIP for up to 26 weeks while abroad for medical treatment, provided the absence has been pre-approved by DWP. Therefore, the notion that individuals are routinely claiming PIP while living abroad is not supported by current legislation.
Means testing would punish disabled people who have shown resilience, financial discipline and self-sacrifice, those who have scrimped, saved and relied on their own modest resources to fill gaps in support. The very payment created to ease the unavoidable costs of disability could become a trap, stripping claimants of other essential benefits and turning responsible living into a penalty. Instead of offering a foundation for independence, means testing risks turning disability support into a blunt instrument of exclusion, cutting off help precisely when it is needed most. Rather than lifting disabled people up, it would pull away the safety net, sending a clear message: careful planning and personal effort are not valued, and those who try to manage their needs are left more vulnerable than ever.
The more urgent concern is what happens if PIP becomes means tested. If the policy doesn’t include a clear exemption, it could be treated as income and deducted from UC and other benefits. Whether that happens depends on whether a disregard for PIP income is built into the framework, but the government has already signalled its intention to reduce welfare spending. Without that safeguard, the consequences would be immediate and far-reaching. The support intended to cover disability-related costs could end up cancelling out the help meant for basic living, leaving claimants with no additional support, just a reallocation of income that reduces UC pound for pound against PIP.
If PIP stops being a recognition of disability-related need and becomes a financial calculation. It moves from a support mechanism based on necessity to one dictated by income thresholds. Once that shift occurs, the system wouldn’t just exclude those with savings, it would erode support for everyone. Thresholds creep in, reassessments multiply, trust disappears.So no, means testing PIP wouldn’t make the system fairer. It would make it narrower, harsher, and more conditional. And the message behind it? Unless you are poor enough to be pitied, your disability doesn’t count, and when it does, it’s treated as extra income and taken away anyway. Disability doesn’t discriminate, and neither should support, PIP was meant to recognise need, not net worth.
10 -
I have a couple of questions, @rubin16 :
a)
Would I be correct in assuming you, personally, would be unaffected by any means-testing of PIP?
b)
Do you not consider it 'unfair' to those (like me and many others) who pushed through our disabilities and worked for 40+ years, paying tax to support those claiming disability benefits, to now be denied the same benefits because we pushed through until we were no longer able to do so?
I am genuinely interested in the answers to these questions, along with questions posed by other posters.
As an aside, it looks (to me) as though those of us who did work/contribute are likely to lose our NS/CB-ESA in the next purge via 'Employment Insurance' - simply because we did work and did contribute to other peoples' benefits until we no longer could. I really believe removing PIP from disabled people, in effect, because they pushed through and worked would be deplorable.
6 -
Thanks for the response, I couldn't see why it would be a problem if we means tested pip and wanted different views on it. but now you've explained I understand more now.
2 -
No I wouldn't be affected, and yes I do think its unfair when people have a large amount of savings and properties to be claiming PIP. When the state is looking at cutting costs of welfare. I'm not aiming at people who would have a dire affect on, just people who don't financially depend on it and it won't hurt whether they claimed it or not.
1 -
@rubin16 - how would you decide who deserves recognition of their disability/needs and who doesn't?
You can't really propose something without having some outline of who you would exclude from claiming.
I've previously suggested that PIP should be a working-age benefit, transferring to AA (i.e. PIP without Mobility element) at state pension age. I've outlined detailed reasons why I believe that. Others disagree. The difference here is: I absolutely would be impacted by my suggestion.
The easiest thing in the world is to make suggestions in order to maintain your own circumstances (see Starver, Kendall, Timms, Reeves - no impact re benefit changes), it's much more difficult to make suggestions that will impact you.
Let's reverse the question: What are you willing to relinquish in order to assist the government's (mythical) balance sheet?
2 -
I'm not getting into a big debate, I just saw that the government was thinking about means testing PIP and was proposing the question would it be a bad thing?? Thats all.
1 -
You opened a Big Debate @rubin16. And you still haven't said how you'd mean-test PIP. I think you changed your mind about a £16K cut-off. Moreover, who are "these people" you're going on about?
@Girl_No1 I can see your reasoning. I wouldn't be hit immediately but in the near future.
