Does cutting benefits work?

Work and Pension Secretary Liz Kendal is ready to unveil how the government has planned to cut billions of pounds from the work-up welfare bill.

Will be focused Health related and reduced expenditure on disability benefits,

This bill is growing rapidly and many people argue that it needs to curb the UK’s sake of public finance – as well as the economic and personal benefits of bringing back people back into work.

But this is not the first government to seek savings from the welfare budget, and efforts are made to encourage more people in employment.

And charities are warning about adverse effects on weak recipients.

There are three comprehensive approaches which are being investigated by the government:

• Profit payment level reduction
• Eligibility for profit
• Efforts to bring people to profit and use

The BBC Verifify has investigated the policies of the last 15 years in the region to see if it can be effective – and what risk can be taken.

The working-edge health and disability profit bill in recent years is definitely increasing, and growing rapidly.

For the budget responsibility (OBR) of the official forecaster, the office has estimated that the total state will have to be spent on these benefits for people in Britain between 18 and 64 age. In 2023-24 from £ 48.5bn to £ 75.7bn in 2029-30,

This will represent an increase from 1.7% to 2.2% of the UK economy size.

By 2030, about half of the expenditure is estimated to be at the benefit of incompetence, designed to provide additional income for those whose health limits limit their ability to work.

The other half is estimated to be on personal freedom payment (PIP), which is to help people working with disabled people who manage additional day-to-day costs arising from their disability.

A direct way to curb this estimated increase for ministers would be that they conduct the payment flat in cash in cash, rather than allowing them to grow according to prices each year.

“Reducing the prize money is the easiest way to get savings in the short term,” says Eduin Latimer of Institute for Fiscal Studies.

By 2030, £ 1BN will save the benefit of inconsistency in cash terms, in a year, According to the resolution foundation,

But you can only get inefficiency benefits if your income and savings are below a certain level, so cold payments will affect those who are worse.

In addition, disability benefits such as PIPs are people Poverty and lack of material are more likely to be more likely,

Under previous governments between 2014 and 2020, most of the working -age benefits did not increase in accordance with inflation – to save money.

And since 2015, more and more people claimed disability benefits.

Therefore, some money can be avoided by cuts in the price of individual payments, but there is still no dramatic effect on the overall bill in the long run if the claimants continue to increase.

Instead of cutting the value of these benefits for all recipients, the government can try to save money by making people difficult to claim the first place.

For example, the previous government proposed to make it Hard for people with mental health status to claim PIPArguing that monthly payment was not in proportion to additional financial requirements created by their terms.

But it is important to note that efforts to change the eligibility criteria for these benefits in the last 15 years have not expected results.

PIPs were introduced to change the old disability allowance in 2013, with the intention that it would reduce the number of people to save £ 1.4bn in a year relative to the previous system.

The PIP was initially estimated to reduce the number of contenders by 606,000 (28%).

Still the improvement is over Savings of only £ 100 meter per year by 2015 And the number of contenders increased by 100,000 (5%).

Another attempt in 2017 to limit access to PIP also reversed.

The reason for this was that many people appealed against the refugee which were triggered by strict eligibility criteria. In addition, the emergence of cases in the media which seemed unfair, the minister, often ordered the eligibility rules to rest under pressure from his own backbenth MPs.

Official decisions still often challenge and are around for the claimants not to award the profit and incompetence profit. One third of those challenges is eventually intact in an independent tribunal,

Louis Murphy of Sankalp Foundation says, “UK’s checker history of profit improvement suggests that the government should move carefully, but should move forward to find savings.”

Another way to try to get savings for the government is to encourage more people to come from these benefits and enter work.

About 93% disability benefits are not in the context And the same is true for 80% of PIP contenders.

A potential route to increase employment rates may be regularly confident of people in receiving disability benefits and if they are found fit for work then there is a need for them to start looking for jobs.

The number of people claiming incompetence in early 2010 declines Has been held responsible by OBR For reevaluation of a large number of people in the attainment of an old form of profit.

However, an aggressive or magnificent revaluation regime can risk imposing crisis on those who are unable to work and can also cause unexpected deformities in the system.

OBR has suggested The restrictions introduced by the final government for the comprehensive profit system, people need to be fit to work actively in search of employment or have a risk to lose their benefits, to increase the encouragement for people to try to claim disability benefits (for which these tasks did not apply).

Another possible policy to promote employment rates provides much aid to find Avenue jobs.

Some advocates to increase government investment in official schemes, work with employers, help people enter the workplace.

Various plans have been made to achieve this in the last 15 years, although they are not on a large scale.

The evaluation has shown some positive employment effects from them.

Although, OBR ended last year This evidence base was still limited and such programs have not been suggested, so far, there is “significant contribution” to bring people into work.

This means that the official forecaster can hesitate to consider more and more state investment in these schemes, pay for itself through high employment and tax revenue, and is the result of net savings in public expenditure.

Nevertheless, some experts argue that it would be understood to re -assess more regularly for the government whether people are still unable to work in getting health and disability benefits and – if their circumstances have changed – to provide them with additional assistance to go to the workforce.

“Assurance and not doing work-focused interviews certainly make things worse,” says Jonathan Ports, a former Chief Economist of the Department of Work and Pension.