Incapacity Benefit

sospanfach1

scootw1 wrote: »

You are right to a certain extent. people on benefits shoul;d be able to have a life BUT Befefits are supposed to be there to enable a person to live comfortably, not extravagantly. Does this mean going to the pub every day (not much sign of disability there methinks) and having all the mod cons Only this morning, a guy on benefits where I live was walzting in at 12.10 midday drunk. I work full time and have never had a holiday abroad, don't have SKY, don't even have a car, can't afford one. a lot of people (not all) on benefits are living VERY comfortably thank you very much. It is about time that EVERYONE on benefits was re-evaluated properly (not just a GP wanting to get rid of their patient by signing their sick form) so that people like me, the average taxpayer, could stop propping up these people. Then,. and only then, can the people who deserve the money get it and those who don't deserve it get nothing[/quo

Scoot you are right there ,nobody is saying people on IB should,nt be able to live "normal" lives but as you say going to the pub every day ,SKY tv ,holidays abroad,come on now how can anyond condone that,Benefits are supposed to be a safety net to help people who genuinely get into trouble not to fund a very comfortable lifestyle.Afew years ago i had a newsagents come convenience store right opposite the town court and next to the SOCIAL SERVICES offices.Did a roaring trade as soon as i had a licence to sell alcohol,invalidity,incapacity my a--- all money they were getting was spent with me and it was,nt on food or on electric and gas tokens.
There is an elderly couple next to me worked all their lives just get their state pension to live on ,they hav eto live in 1 room in winter when it gets very cold because they cannot afford the heating bills.
Now who should the benefit go to. Anyone who sees that fair and stand up for these other !!!!!!!!!!s (and there are more than you think of these) is living in a different world to the rest of us.

Oldernotwiser

I think you may have missed Seven Day weekend's post explaining how people can be eligible for sickness benefits and be very well off.

seven-day-weekend

sospanfach, have you read my post #49 above where I explain that people on non means-tested benefits such as IB and DLA may well be able to have an extravagant lifestyle because they may have other money coming in? You mustn't assume that they are all faking it.

A friend of mine claims IB , she has two conditions both of which really curtail her life - I have seen her at her worse and even at her best there is no way she could hold down a regular job. Now because she is married to a hospital consultant she is able to have several holidays a year and (if she so chose, which she doesn't) have all the latest mod-cons, eat out etc. She does use some of her Benefit to pay for taxis as she can't use public transport and isn't allowed to drive.

Because she doesn't LOOK ill/disabled people always assume that she is 'on the fiddle' or that her husband in some way influences it, but no - she is entitled to these benefits in her own right as she has two disabilities, both of which keep her from working. The Benefit is not means-tested so her husband's large salary and their savings are not counted.

I know people DO fiddle it, but don't assume that because that someone has plenty of money, that they are automatically doing so.

The pensioners who live in one room- are they claiming all the Benefits they are entitled to? If ALL they have is the State Pension, it should be made up by Pension Credit to a minimum amount and this will automatically qualify them for Council Tax Benefit whether they rent or own their house and Housing Benefit if they are renting. Do they get their £200 Heating Allowance every year? Do either or both of then qualify for Attendance Allowance (not means-tested)? It may be a good idea to have someone from Age Concern come to assess their finances. They did this for my sister and she was able to claim some money that she did not know she was entitled to.

If of course they have enough savings to preclude them from being eligible for means-tested benefits, then it is their choice not to spend them to make their quality of life better.

krisskross

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

A friend of mine claims IB , she has two conditions both of which really curtail her life - I have seen her at her worse and even at her best there is no way she could hold down a regular job. Now because she doesn't LOOK ill/disabled AND is married to a hospital consultant she is able to have several holidays a year and (if she so chose, which she doesn't) have all the latest mod-cons, eat out etc. She does use some of her Benefit to pay for taxis as she can't use public transport and isn't allowed to drive.

People always assume that she is 'on the fiddle' or that her husband in some way influences it, but no - she is entitled to these benefits in her own right as she has two disabilities, both of which keep her from working. The Benefit is not means-tested so her husband's large salary is not counted.

.

To be honest all this post does for me is to make me think that Incapacity Benefit should be means tested. If the government hands out taxpayers money to be little more than pocket money rather than to be essential for that person to live it is wrong.

seven-day-weekend

krisskross wrote: »

To be honest all this post does for me is to make me think that Incapacity Benefit should be means tested. If the government hands out taxpayers money to be little more than pocket money rather than to be essential for that person to live it is wrong.

My friend's consultant husband pays SHEDLOADS of tax! He pays more tax than I have ever earned as salary.

My husband claims IB, and he still pays tax. Benefit claimants are quite often also taxpayers.

krisskross

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

My friend's consultant husband pays SHEDLOADS of tax! He pays more tax than I have ever earned as salary.

My husband claims IB, and he still pays tax. Benefit claimants are quite often also taxpayers.

I have no doubt her husband pays loads of tax. Simply on the basis that he earns loads of money. We all pay income tax in proportion to our income. However his wife does not need this money and if it were means tested she wouldn't get it.

I do appreciate that benefit claimants are also taxpayers. We are both pensioners and our tax bill is pretty high, simply because we have quite a good income thanks to our thrifty ways when we were working.

seven-day-weekend

krisskross, I haven't said I agree with the system (or that I don't). But under the current system she IS entitled to it (and in fact was getting it before she even met her husband when she was living in a council flat and it was all she had to live on).

I'm merely pointing out what the rules are and that if people on sickness/disability benefits appear to have a lavish lifestyle it does not mean they are faking.

krisskross

Yes I agree she is 'entitled' to it but to me this would be the same as the Queen claiming child benefit. Don't need it so why claim it to spend on frivolities?

I believe that only Consultants or Specialists of some sort should be able to say a person is not fit for any work. A condition of receiving IB should be regular attendance with a Consultant..at least twice a year. This would remove the burden from the GP.

seven-day-weekend

krisskross wrote: »

Yes I agree she is 'entitled' to it but to me this would be the same as the Queen claiming child benefit. Don't need it so why claim it to spend on frivolities?

I believe that only Consultants or Specialists of some sort should be able to say a person is not fit for any work. A condition of receiving IB should be regular attendance with a Consultant..at least twice a year. This would remove the burden from the GP.

People claiming IB do have to have regular check-ups - admittedly not twice a year though - and sometimes it is decided solely by the information supplied on the questionnaire. This option however is normally just for people who have well-documented long-term conditions. My husband is under review at the moment - this is the third time since he started claiming in 2004 - and he is waiting to hear the outcome. He had to have a medical the first time, not on the second and is waiting to hear whether he will have to have one this time.

(I don't, by the way, consider my friend spending money on taxis as 'frivolities' when she has no other way of getting around. She can't use public transport and is not allowed to drive).

healy

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

My friend's consultant husband pays SHEDLOADS of tax! He pays more tax than I have ever earned as salary.

My husband claims IB, and he still pays tax. Benefit claimants are quite often also taxpayers.

Plus your friend probably worked and paid NI in order to be able to receive IB now she can no longer work.