Trying to get my head around it

pie81

Here's the problem with the car scenario.

A lady with disabilities gets given a car (and road tax, parking permit, petrol etc paid too). She can't drive, so gives it to her son. Her son uses it twice a week (let's say) to take her to medical appointments and the hairdresser.

Why shouldn't he use it the rest of the week for his own purposes?

Well, it may well be that two taxi trips a week would work out cheaper than the car (especially given that some taxi companies charge lower rates for disabled passengers and are subsidised by the govt to do so).

BUT the mother and son may exaggerate how much they "need" a car so as to get the car rather than just the odd taxi fare paid. If the son is not allowed to use the car for his own purposes, the incentive to exaggerate disappears.

lemonjelly

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

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 !

I agree.

However I think there are a couple of perception problems.

Carers become aware a person may get a car if they get disability benefits. They promise the claimant how good it'll be, how they'll be there to drive them around. However, problem 1 is they see it as their car, not the claimants. They proceed to use the car more & more for their own needs. I have worked with people who's carers (usually family members) cut off the disabled person/refuse them lifts, hell, they've even moved away!:eek:

At the same time (& as highlighted by Singlesue) there is a stigma which means the most honest claimants usually feel, especially if they are out & about in a disabled vehicle.

I did briefly work for a local authority. One member of the fraud team told me that the most frequent cases of fraud were with blue badges - parking fees etc. There is a combination of fake claimants, but also families using family members who are genuinely disabled, but never ever transporting them anywhere but consistently using the blue badge for free/easier parking.

Personally, I feel that the vehicle should only be used for the needs of the disabled person. No exceptions, though see my earlier post about the disabled person not having to be there. Provided the journey is for the disabled person, fine. If not, no. That isn't what it is for. It is public funds, so shouldn't be used for individuals benefit.

If I had my way, for false use of blue badges I'd impound cars.

zygurat789

Who gives these cars away?
Twice a week!! It would be cheaper by taxi!!

Has no one got any common sense any more?

lemonjelly

I have to raise an issue with the "my taxes" brigade. I see the white horse has also raised his head again today.

When will people realise, that this tax money is not yours. Once you've paid the tax, it ceases to be yours. It is not for the use of your benefit. It is social money. Public funds. To be administered for the social benefits it can bring to us as a whole.

Stop being so greedy & materialistic about it !!!!!!.

I take the issue of public funds VERY seriously. In example, at work I don't claim expenses. I don't use more than I need. Why? Because it isn't my money, it is the publics, & if I can save a bit I will.

Any expenditure of public funds has to be justified imo.

But it ain't YOUR taxes. What is YOURS, is what is left after you've met your tax liability.

inspector_monkfish

zygurat789 wrote: »

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.

totally agree where possible, but maybe some people can't stand on their own feet, and go and earn a decent wage, because they spend all their time caring

unfortunately there alot of freeloading P-takers out there...

inspector_monkfish

pie81 wrote: »

Here's the problem with the car scenario.

A lady with disabilities gets given a car (and road tax, parking permit, petrol etc paid too). She can't drive, so gives it to her son. Her son uses it twice a week (let's say) to take her to medical appointments and the hairdresser.

Why shouldn't he use it the rest of the week for his own purposes?

Well, it may well be that two taxi trips a week would work out cheaper than the car (especially given that some taxi companies charge lower rates for disabled passengers and are subsidised by the govt to do so).

BUT the mother and son may exaggerate how much they "need" a car so as to get the car rather than just the odd taxi fare paid. If the son is not allowed to use the car for his own purposes, the incentive to exaggerate disappears.

yes, i can well believe such kind of exaggeration goes on

inspector_monkfish

lemonjelly wrote: »

i have to raise an issue with the "my taxes" brigade. I see the white horse has also raised his head again today.

When will people realise, that this tax money is not yours. Once you've paid the tax, it ceases to be yours. It is not for the use of your benefit. It is social money. Public funds. To be administered for the social benefits it can bring to us as a whole.

Stop being so greedy & materialistic about it !!!!!!.

I take the issue of public funds very seriously. In example, at work i don't claim expenses. I don't use more than i need. Why? Because it isn't my money, it is the publics, & if i can save a bit i will.

Any expenditure of public funds has to be justified imo.

But it ain't your taxes. What is yours, is what is left after you've met your tax liability.

go jelly, go jelly, go jelly !!!

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

I have to raise an issue with the "my taxes" brigade. I see the white horse has also raised his head again today.

When will people realise, that this tax money is not yours. Once you've paid the tax, it ceases to be yours. It is not for the use of your benefit. It is social money. Public funds. To be administered for the social benefits it can bring to us as a whole.

Stop being so greedy & materialistic about it !!!!!!.

I take the issue of public funds VERY seriously. In example, at work I don't claim expenses. I don't use more than I need. Why? Because it isn't my money, it is the publics, & if I can save a bit I will.

Any expenditure of public funds has to be justified imo.

But it ain't YOUR taxes. What is YOURS, is what is left after you've met your tax liability.

I see it as an investment in our country, our living standards, our future, and our weak. as such I thin it is ''our taxes''. eing a contributer in our system is something to be proud of, expecting that money to do the best good for the country as a whole, which is also ''us'' is not soley greedy, but prudent. The better that money does the more needy it helps. The less wasted it is n non-genuine claimants the more there will be paid in from their taxes, and again, the more available for the genuine. Public funds, we are the public..whether we contribute or take more.


Its not often I disagree with you though lemonjelly, so perhaps you'll forgive this fundamental difference in ideology.

ETA: I remain undecided in what I think the ''best'' level of taxation is, but fundamentally, I believe in choice and work for reward, but I have a heart. I think current levels of taxation on what I consider middle income to be too high, especially where one hand takes while the other gives back.

tek-monkey

I agree wholeheartedly with benefits as a safety net, but disagree with them as a career choice.

lemonjelly

lostinrates wrote: »

I see it as an investment in our country, our living standards, our future, and our weak. as such I thin it is ''our taxes''. eing a contributer in our system is something to be proud of, expecting that money to do the best good for the country as a whole, which is also ''us'' is not soley greedy, but prudent. The better that money does the more needy it helps. The less wasted it is n non-genuine claimants the more there will be paid in from their taxes, and again, the more available for the genuine. Public funds, we are the public..whether we contribute or take more.


Its not often I disagree with you though lemonjelly, so perhaps you'll forgive this fundamental difference in ideology.

lostinrates I don't believe we disagree.

You are quite clear in your post about "our taxes". To me, quite clearly you see the beneficial reasons for a fair & just tax system, & the purposes for which that money is used.

Perhaps I wasn't clear?

My issue is with the people who spout on about "my taxes being spent on X". My dispute is that it isn't their money. It's ours. My reading of your post is we agree.

I apologise if I wasn't clear.

Differing in opinion is not an issue for me. There are many posters I agree with, & many I disagree with. I'm not going to fall out with or ignore any poster because we disagree. I welcome the debate, the discussion, the different opinions, the new perspectives, the things I hadn't considered, & the things I didn't know. Provided there are reasoned arguements, and manners, then there will not be a jelly falling out.