I would also be hit if PIP were regarded as taxable income, one form of means-testing but obviously prefer this route to a £16K severance. I'd be interested in what @MW123 and other forum users thought of that way forward.
2 -
You did, in effect, invite a debate, though! You outlined your active support for these proposals and outlined why you support them. Did you genuinely not consider others would question your rationale/lack of knowledge/naivety when you airily offered your support to cutting benefits to disabled people who are not you?
Anyway, the bottom line is they will most likely start with taxing it for those who do not claim means-tested benefits, and include it in the benefit cap for those who do.
I'm old enough to know we really should be careful what we wish for/actively support for others when we're relying on different others (Starmer et al) to define the rules.
Peace out 👍
2 -
I'm also on the absolutely no to means testing side of the fence.
UC is a welfare benefit. It has implications for things like state pension. If you are unable to work but claiming UC, the government is also paying into your state pension. It counts towards that end even if you don't have a job paying into that pot. This is obviously a good thing! UC also entitles you to discounts on certain things - which is also a good thing! Stuff like NHS dentist care, or prescriptions. Most of these exemptions do not exist for claimants of PIP.
PIP is a disability benefit. Disability benefits cover the cost of NOW, they do nothing for the future. There are very specific criteria for exemptions for those claiming PIP. It is a gateway benefit for other disability-adjacent resources, such as a blue badge, bus pass, railcard, carer's allowance (all of which requires some additional evidence, however).
Someone who claims PIP but has no UC and is unable to work is not having contributions made to their state pension. In order to get a full state pension, someone on PIP who is not eligible for UC has to have something like 35 years of contributions. But not every disabled person can work for that amount of time, some can only work part time, and some people have employment histories disrupted by periods of unemployment due to discrimination or disability.
I am sure you realise that even if someone did have 16k in savings or inheritance or whatever, it would not last long when that person reached retirement age? At the moment, the annual state pension is around 11k per year, which means that having 16k in savings would cover the state pension amount (which is already paltry) for eighteen months. After that? It depends on your work history, but quite possibly, nothing. And it's not possible to claim PIP when you reach retirement age - you can only claim it while you are working age. So if you have it means tested, and someone loses eligibility due to having 16k in savings, they aren't able to then claim it when they've spent that amount to survive in their first year post-retirement.
I realise there are a lot of nuances to this and this is a very blunt example, but I really want people to understand the difference between what a welfare benefit does and what a disability benefit does and why the criteria are different. My point is also not that PIP should contribute to pensions, more that having savings of 16k or any amount is irrelevant in this discussion.I don't think there is a realistic intent to means test PIP at this point, the government said quite clearly that they weren't considering it in their initial welfare cut statement and everything has been watered down since then. I can't rule it out with a future government, of course. But if they were to do it, it would likely be challenged legally because PIP is not a welfare benefit. And disability is not something that is means tested.
I also think the idea that anyone is living abroad, owning multiple properties and so on and claiming PIP is a myth, probably invented by the right wing media to further divide disabled people and turn them against each other. The DWP would absolutely catch out anyone who was overseas for a long period of time. As for owning other property, there's no accounting for inheritance or other situations whereby property might come into someone's hands. But it would be the exception, not the rule. Most people claiming PIP don't own even one house. Some barely meet the threshold to rent per month in their area. Let's not make assumptions about other people's lives when we're not the ones living them.I also agree with not mooting a suggestion that doesn't affect you, but may hurt others.
6 -
I honestly think that, altho means testing PIP has been mentioned, that it's unlikely to occur.
My personal reasoning, I think disability benefits should be completely separate to those that those of working age can claim due to an inability to work.
Your monetary worth, if you like, is also something completely separate to any disability you suffer from. Penalising someone due to their disability surely is ethically wrong….also if you just happen to have x amount of £s.
I can understand where you're coming from @rubin16 - but those who have a larger amount of savings may very well be individuals who are already paying a higher rate of tax due to their income, so are already contributing to the welfare bill, so why penalise them further? We need people with large(ish) amounts of money to stay in the UK & help contribute.
