Budget - tougher for DLA claimants

skipsmum

kingfisherblue, little DS has just got a specially built bike for his birthday from a place that also does trikes. It was expensive but the family fund very kindly topped up what we had saved. Well worth looking into.
Btw, I also spend far more than 22 hours a week caring for the extra needs DS has, in addition to all the things I do as his mother. Anyone who finds this hard to believe should come and spend a week with us - in fact I think thats how the medicals should be done!

stargazer59

krisskross wrote: »

summerof0763 wrote: »

But I don't claim any benefits. Never have, never will.
Sorry forgot. Family Allowance for 3 of our 4 children

Oh and the AA you claimed for your husband??????

Oldernotwiser

stargazer59 wrote: »

krisskross wrote: »

Oh and the AA you claimed for your husband??????

If the husband gets AA, that's the husband's claim.

jennie-jack

i cant beleive how judgmental people in this thread are being. each person gets dla for their own reasons. i dotn question that, as for who said people who have to appeal dont deserve it. we had to ask for my sons claim to be looked at again as they overlooked the fact that he was tube fed all because school didnt mention it.

this happens often with dla. we have had this trouble twice, they once misread our daughters age and said at 14 she sould be able to sort her own feeding pump out, she was 14 months old.

then im probably horrid as we have 3 out of 5 with dla in our house. stupid genetic conditions.

easy

Why on earth has this thread descended into a slanging match ?? Why does each poster feel they have to prove they are much more needy and deserving of a benefit then the others ?????

Look, If you have a disability or a family member who is disabled, life is tough * . So it is an advantage to be able to receive some extra income to help overcome some of the difficulties in whatever way is appropriate.

One thing that strikes me is that the word 'entitled' has been used a great deal. Well, over the years, a number of different governments have made it possible for more and more disabled people to receive some sorts of benefit (DLA, AA, whatever they are, lets not be picky). But what loads of claimants seem to forget is that their benefit 'costs' everyone else money. Our taxes have to rise to pay out all these benefits.

You may think you are 'entitled' to receive DLA because you have a disability, but someone else may believe they are 'entitled' to keep more of the money they earn because they work 99 hours a week to earn it!

Now what is happening here is that disability benefits are now being paid to more and more claimants. So, the govt is suggesting that we (as a country) take stock of that situation, take a look at everybody who is receiving the benefits (which is fair, they'll re-assess eveyone), and decide if they all need it at the level they receive it.

If they do that, and maybe weed out some of the cases that are borderline, who could manage without it, who received a 5 year award, but have improved in 3 years, then those who really need the benefit can continue to receive it. And new claimants who really need the benefit can be awarded it.

This has to be done, because THERE ISN'T ANY SPARE MONEY IN THE POT . There currently are not enough tax-payers working to pay all the pensioners/disabled people/parents who don't earn enough to support their children/ etc etc etc. And the only way to stop this country from becoming a third-world state is to change that.

Now, because I was born with muscles and joints that were not formed properly, doesn't mean I am 'entitled' to receive handouts (thru the benefits system) from everyone else. I'm lucky to live in a country which has (or tries to have) social morals to care for those in need, and so awards benefits to those who need them. But I'm not going to start bleating if the powers that be want to check that I do need them.

I have to say that I have found the whining "I'm more disabled than you" and the "you don't know how bad my situation is" type arguments a bit tiresome


* actually guys, it's tough anyway for those 'normal guys' out there too you know

krisskross

A child being awarded MRC at about £40 a week could trigger a chain of other benefits such as Carers allowance at £53 plus perhaps another £50 on child tax credits. There may be more, I don't know.

This is a huge problem with so many different benefits available that even the staff dealing with it can't keep up. It is surely time to have a cap on the amount any single household can receive in welfare payments. Like perhaps a limit of £250 a week from all sources plus housing costs where applicable. Still keep the motability cars.

I have no issues with the actual disability payment but all the add ons can make it unaffordable for the country's budget, and of course the taxpayers.

Indie_Kid

krisskross wrote: »

A child being awarded MRC at about £40 a week could trigger a chain of other benefits such as Carers allowance at £53 plus perhaps another £50 on child tax credits. There may be more, I don't know.

This is a huge problem with so many different benefits available that even the staff dealing with it can't keep up. It is surely time to have a cap on the amount any single household can receive in welfare payments. Like perhaps a limit of £250 a week from all sources plus housing costs where applicable. Still keep the motability cars.

I have no issues with the actual disability payment but all the add ons can make it unaffordable for the country's budget, and of course the taxpayers.

Not all carers are entitled to carers allowance. My mum looked into it when my brother was on MRC and worked out it wouldn't be worth it.

This cap would be impossible - people need to live on different amounts depending on their situation - I need to have more money to live on that my non-disabled sister. (we're both under 25; so would both receive the same basic amount)

Why should (according to you) the disabled suffer due to the country's debt? Why not parents? Oh I forgot - no-one cares about disabled people.

Indie_Kid

easy wrote: »

Now what is happening here is that disability benefits are now being paid to more and more claimants. So, the govt is suggesting that we (as a country) take stock of that situation, take a look at everybody who is receiving the benefits (which is fair, they'll re-assess eveyone), and decide if they all need it at the level they receive it.

But why specifically target disabled people?

If they do that, and maybe weed out some of the cases that are borderline, who could manage without it, who received a 5 year award, but have improved in 3 years, then those who really need the benefit can continue to receive it. And new claimants who really need the benefit can be awarded it.

How do you decide who can manage without it?

I have to say that I have found the whining "you don't know how bad my situation is" type arguments a bit tiresome

Because 99.9% of the time it's atually true? You have NO idea what other disabled people have to go through on a daily basis.

krisskross

sh1305 wrote: »

Why should (according to you) the disabled suffer due to the country's debt? Why not parents? Oh I forgot - no-one cares about disabled people.

Look at it another way. Why should those who consider themselves disabled be exempt from the financial pain we all have to face?

Disabled people are not the only ones facing cuts. Do you not read about the cuts being made to child tax credits? To LHA rates etc I think that might affect a few parents.

krisskross

sh1305 wrote: »

Not all carers are entitled to carers allowance. My mum looked into it when my brother was on MRC and worked out it wouldn't be worth it.

Was she earning too much? She would still have had the underlying entitlement I expect.