Should DLA be means tested?

sunnyone

sh1305 wrote: »

If this goes ahead, it's going to seriously screw those of us who use our DLA to buy equipment. It's bad enough that I'm going to have to save up for at least 18 months to buy a piece of equipment via DLA - I don't see why I should have to use that kind of money that is my own (that's my student grant gone) on something like that.

And then there's the things that I need regularly - wet wipes, nappy sacks, hand gel, etc.

if they change the system in any way we will all lose out.

metalgal

I kinda think it should be means tested to some sort of an extent, but not at the same rate as income support or income based JSA. I think that DLA should be reduced if you have the ability to pay for the additional things yourself. I mean that if you have more than what you would get in DLA left over once your expenses etc. are taken out, but i think that these shouldn't be just the basic that the government thinks you should live on. (BTW where the hell do they get these figures from???What planet do they live on that that's enough to get by??) Expenses should include car use, leisure, clothes etc, so a comfortable lifestyle is not out of the question.

I know a very rich person who gets DLA, (don't know how) and they do not need the money at all. Instead they put what they get in DLA into a saving account and it "gives them a bit extra spending money for their holiday." That is not what DLA is for.

sunnyone

metalgal wrote: »

I kinda think it should be means tested to some sort of an extent, but not at the same rate as income support or income based JSA. I think that DLA should be reduced if you have the ability to pay for the additional things yourself. I mean that if you have more than what you would get in DLA left over once your expenses etc. are taken out, but i think that these shouldn't be just the basic that the government thinks you should live on. (BTW where the hell do they get these figures from???What planet do they live on that that's enough to get by??) Expenses should include car use, leisure, clothes etc, so a comfortable lifestyle is not out of the question.

I know a very rich person who gets DLA, (don't know how) and they do not need the money at all. Instead they put what they get in DLA into a saving account and it "gives them a bit extra spending money for their holiday." That is not what DLA is for.

So how would you do that?

Many people get HRC but have no extra disability costs, as I said earlier in the thread the purpose of changing AA/DLA is to remove DLA from some groups such as MH claimants who dont pay for care/aids.

If SS get the money only people who need carers will get anything at all, thats after the money goes on other things as has happend to the extra cash given by the goverment to help carers.

If you are disabled you have extra costs and thats across the board for all DLA claimants, we all have diffrent needs and many of them arnt recognised by SS, they can cope with personel care but not most of the things that we need.

krisskross

metalgal wrote: »

I know a very rich person who gets DLA, (don't know how) and they do not need the money at all. Instead they put what they get in DLA into a saving account and it "gives them a bit extra spending money for their holiday." That is not what DLA is for.

Even if you personally feel they are not entitled to or need DLA that is not an issue. Either a non means tested benefit is available to all who fit the current criteria or we go down the road of needing or not needing extra money. You are either deserving because you are poor or undeserving because you have a decent income without DLA. Not the intention behind DLA at all

What they spend it on is completely immaterial apparently. My husband has recently been given Attendance Allowance. Hand on heart we don't 'need' this money as I am happy and more than capable of meeting his not inconsiderable care needs but I'm sure we will find a use for it:)

Indie_Kid

krisskross wrote: »

What they spend it on is completely immaterial apparently. My husband has recently been given Attendance Allowance. Hand on heart we don't 'need' this money as I am happy and more than capable of meeting his not inconsiderable care needs but I'm sure we will find a use for it:)

Wasn't it you who was moaning because AA doesn't include a mobility component and that your husband had to get taxis everywhere? I think some people find that they don't have a need for the money as such; but do find that once in a blue moon they do need something.

If you are disabled you have extra costs and thats across the board for all DLA claimants, we all have diffrent needs and many of them arnt recognised by SS, they can cope with personel care but not most of the things that we need.

Exactly.

Jay_Tee

Perhaps as someone who until recently was on a good salary (45k) I saw DLA in a different way. Because of the medical condition I have, I have additional expenses (I have rheumatoid arthritis) that someone able bodied wouldn't have. My logic was that DLA acted as a rebate against the not inconciderable income tax and national insurance I paid.

A payment of of £18 per week against a NI and tax bill of £1000 a month doesn't seem excessive.

Although my income has been severely reduced I can't see that DLA should in anyway be means tested, because the additional costs caused by the medical condition are the same.

Oscar_The_Grouch

woodbine wrote: »

there are NO plans to transfer dla to ss to pay for care,even the relevant minister has stated this publicly,they have even moved away from the original plan to use AA to pay for ss care,in fact there are no firm plans for any changes yet as no one can agree how care for the elderly should be funded in the future.

Well done Woodbine!!!

I've just read through this thread and the number of times people refer to "them" and say what "they" are planning!! What a laugh!!

The "they" that are "there" may be a different "they" in the near future. It may even be that "they" are not supported enough so that "they" cannot change anything even if "they" wanted to, regardless of which "they" "they" eventually are.

krisskross

sh1305 wrote: »

Wasn't it you who was moaning because AA doesn't include a mobility component and that your husband had to get taxis everywhere? I think some people find that they don't have a need for the money as such; but do find that once in a blue moon they do need something.
.

I don't believe I was moaning, more stating a fact. As it is we now have an extra £71 a week that can be used for taxi fares if need be. However I have also discovered that we can get free transport to and from his many hospital appointments so that is great.

auditbabe

When my disabilities started to affect me more my husband looked into getting me a blue badge to make life easier for me. We were shocked to discovered the only way to get one was via claiming DLA. At the time I was working and I didn't consider my self in need of the benefit, I just wanted the blue card for easier parking so less walking for me.

This is where I believe the system is in fault, to get the badge I had to claim the benefit before I considered I was in need, this is where the system needs to be looked at. Maybe this is where people who don't need the DLA are, like me they needed the badge but not the money.

karatedragon

Personally I think they should leave disabled benefits alone. However I think child benefits should be looked into. Why should people get money off the taxpayer for knocking out sprogs? If they can't afford to reproduce then the answer is simple. Dont reproduce.

If I got myself a dog I wouldn't get cash of the state to keep it.

I will vote for any party that creates a "single person's working tax credit". Single working people get sod all basically. Yet we have to support ourselves on one income. Knock out a couple of sprogs and bang - open cheque book.