If benefits stop as the government have no money

dmg24

Re disabilities - shoot me down in flames but I really do not believe those on disability benefits are poor under the current system

I would agree that those who have children and/ or receive higher rates of DLA are relatively well taken care of through benefits.

However, if you consider a single person who does not qualify for DLA (not all of those unable to work due to incapacity have care needs per se), their sole entitlement is IB, which at lower rate is approx £64 a week. If that person has a mortgage, they don't even get help with housing costs, only CTB. I don't think that a weekly income of £64 makes a person particularly wealthy?

peediedj

they could just use 2 mnoths tax they get from fuel to top the benefit fund up,they make enough off fuel

peediedj

dmg24 wrote: »

I would agree that those who have children and/ or receive higher rates of DLA are relatively well taken care of through benefits.

having a severly disabled child myself thats rubbish,ok you may get a fair few quid but how many more thousands per child/adult would it cost if the governemnt had to look after that person themselves paying wages for carers(at a decent rate not something silly like 20 pence a hr) and having someone on call 24/7 for that person

pipkin71

peediedj wrote: »

they could just use 2 mnoths tax they get from fuel to top the benefit fund up,they make enough off fuel

Any ideas how much they make in fuel tax per month?

Pipkin xxxx

dmg24

peediedj wrote: »

having a severly disabled child myself thats rubbish,ok you may get a fair few quid but how many more thousands per child/adult would it cost if the governemnt had to look after that person themselves paying wages for carers(at a decent rate not something silly like 20 pence a hr) and having someone on call 24/7 for that person

I was referring to adults that are incapacitated and have children, who would receive a different entitlement to those with children who are disabled.

Penny-Pincher!!

dmg24 wrote: »

I would agree that those who have children and/ or receive higher rates of DLA are relatively well taken care of through benefits.

Can you explain please?

Thanks

PP
xx

bestpud

peediedj wrote: »

having a severly disabled child myself thats rubbish,ok you may get a fair few quid but how many more thousands per child/adult would it cost if the governemnt had to look after that person themselves paying wages for carers(at a decent rate not something silly like 20 pence a hr) and having someone on call 24/7 for that person

I really don't want to get into a debate about disability benefits as I completely agree they must be a top priority, and that means those with the disability, and carers. I do not believe those on disability benefits are poor, which is the point I was making, but I do not believe they should have those benefits taken off them either. I acknowledge there are various factors which mean some will not be as well off as others however.

I do not understand how your point is relevant though.

I think we would all agree the govt would have to pay more if there were no carers but I do not see how that proves people with disabilities are not reasonably well off (benefits wise) in this country?

bestpud

krisskross wrote: »

bestpud wrote: »

I would argue people did not used to manage without benefits! Do we really want to go back 100 years?
/quote]

But we DID manage and I am talking about approx 25-30 years ago. A lot of people in Britain are totally soft and rely on handouts when it comes to providing for themselves and their own wants and needs. I remember when our youngest grandson was born. My daughter-in-law was totally amazed to find out that the Government was going to give them best part of £30 a week for the upkeep of the child they planned and saved for.

Well, my mum has always said that the child benefit she received in the 70s (there are two of us) was enough to get a weeks shopping! Everyone could get that and it clearly went further than it does today.

I may add she worked, as did my dad, but their money went on the mortgage and other bills! She says she'd have been stuffed without that child benefit, as it was money she could rely on to feed us all.

So they may have survived but it was via child benefit, and that was with two of them working, something many did not do back then!

dmg24

Penny-Pincher!! wrote: »

Can you explain please?

Thanks

PP
xx

The provision for those with children and on higher rates of DLA is considerably better than for those without these elements, as they entitle the claimants to IS premiums, CTC etc that are not available to others.

To make comparisons, if you enter some hypothetical scenarios into entitledto, you will see that the differences are disproportionate.

We are in danger of going away from pipkin's original question here, so I think I'm best not to elaborate further on the above x

krisskross

bestpud wrote: »

krisskross wrote: »

Well, my mum has always said that the child benefit she received in the 70s (there are two of us) was enough to get a weeks shopping! Everyone could get that and it clearly went further than it does today.

I may add she worked, as did my dad, but their money went on the mortgage and other bills! She says she'd have been stuffed without that child benefit, as it was money she could rely on to feed us all.

So they may have survived but it was via child benefit, and that was with two of them working, something many did not do back then!

The most child benefit I remember receiving was about £5 a week, this would have been in the 80's and I certainly could not have done a week's shopping on it. We both worked as well.