DLA and MOTABILITy over 65

nannytone_2

the amount of money after housing costs, that a couple needs is £102 a week. for pensioners its £202 a week.
isnt that discrimination too?

krisskross

nannytone wrote: »

so saying that, if you cant get it past the age of 65, would it be fairer if no one could get it at all?
whatever their age.

your argument is that it discriminates. so if you cant get it at 65 you shouldnt get it at 25, because its still discrimination.

No no the only discrimination is that some people get a mobility allowance after 65 and others don't even though they have the same levels of immobility. And if age was taken out of the equation then over 65s would qualify.

ALL people of 25 will get the allowance if they meet the criteria for high rate DLA

krisskross

nannytone wrote: »

the amount of money after housing costs, that a couple needs is £102 a week. for pensioners its £202 a week.
isnt that discrimination too?

No one would ever want to go to work if they were given £200 plus all their housing costs.

Pensioners are not expected to work, most of us have done our 40 years at the coal face or wherever. I know I have.

Fridge2

krisskross wrote: »

My husband is crippled with rheumatoid arthritis but because he was 65 when it flared up although he gets high rate AA he cannot have any help towards mobility. We have to manage and if people can't afford to buy a car then they will have to do without.

My resentment was actually because of the unfairness of people his age getting mobility payment when he couldn't because he was a few weeks too late. At least now it looks as if the position of all mobility challenged pensioners will be the same and not before time.

However what you are forgetting is that your husband was able to work till 65 and thus have the opportunity to amass a decent pension to sustain him in retirement...it is his fault if he has not done so.

Someone who has been disabled and perhaps unable to work for a significant time has not had the opportunity to do this and as a result will not have other funds to fall back on through no fault of their own.

I do take the point however that ther is an arbitrary cut off date, and it may be fairer to stagger it so people don't lose out by one day etc.

krisskross

Fridge2 wrote: »

However what you are forgetting is that your husband was able to work till 65 and thus have the opportunity to amass a decent pension to sustain him in retirement...it is his fault if he has not done so.

He wasn't able to work until 65. He worked until he was 59 then had 3 heart attacks, bypass surgery, developed diabetes.

He left school at 15 and always worked in fairly low paid factory jobs. How was he supposed to amass this decent pension? Whilst bringing up 4 children I might add. He was never unemployed, never claimed sickness benefit until his heart attacks and here you are saying it's his own fault that he doesn't have a huge pension.

He got Incapacity benefit for 5 years but was put into an exempt group immediately, never needing to have a medical or produce certificates.

We claim NO means tested benefits at all so I think we have done our bit to make sure that we are as self supporting in retirement as we were throughout our working life.

Fridge2

krisskross wrote: »

He left school at 15 and always worked in fairly low paid factory jobs. How was he supposed to amass this decent pension? Whilst bringing up 4 children I might add. He was never unemployed, never claimed sickness benefit until his heart attacks and here you are saying it's his own fault that he doesn't have a huge pension.

He had a working life of 44 years,enough time for anyone to amass a decent pension.

Having four children was a choice that you made and it is unfair of you to use that as an excuse...perhaps you should have limited your progeny and concentrated on improving your earning potential when you had the chance?

Oldernotwiser

Fridge2 wrote: »

However what you are forgetting is that your husband was able to work till 65 and thus have the opportunity to amass a decent pension to sustain him in retirement...it is his fault if he has not done so.

Regardless of disability, why do people always assume that everybody has had the chance to amass a decent pension when they were working?

Do you really have so little understanding of what living on a low income is like, particularly before the introduction of NMW and tax credits?

Oldernotwiser

Fridge2 wrote: »

He had a working life of 44 years,enough time for anyone to amass a decent pension.

What planet are you living on?

Fridge2

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Regardless of disability, why do people always assume that everybody has had the chance to amass a decent pension when they were working?

Do you really have so little understanding of what living on a low income is like, particularly before the introduction of NMW and tax credits?

I have more understanding than you can possibly imagine actually.

I came from a backgound of poverty and idiotic left wing ideology and took matters into my own hands.

Besides, the likes of yourself and Krisskross are baby Boomers who had plenty of opportunity to improve their lot.

Fridge2

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

What planet are you living on?

Well talking to you has reminded me I'm expected back on Earth;)