Evidence by the Basic Income Movement into the Disproportionate Impact of Poverty and Inequality on Disabled People
Below are extracts from preexisting research, starting with ‘A Fair Society?’ by Simon Duffy, Director of Citizen Network. Historically, disabled people have been disproportionately affected by the inequality of government cuts. This is despite‘ 7 in 10 low-income households with a disabled person went without essentials between November 2022 and May 2023’. This provides insight into why the recent cuts in benefits for disabled people are a continuation of past policies and will only increase inequality for disabled people. This is a cyclical process (from shame and social isolation to welfare cuts). To stop this cycle where disabled people are pushed and kept in poverty, we need to test and implement bold and innovative ideas to break the cycle.
If we exclude the areas of growth and protected services, there are cuts of £75.2 billion. And of these cuts, over 50% fall on just two areas, benefits and local government, although together they make up only 26.8% of central government expenditure. Most people do not realise that local government’s primary function (over 60%) is to provide social care to children and adults. In other words, the cuts are not fair but targeted, and they target people in poverty, disabled people and their families.
The government has rejected calls for a ‘Cumulative Impact Assessment’ of the cuts despite that those with the most severe disabilities now face the combined impact of: Social care cuts, benefit cuts, housing cuts and regressive tax increases.
When we look at the combined impact of all the cuts, we find
Disabled people (8% of the population) bear 29% of all cuts.
People with severe disabilities (2% of the whole population) bear 15% of all cuts.
Increased inequality will worsen society for everyone and will lead to increased spending pressures in other areas. Reducing social care will create more crises. This will increase the pressure on the NHS and other public services. It will lead to more family breakdowns and reduce the ability of citizens and families to participate in their communities and in the economy.
‘Living on a knife edge: the responses of people with physical health conditions to changes in disability benefits’, by Jessica Saffer, Lizette Nolte and Simon Duffy, 2018
This article documents the experiences of people with a physical health condition or disability who have experienced a loss of or change in disability benefits under the welfare reform programme in the United Kingdom. A theoretical model was constructed using in-depth interviews and grounded theory methods.
The research discovered that disabled people found the benefits system unpredictable and difficult to understand, which was very distressing.
The research also found that many disabled people felt judged and treated unfairly for claiming benefits.
These experiences led to poorer mental and physical health, and to some disabled people becoming socially isolated.
Many disabled people tried to fight against the stigma of claiming benefits, for example, by appealing their benefits decisions and seeking support from others.
The research recommends that the government needs to change the benefit system to make it less stressful for claimants to help them out of poverty, and that there needs to be more support for disabled people who claim.
The benefits system was described by many participants as overwhelmingly complex. Some found it difficult to understand which benefits they were entitled to or even which they were receiving. For some participants, the responses to the relentless nature of the stress and uncertainty were particularly severe and disabling, leading them to feel frightened about becoming a burden on their families. They described being ‘held in this climate of fear’ (Caroline) and ‘living on a knife-edge’ (Bryony), because they constantly anticipated changes to their benefits, knew these changes were unpredictable and could be sudden, and worried about the impact that this could have on their lives. This fear prevented some participants from complaining when they felt they had been maltreated, as they feared retribution through further cuts to their benefits. They mentioned how cuts had affected friends’ lives, such as worsening mental health, losing their homes, not having enough money to eat, losing access to carers and deaf people losing their sign language interpreters.
They found the stereotype of benefits claimants extremely stigmatising, and described using derogatory language such as ‘benefit scum’ (Frankie). They thought that this rhetoric permeated the attitudes of members of the public, leading to disabled people being judged as less worthy citizens.
The autistic women who participated in this study described the assessment process as unclear, uncertain and hostile, creating a pervasive sense of threat. Participants felt powerless against an all-powerful system which they feared did not have their best interests at heart. A pervasive sense of threat during the application process trapped autistic women with worry about the future and uncertainties, which appeared to lead to inescapable feelings of stress and anxiety. Several women highlighted their reduced capacity to manage this stress alongside the cumulative impact of living as an autistic person in a neurotypical society. Whilst being awarded PIP relieved this stress temporarily and offered multiple financial and functional benefits to daily life, the feeling of threat remained beyond the immediate assessment process. The short-term nature of awards and the anticipation of re-assessment loomed over the women, limiting their sense of safety.
Sakura echoed that writing about herself on her worst days made her embarrassed and question her value. This reinforced the stigma felt by disabled people and people in poverty. Participants described feeling isolated and rejected by working people and loved ones due to claiming benefits, leading them to feel that “if you aren’t looking for a job and you are on benefits, you are some kind, some kind of less of a person” (Ploetner et al., 2020, p.683). This stigma was internalised by some who felt “not worth anything” (Hansford et al., 2019, p.360), feeling “guilty for being disabled” and like a “benefit scrounger” (Shefer et al., 2016, p.839).
There are answers that we must explore to reduce inequality and get disabled people out of poverty. To support disabled people out of poverty, we need to invest in neighbourhood and community support mechanisms and provide greater financial support through less complex methods. We need to fund local and embedded support systems and test ideas like UBI Plus, which will make the conversation about what people need to get out of poverty transparent. We must tear down the stigmas and purposeful complexity of the welfare system.
Basic Income, politics, Article
