Can Any One Help....

Astaroth

welshcakes wrote:

That's not going off topic, that's undermining real problems that people have. If a couple did not do the caring for each other, the state would have to provide staff to come in and care for them and that would work out a lot more expensive to the tax payer. By your logic, why should the tax payer pay state child benefit when people elect to have children. It's because we have a social responsibility system where the vulnerable are assisted not left to rot.

I would say it is going off topic but if you think it is still on topic.... surely the idea of benefits is are there for "an emergency"/ the unavoidable/ a safety net rather than being an inherent right of life?

I am all too aware that benefits are far from adequate for those that really need them but then much too large a percentage of people on benefits are claiming because they want them/feel entitled to them rather than actually needing them (even if it was 1% then that would be too large a percentage but I suspect it is much higher). If these benefits were stopped then prehaps those that do really need them could get the sort of money needed to sustain an acceptable lifestyle.

Therefore, I maintain that a couple who do things for each other shouldnt be paid for doing exactly the same as every other couple in the country does too.

Zara33

welshcakes wrote:

That's not going off topic, that's undermining real problems that people have. If a couple did not do the caring for each other, the state would have to provide staff to come in and care for them and that would work out a lot more expensive to the tax payer. By your logic, why should the tax payer pay state child benefit when people elect to have children. It's because we have a social responsibility system where the vulnerable are assisted not left to rot.

Correct me if i am wrong here but i would expect these people to have cpn's, community workers, social workers etc coming to check up on them every so often, so in theory they are still being cared for by the tax payer in both DLA and in staff.

Astaroth

welshcakes wrote:

Glib remarks comparing cooking/eating to disability/care aren't helpful or sensitive.

It was an attempt at keeping things somewhat light hearted rather than how these things can go... apologies to anyone who thought I consider disablement and food to be equivalent.

Penny-Pincher!!

I am on benefits along with DLA and for me it makes all the difference.

My husband is my FT carer as I am unable to work. If my husband didnt care for me then I would have to pay (or the council would) for a carer and at £15+ph they get away cheapily paying OH £38pw CA:eek: :eek: :eek: ...the equates to just over £1ph:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

PP
xx

welshcakes

Astaroth wrote:

Therefore, I maintain that a couple who do things for each other shouldnt be paid for doing exactly the same as every other couple in the country does too.

Carer's Allowance isn't payment for doing things the same as every other couple, that's the point. It's not paid to someone because they do the 'normal' things like housework - it is paid because they have to provide personal care that an able bodied person would normally do for themselves.

I don't claim CA but I care for my disabled partner including lifting, washing and wiping. I cannot go out and earn a living (which I had done for 20 years before meeting my partner) so as much as I would love to be paying taxes on a wage, my tax contributions would be swallowed up several times over by a home help having to look after my partner/ his going into a home.

Zara33

Penny-Pincher!! wrote:

I am on benefits along with DLA and for me it makes all the difference.

My husband is my FT carer as I am unable to work. If my husband didnt care for me then I would have to pay (or the council would) for a carer and at £15+ph they get away cheapily paying OH £38pw CA:eek: :eek: :eek: ...the equates to just over £1ph:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

PP
xx

Totally agree with you they do get away very cheaply.

I suppose you could say that my argument is how come two people in the same household claim DLA and carer's allowance.

From your situation it seems pretty straight forward your husband care's for you due to your disability.

seven-day-weekend

Yes, please let us get back to trying to advise the OP.

(I'm sorry, I was one of the ones who went off-topic).

Astaroth

Have to agree with Zara - there is something specific happening because of your situation but if you take 2 people on DLA who either both stay at home or both work as they would irrespective of their partners disability then payment feels wrong.

seven-day-weekend

Astaroth wrote:

Have to agree with Zara - there is something specific happening because of your situation but if you take 2 people on DLA who either both stay at home or both work as they would irrespective of their partners disability then payment feels wrong.

Because each of them would cost the State a whole lot more in professional carers if their partner didn't do it.

Astaroth

I guess my feeling is that a couple simply should be paid something because they are saving the government money by being a couple and doing what couples do. It would be akin to everyone getting paid money by the government for having a job because they would be getting less than if they didnt bother going to work and were on benefits instead.