nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

We want to hear from you: please tell us about your experience of the online community.

Means Testing PIP - Whats everyone thoughts?

rubin16

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Biblioklept

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1050762#Comment_1050762

I've not said I don't want to discuss it, I'm more than happy to, I'm just not getting into an argument about the kind of derogatory comments others have made and will focus on my thoughts instead and the actual discussion instead.

I've also not said anything about it being a reward for home ownership (or the opposite), I'm saying given that they are saying that the welfare bill is too large, I think the fairest thing is to prioritise those who cannot sustain themselves without it, rather than their current 4 point rule, which blanketly ditches 1 in 4 people off of PIP.

How would I personally means test it?

I wouldn't. I strongly believe it's fairer than their 1 in 4 rule, but it's not something I'd want to see happen. I think there are plenty of better ways the government should and could be balancing their books rather than attacking benefits at all.

But if I had to find a way to means test, I'd say those earning over £100,000 a year or with more than £25,000 in savings would be a good place to start. Whether that would make any actual difference, I have no idea as even the government doesn't have access to that information and doesn't collate financial status of PIP claimants

Biblioklept

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1050768#Comment_1050768

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!

luvpink

Absolutely not!

I worked for years and paid into the system.

I have a bit of savings put by for my retirement age.

Why should I be penalised for that?

I find the suggestion offensive.

Zipz

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1050779#Comment_1050779

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.

Hi all

Where possible we like all discussions to continue, but we’re choosing to pause this discussion for now so we can review it. For more information, please read our online community house rules.

We will review it and if we are satisfied the discussion can continue, we will hope to un-pause it by later this afternoon.

Community_Scope

Following review, we have now unpaused this discussion.

Please remember that all discussions on Scope’s online community should remain civil, supportive, and safe.

Zipz

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1050918#Comment_1050918

I'm against means-testing.

However, due to severe manual disability and exhaustion, I mistyped a "means-test option" twice in the posts above. I meant "Limit it to people paying below the 40% and above tax rates?"

Sorry for any confusion.

I don't pay much tax and as interest rates fall will pay less but I'm still very much against any qualifying disabled person losing PIP because they're considered financially OK.

Nonetheless, there will be changes and I suspect the government might use the tax system as it did for Child Allowance if the savings were high enough.

Zipz

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1050909#Comment_1050909

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.

Community_Scope

We realise that this is a very emotional topic for many and each person will have their own individual experiences informing their views. The house rules aren't designed to mean you must support a member's views if you disagree.

They are there to ensure members are civil to each other despite disagreements or differences in opinion.

Even when feeling strongly about something, it's important not to let it get personal and escalate into arguments that leave others feeling hurt.

Trevor_PIP

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....

Trevor_PIP

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1050768#Comment_1050768

You started a discussion that hit a nerve with other members. It's a subject that was bound to get strong responses. I have read all the posts and don't see you or anyone else being personally attacked. Yes, there are strong views and I would expect that. A lot of the members that have replied are here daily on this forum helping others that are looking for help with their PIP claims and they give their time to do it too. They are not nasty members! There is hope for this forum and you can have a discussion.

You expressed your opinion and other members expressed theirs, no Malice intended!

Binky1234

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.

Ironside1990

What about disabled people who are in supported living flats?

You'd have housing benefit to pay your rent, HB is a means tested benefit. UC goes on bills and food. UC is also means tested.

If PIP were means tested, then disabled people would have nothing.

PIP is better as it is,as a needs based benefit.

luvpink

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

Zipz

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1051152#Comment_1051152

@luvpink This was published last month. There is still a lot of debate on X. I assume this to be the source of the OP's question/ answer opening gambit.

Biblioklept

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1050968#Comment_1050968

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

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1050918#Comment_1050918

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

As for attacks or whatever, I don't feel attacked, but many of the messages posted haven't been very friendly.

I can imagine the assumptions, both direct and indirect, that have been touted and the aggressive questioning of just one person can very much come across as an attack

These sorts of comments are divisive, and full of assumptions and some are just outright rude:

“Did you genuinely not consider others would question your rationale/lack of knowledge/naivety” and “unconsidered/uniformed/trope-laden”

– not exactly friendly and saying someone lacks knowledge or is naïve because they have a different opinion is quite frankly rude and insulting.

“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.”

– indirectly saying that disabled people without savings haven’t shown resilience, financial discipline, self-sacrifice and don’t scrimp. I’d say someone living on just £316 a month is scrimping and showing huge financial discipline and resilience too!! Although I'm sure it wasn't meant this way, especially from this poster, it's easy to see why someone may feel hurt by the implication!!

“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?”

– no one said that at all and it’s putting words and assumptions into others mouths. It’s also pushing the human-capital agenda that worth and entitlement is based on how much you ‘pay in’ or work.

Girl_No1

@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.

onlymeagain

IF PIP became means tested, I would hope the threshold marker would be much higher than for other means tested benefits. I would also hope that it went on income only and did not take into account any savings.

But I do agree there are some, probably not that many, whose income could more than cover any additional expenses a disability brings, but I'm talking celebrities and politicians here rather than someone in an everyday (even if highly paid) job.

luvpink

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1051203#Comment_1051203

Thank you.

I don't use X

Component react.suggestedcontent had an error.

The value must be greater than or equal to 1.

Sign in or register for free

Get more out of your online community by signing in or registering