The argument for treating PIP as a targeted benefit carried the day: Yes won by nearly two to one. The floor’s most-respected Yes case was blunt — “All ‘benefits’ should have a means testing element” — while the result also exposed a desire to curb claimant numbers and public spending.
The winning side was not arguing from one place. Some voters stressed fairness for disabled people who are not poor; others wanted tougher eligibility, action against fraud and a higher income threshold, while one of the strongest Yes voices said, “Money doesn't solve anxiety, mental fatigue etc.” and preferred psychological support.
No voters made the more developed practical case. Their best argument was that PIP can let disabled people work without being penalised — “the only benefit that allows a disabled person to enter the workforce without being penalised” — while another warned that “Means testing is always expensive and burdensome.”
That left the two sides talking past each other: Yes focused on income, entitlement and sustainability; No on unavoidable extra costs that do not disappear with a salary. The sharpest No formulation was that “PIP isn't income replacement”, while another voter answered the universalist principle with, “If everything is means tested can I just stop paying tax for the services I cannot receive?”
The result lands in the wider argument over whether welfare should be a universal right or a safety net directed at those with least means. But the room’s more specific message was that even many opponents of means testing wanted the criteria tightened; the real disagreement was over the instrument, not whether reform was needed.
PIP’s universality lost this vote, but the debate left behind a more complicated verdict: target the money, tighten the test, or risk making work itself the penalty.
28 Opinions
HEAVILY CAVEATS PIP is needed (that’s the point) so the threshold needs to be high. You don’t want people to be disincentivised to work for effectively subsistence. The argument that disability costs arise regardless arise despite income or savings is correct so it should be based on income and higher earners only.
This is a mixed bag, people with missing limbs don't need to be rechecked but we must weed out those getting payment by deception and as a way of living.
This is so obviously yes I have seen such silly things as people with very high salaries receiving PIP and Motability benefits should be to fill gaps and act as a safety net.
PIP isn't income replacement.... it offsets the unavoidable extra costs of living with a disability. A disabled worker faces those exact same expenses for mobility and care regardless of their salary. Plus means-testing PIP would bloat an already intensely bureaucratic system
With all due respect, people who are disabled or long term unwell are not necessarily poor in monetary terms, so means testing in my view would be fairer.
Means testing PIP is unlikely to be cost effective. Any few higher earners on PIP enabling them to continue working are also higher tax payers.
PIP is not claimed by those who are in work as a majority but PIP is currently the only benefit that allows a disabled person to enter the workforce without being penalised. What is a problem is the LCW and LCWRA claimant's managing full time university whilst claiming to be profoundly disabled.
Voted yes because I would ban it. Where did it appear from?? Money doesn't solve anxiety, mental fatigue etc. Psychological help should be provided. All p.i.p payments could be used to pay them.
All benifits should be.
Criteria needs to be looked at for certain, but a means tested pip would be wrong, both disabled and working people rely heavily on this money to support there lives it is essential to them, especially in the cost of living crisis and beyond.