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.
31 Opinions
All ‘benefits’ should have a means testing element as part of their qualification criteria. (Noting, the state Pension is not a benefit)
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.
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.
If everything is means tested can I just stop paying tax for the services I cannot receive?
The issue with PIP is about a quarter of the population consider themselves ‘disabled’ in its many manifestations. This is total madness & unsustainable. Another prime example of how our Civil Service is grossly incompetent & that the quality of their employees is dire, couple with a pervasive element of systematic fraud & a naked sense of entitlement.
Means testing is always expensive and burdensome. PIP eligibility should be greatly reduced, but by changing the criteria to qualify not means readying it
Some consistently misunderstand their solutions. If you cut PIP by means testing then you are effectively encouraging someone to reduce their working time/efforts. Generally to get PIP and especially the mobility part is quite a high bar, I like to think if I suddenly had those extra life costs as a result of an accident or illness I would be helped to maintain the life I had built.
Anyone who says yes to this should have their pension means tested.
PIP should be granted for those in needs, by symposium of specialists dealing with disability professionally. Also majority of PIP recipients would like and could work, but obviously cheap labour economy with millions imported annually makes their jobs search much, much difficult.