Means Testing PIP - Whats everyone thoughts?

Thanks @rubin16 I thought it was a great discussion and was really sad it went this way, I hope you're okay and don't let it put you off! People get very defensive of their opinions, especially when it involves money ❤️

I just don't like the trope that unless you have thousands in the bank and own your own home, you must be lazy, squander money and have no resilience or discipline - feels a bit off topic and very divisive!

I have not attacked @Biblioklept . Neither have I suggested that those with the very least are unworthy in some way. I've been in that position.

There's a world of difference though between an income of £100,000 per annum and £25,000 in the bank. Most people could live on £100K per year. £25,000 without other income is considered less than a single person needs a year to live a reasonable life. I live on less, BTW. But £25K would not last long.

You are not under attack.

@Community_Scope

@Albus_Scope

@Holly_Scope

Can @Community_Scope explain how members "support" other members who would quite happily rip PIP away from anyone with more than a few thousand in savings?

I don't think anyone in this thread was "uncivil".

Yes. We all need to stay "safe" in this atrocious political era.

I am a definite NO for means testing PIP. I can't add anymore to what has already been said by other members, but I agree with what other members have said and "liked" those posts.

The government should look elsewhere for savings, nobody can understand why PIP has been targeted first, it's all you hear outside from other people and I'll leave it at that....

I don't think it should be means tested at all before I was transferred over to ADP if PIP were means tested then I would not have got anything due to hubby's income.

This benefit gives me back some of my independence in so many ways.

In my opinion, we have all been respectful to one another and as far as I can see nobody has "attacked" anyone on this thread but merely expressed differences of opinion as we do on any other subject.

Any way as I understand it the government aren't intending to means test pip

No one is saying they WANT to ‘rip PIP away’ from anyone. In fact I think I've been quite clear that I don't agree with it and think the Gov shouldn't be targeting PIP or benefits at all.

People voiced the opinion that if they are going to make cuts to PIP, they’d see it as fairer to remove it from those who could financially cope without the loss. If you couldn’t cope without PIP or would struggle as a result, that probably doesn’t include you.

There have been some great arguments against it with wonderful rationale about the unfairness and why people are against it in general, which have made for excellent talking and thinking points!

There was then pressure to give limits and examples, and I expanded on previous opinions to say if it is removed from anyone, those who can cope with the loss seems fairer than the blanket proposals of current, where 1 in 4 disabled people lose PIP

That's a very good point!

@MW123 I don't understand this part of your post "What is profoundly troubling is that this proposal was left unmoderated," are you saying the proposal shouldn't have been allowed to be spoken about at all and should have been moderated/deleted??

@Biblioklept I note you have quoted me (twice).

“Did you genuinely not consider others would question your rationale/lack of knowledge/naivety”

 and 

“unconsidered/uniformed/trope-laden”

I was being civil when I suggested lack of knowledge/naivety, because the original unconsidered/uninformed/trope-laden (people with multiple houses, living abroad etc. etc. - direct from right-wing media sources) statement simply sceamed LET ME KEEP MINE WHILST YOU LOSE YOURS at me.

Incidentally, that proposal would mean someone with complex/severe disability needs would lose their PIP if they met the (as yet undefined by the OP) criteria to trigger a potential reduction of PIP, whilst someone with a lesser degree of disability (as per PIP assessment criteria) would retain theirs. To me, at least, that indicates a lack of rationale when discussing a benefit designed to specifically to recognise degrees of individuals' disability needs irrespective of their financial circumstances. Despite repeated requests from various posters, the OP has failed to provide the criteria they would like to see imposed on others in order to allow them to retain their own benefits.

“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?”

Fair enough, no-one said that explicity (btw, I did not say anyone had), I merely extrapolated a potential meaning from what had been stated i.e. if a disabled person (for whatever reason) were considered financially stable (e.g. £16k in the bank, later reconsidered by OP) they should be subject to means-testing for a benefit that recognises the extent/degree of their personal disability.

I've always understood that's how debate works - someone makes a statement, the listener interprets/extrapolates (using their knowledge/lived experience usually) from that statement, and seeks clarification on what they've heard/understood. Or, indeed, highlights a consequence/impact of the proposal apparently unconsidered by the statement maker. The use of "unfair" was in direct argument from OP that it would be "fairer" to reduce/remove PIP from those who were financially stable.

How about I come on to this forum with the suggestion that those who receive PIP for [insert some condition that right-wing media obsess over] should have that PIP reduced / removed because I think it's 'fair' because they are not "really" disabled as per right-wing tropes. How'd that go? It would be a mess, mostly because I would be unable to justify my reason for suggesting that other than it would a) help the government out of a tight spot, and b) allow me to retain my benefits, at the expense of a specific group.

To be clear, I really don't care about your obsession with a human-capital agenda, all I can do is relay my own lived experience and how the OPs proposal would hit people in my situation (which I consider incredibly unfair) whilst having zero effect on the OP.

Finally, can you clarify the £316pm figure you provided? I believe that's the baseline for ESA/JSA without support group supplement i.e. the claimant is not disabled/unable to work in the longer-term i.e. they are temporarily incapacitated and/or unemployed. Happy to be corrected.