Should DLA be means tested?

Lou76

Invasion wrote: »

Apart from the fact that the amount of DLA they receive is to help them to live as normally as possible, on top of a "normal" wage, not to be penalised for working. I think Jetta is trying to say that those earning 60k+ should maybe not receive DLA, not those earning 20-40K, which is more or less average full time wage, it's what we earn in this house between 2 working adults (my parents, father is f/t, mother is p/t, she cares for me too).

But what if the person was earning 60k+ for years on end, lived to their means (as I assume most of us do) in that time, with not much left to show for it each month [except hefty mortgage,utilities, council tax.... bills etc], certainly not saving enough to pay for a lifetime of carers/equipment etc just incase the "unthinkable" happens.

They suddenly have a disability foisted upon them (paralysed due to a car crash, for example) that means they could either carry on working at their 60k+pa job, therefore helping to put money into the Govt coffers that help pay for DLA etc, but only if they could afford the additional expenses that their [new found] disability gave them, which they can't do on their present wage given their current outgoings, or give up work and claim nothing but state benefits; lose their house, stop paying their 40% tax bill, cost the country a lot more, in benefits/care/housing to keep them than it does for them to keep the country [on a like for like basis, in taxes] to enable the likes of DLA to continue in the first place?

To me, that's where the means testing for DLA wouldn't work.

By the same token; someone with a bank balance like Richard Branson/ Bill Gates (I know he's American, but the bank balance statement still counts ) could, if eligible, apply for, and receieve DLA, and they'd be perfectly entitled to do so.

But really, how many 'rich' people do you think would actually go through the hassle of the form filling, degrading themselves in type, chance the luck of a tribunal etc just to get what would be, to them, a pittance in return for their effort?

But why penalise everyone else for the sake of the odd one who has no morals, and may possibly fill the form in regardless; heck anyone in that situation probably did a lot worse to amass their fortune in the first place, I think a DLA claim, under these circumstances, would be the least of anyone's worries.

Just to add; sadly I'm not, and have never been someone earning over (or anywhere near for that matter lol) 60k, but that figure was quoted and I ran with it.

Apologies for my rambling, I doubt if it makes sense.

I think what I'm trying to say is; I don't think means testing will work, everyone would lose out in the long run. :rotfl:

Peter1079

I more or less agree with you Lou above, however I fail to see why someone who has juduciciously saved up over a lifes worktime and has built up a valuable portfolio of investments (and paid tax on them) to provide a comfortable income in old age, then suddenly arounnd age 60 becomes very disabled, should be subject to a mean test.

Ones savings portfolio is earmarked for a retirement in comfort, not a disabled retirment in comfort. No matter what age or social status, disability costs the disabled person more than a 'non disabled' life. Hence the whole point of Disability Living Allowance - to help to cover the 'extra' cost of living as a disabled person.

If someone has enough money, or no wish to claim DLA, then fine, that is upto them. If one is entitled to claim, then one can claim, regardless of how much 'money in the bank' etc. Also if the poster believes that revenue saved by 'means testing' DLA will be redistributed to 'the poorer' is remarkedly naieve in Browns (or whichever party's) Britain. A nice sentiment but in reality any revenue savings will be swallowed up by the central govenment 'monster' never to be seen again, leaving disabled people even worse off.

Also, what the proposer of this thread is by default starting is a campaign to rid the country of universal beneifts. The very mention of Child Benefit, Winter Fuel Allowance by default extends to the question should the State Pension also be 'means tested' as well? Something I fear the grey haired in society and those approaching it will shake their heads at in disbelief.

There are surely more pressing issues amongst the disabled community that trying to 'means test' further disabled benefits. Such as the disparity where someone who is aged 64 and 51 weeks old becomes mobility impaired by disability is permitted to claim DLA when a person a week older and 65 in ecactly the same circumstance can only claim AA with no mobility component.

Or take the ridiculous Employment & Support Allowance and its draconian WFA's where even the most severely disabled are now finding themselves having to seek work. Incidentally the number of appeals (and the cost!) of correcting decisions on this allowance alone is scandalous.

Fight the corner against ATOS Origin and its 'quacks' where medical reports have no bearing on the medical carried out.