Ordinary people who've worked hard despite their disabilities, I'm one too, you'd have penalised for working (& they'd perhaps saved), so also contributing at the same time? I didn't think about where the money I paid in taxes went; I'm pleased to know that in part it helped disabled people.
It's difficult, as PIP is a benefit you can claim whether working, or not, spend or save. The Gov't is fond of the word 'disincentivise;' I'd worry about people being disincentivised from working & saving/having savings & just spending them in order to get a disability benefit if PIP was means tested.
Those who have savings/some disposable income can also contribute to the economy, local or otherwise.
We'll have to wait & see Timms review, & how he can align the to be abolished WCA & PIP; that will be interesting!
7 -
I pushed through work for years in pain and mental health and paid tax to support others who gave up work years before me or who had never worked in their lives who had the same conditions as me. I finally couldn't literally get out of bed or even dress myself so I had to give up work through pain and mental health. I have savings because I worked 30 years I think I'm entitled to pip after all that. Means testing would be so wrong
4 -
I think some people are being a little harsh or demanding of @rubin16 for posing a question!! It should be an interesting discussion and it doesn't feel that way at all 😕
The benefit system isn't fair. It never has been and probably never will be. And most people will usually be only on the side of what is in their personal best interests.
But the Gov have said they need to make savings on the welfare bill and this, while not fair, may be a fairer way of doing things and if done correctly, should only impact those who are more able to cope without the money.
Do I think means-testing PIP is fair? No.
Do I think the proposals of 4 point rule and essentially excluding mental health, behavioural, intellectual or ASC etc is fair? No.
Do I think means testing PIP is fairer proposal than the suggestion of 4 point rule and many of the other gov proposals as a way of reducing the welfare bill? Absolutely.
Do I think this means I am naive or lack knowledge? No. And I think the suggestion is appalling. You can disagree without being insulting.
I don't want an argument so won't comment more on individual posts I found distasteful but being a home owner or having more in savings doesn't automatically mean you're more resilient, or worked harder, or showed more discipline. That trope is tired, and old, and a human capital approach that I strongly disapprove of, even if the world is set up that way.
To be clear, I don't think means testing PIP is fair, but it seems fairer than many proposed alternatives.
Before any assumptions are made, would I potentially be impacted by means-testing PIP? Yep!! And definitely at different stages in my life. Do I still think it's fairer than proposals that may have seen quarter of PIP claimants lose their daily living support? Yep.
6 -
Precisely how would means-testing be fairer than the four point rule?
IMO, the four-point rule would ensure what @rubin16 states s/he wants i.e. those in most need (presumably of disability support rather than income which is covered by UC?) receive the support they need.
BTW, I am definitely not advocating for the four-point rule, although I would expect I personally would be relatively secure in that regard should it be imposed. The point is I (and many like me) are not advocating for something that will affect others, but not us.
To be clear: I want those who need disability support to receive it at the level of their assessed need, regardless of their income/status.
I'll be frank, my issue with the initial post was the airy manner in which seemingly unconsidered/uniformed/trope-laden support was given to disenfranchising others to secure their own position. I was being generous in suggesting lack of knowledge/naivety rather than more selfish motives.
Finally, I'm proud to have worked 40+ years whilst struggling with disability, and will continue to say so whether you or anyone else takes offence about that.
1 -
If you don't want want to discuss this difficult issue ( not argue) why add to the thread?
I found some of your remarks confusing.
Are you suggesting that PIP is ( or ought to be) some sort of state "reward" for home ownership, savings, resilience in the face of disability, hard work, or self-discipline or just the opposite?
And I'll ask you the same question as I posed to @rubin16 How would you means-test PIP?
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.3K Start here and say hello!
- 7.2K Coffee lounge
- 87 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 117 Announcements and information
- 24.2K Talk about life
- 5.8K Everyday life
- 414 Current affairs
- 2.4K Families and carers
- 868 Education and skills
- 1.9K Work
- 526 Money and bills
- 3.6K Housing and independent living
- 1K Transport and travel
- 886 Relationships
- 257 Sex and intimacy
- 1.5K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.4K Talk about your impairment
- 863 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 923 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.1K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 39.5K Talk about your benefits
- 6K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 19.6K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 8.2K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.7K Benefits and income