Trying to get my head around it

Rochdale_Pioneers

On motability cars the rule is that the car has to be available at all times for the person whose benefit is given up in exchange for the car. No reason at all why the driver can't use the car when not needed.

lemonjelly

Pobby wrote: »

Well thanks everyone so far as I this is not posted to be a benefits bashing thread although we are not on page 2 yet.

Sue I know you are not comfortable about being on benefits although surely they were designed to support folk like yourself and no one in their right mind would deny that.

I think the point I am making is where they have become a life style choice. Does it sound unreasonable to say to me God sons mother, look we will carry on paying out for you and the three children and have more if you wish but the state will not increase what they are paying at the moment.

To me, it seems like a parallel universe. On one hand people getting on with it and getting scant help when things go wrong, yet on the other side we offer a " live life free " card for others.

I do believe that it is accepted that staying on benefits as a matter of choice has to end. The current government has introduced a new theme of conditionality for claiming welfare benefits. I hate how that has gone on to be spun by the mass media, but if I can use the removal of Incapacity benefit & associated sickness benefits as an example:

In the 80's, Incapacity benefit was introduced for people to claim when they were no longer capable of work. In order to qualify, you had to have paid sufficient NI contributions, & score a specific number of points in a capability test. However, this was abused primarily by the government, who farmed many manual workers across to incapacity benefit to avoid JSA figures increasing.

If you failed the NI conts test, you could claim income support, & would get that, as your illness meant that you didn't have to be available for work.

Problem was, once you were awarded incapacity, that was it. It was rare you'd go to the jobcentre or anything. Effectively, you were just left to it.

With employment support allowance (ESA) from Oct 2009, new claimants will have to engage with the jobcentre. The new capability test is much more rigid, & IMO much fairer. Claimants may try to argue they can't work, but there are so many jobs which they could do in reality. If the illness is severe, then the claimant will be supported, & will have the option to engage with the jobcentre for help finding work. They will not HAVE to do this though. The governemt also reckon there are about 1 million on incapacity who are swinging the lead, & over the next 12 months they'll be assessed on the new test, & told they have to claim JSA. Again I have no problem. Those who have lesser conditions, especially those that with treatment will improve, or alternately are only restricted from some types of work, will be expected to attend the jobcentre regularly, & do stuff to help them into work longer term. They'll have to do this in order to get their benefit. Again the government estimate this will be 90% of genuine claimants.

There have been rumours about people with addictions will have to engage in therapeutic treatments. IMO this will be expanded to others who will be directed into accessible treatments etc. It will also include education & skills improving. This won't be a free ride.

Income support is changing, lone parents will have to move to JSA when their child gets to 7 from next october. Of course, some will simply get pregnant when the child is 6. It'll be the kids I'll feel for.

There is a new welfare reform act coming up. In the future I anticipate there will be more conditionality attached to benefit claimants, such as doing voluntary work in order to continue with their claim. This will have to be phased in.

Effectively, they'll be able to continue claiming benefits, but on certain conditions. & they'll have to co-operate with jobcentres a lot more.

SingleSue wrote: »

I know, you will have to forgive me but I am feeling rather sensitive about things right now as life has taken a pretty sh!tty turn over the last few weeks and I am feeling rather like being hit with a brick wall/sledgehammer, ton of bricks etc!

Where there was a glimmer of a light at the end of the tunnel, this has been rather dampened.

If only we could get badges that say "Hey, I used to work, I'm not a single parent who has never worked, is a baby machine and chose benefits as a lifestyle choice but one who was forced here by circumstances" :rotfl:

I get annoyed by those who choose this lifestyle, why they would is completely beyond me.

I understand. Read your signature out loud to yourself. I'd encourage you Sue to ignore others perceptions about you, & re-evaluate how you see yourself. What is important to you? The wellbeing of yourself, your children, friends & family. Forget what others think, focus on what you've acheived today, this week, this month. Look at what you've learned, when you've smiled, the benefits of freindship etc.

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

well, i guess if its there for a genuine reason, he might as well use it for other purposes as well

The car & any journeys should be for the sole purpose of the person recieving disability benefits. Many people I've worked with do have the car in their carers name. In reality, any journeys should be for the disabled person, but the disabled person doesn't have to be present. ie collecting the disabled persons prescription, or fetching their shopping. However, it does seem there are a lot of people who do use the vehicle for personal use.

Pobby

Sorry to hear about the bad patch Sue. Fully agree with lemonjellys post regarding others perceptions and concentrate on all the things you have achieved in a very difficult situation. You certainly have my admiration.

Thanks for the facts lemonjelly, I remember that little ploy by the government about massaging unemployment figures.

A darn good post, as ever, from PN. Thanks.

nembot

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

On motability cars the rule is that the car has to be available at all times for the person whose benefit is given up in exchange for the car. No reason at all why the driver can't use the car when not needed.

It is when Joe public are financing some scally to drive round in a cabriolet, maybe the minority - but it does happen.

inspector_monkfish

lemonjelly wrote: »

The car & any journeys should be for the sole purpose of the person recieving disability benefits. Many people I've worked with do have the car in their carers name. In reality, any journeys should be for the disabled person, but the disabled person doesn't have to be present. ie collecting the disabled persons prescription, or fetching their shopping. However, it does seem there are a lot of people who do use the vehicle for personal use.

think its a matter of common sense really jelly
if the car is there to be used for the person claiming, and the carer is using it to help that person by taking them to appointments, shopping trips etc... then obviously thats fine and what it was intended for.

But if the carer needs to run a personal errand, (whilst the person who is claiming doesn't need anything) that needs transport - should they use an alternative method, or take the perfectly good car sitting on the drive-way ? Personally I wouldn't have a problem with that.

But if they are taking it to go joy-riding or racing round the M25, then thats clearly wrong !

zygurat789

Singlesue's situation is the circumstances for which benefits were intended and I don't think anyone should begrudge her them. However, I believe people should shoulder their responsibilities and she did mention divorce. It would appear that there is an ex-husband around who is responsible for this family. He should shoulder some of this burden and not be allowed to "start afresh". It is him and any new "partners" who we are subsidising, aided and abetted by the CSA and their successors.

zygurat789

If it is worthwhile living permanently on benefits then either the benefits system is too generous or the minimum wage is too low. When compared too the boni of city workers then £5.73 ph (£11,918pa) looks pretty dismal. Also this adult rate is only £40 pw better than an 18 year old can earn, this differential, considering all the extra expenditure a family supporter has is totally inadequate, perhaps if this top rate of minimum wage was increased to a more realistic figure we would see fewer benefit claims.

doire_2

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

well, i guess if its there for a genuine reason, he might as well use it for other purposes as well

So he doesn't have to buy a car and can have all that spare cash to do what he likes with? To me he is fiddling the system.

My taxes helped get him that car.

inspector_monkfish

doire wrote: »

So he doesn't have to buy a car and can have all that spare cash to do what he likes with? To me he is fiddling the system.

My taxes helped get him that car.

yes, but for a genuine reason to help the lady on benefits get to the shops/hospital/doctors/bingo whatever...

zygurat789

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

yes, but for a genuine reason to help the lady on benefits get to the shops/hospital/doctors/bingo whatever...

Isn't this the sort of thing you should do for your parents for yourself.
Why doesn't he have to take her in his own car?

People should be made to stand on their own two feet.