The Social Care debacle to abolish Attendance Allowance etc etc.

There are many many disabled causes to fight for in society without the disabled themselves trying to means test other disabled people.

In a fair and equitable society the disabled have a voice. How many disabled people honestly feel they currently have a voice in Britain in 2010?

Until such time as the more important battles are addressed and won, then leave DLA and mean testing off the ever increasing social agenda.

Peter

GlasweJen

No it shouldn't be means tested and it shouldn't be taxed either! DLA is an "untouchable" benefit in terms of tax/income/savings and that's how it should be. Who is anyone to decide that people who are disabled yet choose to integrate themselves into the work force don't deserve the full rate of DLA that they are assessed as being entitled to? If they were to tax my DLA I wouldn't be able to afford to work! It's the same as savings, why should someone who has saved all their life be forced to use those savings when they become disabled when someone who has blown their money gets help from the government? Too many benefits are "means tested" i.e. aimed at people who don't work for whatever reason, DLA enables people to live more normal lives and it should stay as it is.

Indie_Kid

I see no good reason for DLA to be taxed or means-tested. The low rates aren't much anyway - if you tax them, people really will be left with a pittance.

lolababy

The money would not go back into the pockets of those who most need it . All that would happen is that the budget for disability would be lowered.
Society is not fair and never will be.

sunnyone

The abolision of AA is the first step to means testing DLA, then only people who actually need care will get SS assessed for it and the majority of present claimants would get nowt especially MH claimants.

Its wrong to even look at DLA, my DLA dosnt come anywhere near my needs, Im assessed at needing 35 hours per week DPs and the mobility goes on my car, I have to suppliment my care bills from savings and the saving are running dry after 20 years of IVB.

It costs a lot of money to be disabled, we have to buy equiptment and care from our DLA which just dosnt stretch as much as the goverment thinks it does.

jetta_wales

I think they're looking at it as an easy option but it does look like it would have so many other implications that it wouldn't save much compared to the hasstle it would cause.

It would also be opening a door which hasn't been opened before (like the mention I've heard of putting a 3% VAT on food) and once this is done then it could lead the way for them to more easily save further money by lowering the threashold for it too which could really get to the point of hurting a lot of decent and quite far from rich, peoples finances.

Yes in hind sight I think for what little it might help (the defecit is huge) it probably wouldn't be worth opening that door since it could lead to worse.

[Deleted User]

sh1305 wrote: »

I see no good reason for DLA to be taxed or means-tested. The low rates aren't much anyway - if you tax them, people really will be left with a pittance.

even HRC with HRM would fall BENEATH personal tax allowances so they could only be taxed if they had additional TAXABLE income

[Deleted User]

GlasweJen wrote: »

No it shouldn't be means tested and it shouldn't be taxed either! DLA is an "untouchable" benefit in terms of tax/income/savings and that's how it should be. Who is anyone to decide that people who are disabled yet choose to integrate themselves into the work force don't deserve the full rate of DLA that they are assessed as being entitled to? If they were to tax my DLA I wouldn't be able to afford to work! It's the same as savings, why should someone who has saved all their life be forced to use those savings when they become disabled when someone who has blown their money gets help from the government? Too many benefits are "means tested" i.e. aimed at people who don't work for whatever reason, DLA enables people to live more normal lives and it should stay as it is.

Jen is it fair that a multi millionaire could claim and get DLA,especially at a time when the country is looking for ways to save money?The problem is that means testing isnt effiecient(it cost more than it saves)so the only economic way to make it fair would be to tax DLA,it wouldnt affect the vast majority of claimants anyway,but it would be fairer

JC9297

woodbine wrote: »

Jen is it fair that a multi millionaire could claim and get DLA,especially at a time when the country is looking for ways to save money?The problem is that means testing isnt effiecient(it cost more than it saves)so the only economic way to make it fair would be to tax DLA,it wouldnt affect the vast majority of claimants anyway,but it would be fairer

Realistically how many disabled multi millionaires do you think would need to lose their entitlement to DLA (if they could be bothered to claim it) for it to make a difference to the country's bank balance!