Osborne looks to slash benefits bill

[Deleted User]

it should be recalled that its only a couple or so years ago that rpi was negative in september and the rossi index had to be used to apply any increase at all,swings and roundabouts,but NO doubt this excuse for a govt will use this as just one more thing to make the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich !

people on state pensions and benefits are on fixed incomes unlike those in work who can get a better job or work overtime should the need arise and the opportunity be there

Going4TheDream

Of course he has to slash the benefit bill, How else is he going to finance the war we are about to have with Iran?

SingleSue

abaxas wrote: »

There is a huge difference between 'look after' and 'a nice shiney new car every 3 years'.

Erm, not everyone who is disabled has a nice shiny new car every 3 years, only those who receive high rate mobility. Those who receive high rate/middle rate/low rate care or low rate mobility component cannot use that to lease a car.

Those who do receive HRM, chose between whether to use that amount to lease a car for the duration of their award or to have the award paid to them to arrange their own mobility needs, they do not receive the cash and the car (unless they also receive a care component award - not everyone does).

The car is for the disabled person's use to enable them to get to work (DLA is not an out of work benefit, you can be working and claim), get out and about etc. Without it, some would never leave the house as their condition (whatever it may be), may not be suitable for travel via public transport, give them the independance to get to work or the cummulative effect of taxis for hospital appointments etc would make it more cost effective to have a car.

Believe it or not, it is not easy to be awarded DLA, things have most certainly been tightened up over the last few years or so and things are set to get tougher still in the coming years.

globalds

Maybe we should match benefits rises in line with those of our most senior company directors.

Both sides should have a reasonable increase.

SingleSue

Well, I personally believe that benefit levels should be frozen as it is only fair.

And that is speaking as someone who relies on benefits, yes it would make things pretty darn tight but then others who work are finding things pretty darn tight too!

Shakethedisease

benefits, yes it would make things pretty darn tight but then others who work are finding things pretty darn tight too!

Yes but those who work are receiving more income than the basic subsistence levels ( in general ) to live. Freezing JSA when inflation for food, electricty, gas bills etc are rising so high, not to mention rent levels rising at record rates when LHA is already being cut to the lowest 30% rates ?

A mistake. Blood out of a stone IMHO. Benefits should always be raised the basic level of subsistence taking inflation into account. Otherwise, well, people won't subsist will they ?

dori2o

smartn wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. Never understood the concept of motability etc with brand new cars, would have thought a decent reliable second hand motor should do the job just as well. Not even sure why people should have the right to own a car in these circumstances, a right to be able to get from a to b for appointments etc absolutely, but not necessarily in there own new car!

The reason why it's a new car is to keep servicing/repairs costs down, plus there's no MOT on a car for it's first 3 years.

As for why they have a right to a car, have you ever thought how a disabled person gets around. How they do their shopping, how they get to appointments, some of which are many, many miles away (my Dad has to travel 135 miles to visit one of his specialists).

It allows those who have drouble getting out the ability to do so without being reliant on another person.

As for the idea of a 'disabled persons transport scheme' or funded taxi's. It's likely that the companies who tender to run such schemes would charge more than the amount that is paid towards the motabilty scheme.

What if someone, on the spur of the moment decided to go out, just to get out of the house. Would the transport be available for 'spur of the moment' outings, or would you need to book days in advance.

Despite what many of the bigots on this forum believe, disabled people have the same rights everyone else has in this country. Unfortunately they don't have the same freedoms that the able bodied enjoy and take for granted.

Motability is a great (if somewhat expensive) scheme and should be protected at all costs.

smartn

dori2o wrote: »

The reason why it's a new car is to keep servicing/repairs costs down, plus there's no MOT on a car for it's first 3 years.

As for why they have a right to a car, have you ever thought how a disabled person gets around. How they do their shopping, how they get to appointments, some of which are many, many miles away (my Dad has to travel 135 miles to visit one of his specialists).

It allows those who have drouble getting out the ability to do so without being reliant on another person.

As for the idea of a 'disabled persons transport scheme' or funded taxi's. It's likely that the companies who tender to run such schemes would charge more than the amount that is paid towards the motabilty scheme.

What if someone, on the spur of the moment decided to go out, just to get out of the house. Would the transport be available for 'spur of the moment' outings, or would you need to book days in advance.

Despite what many of the bigots on this forum believe, disabled people have the same rights everyone else has in this country. Unfortunately they don't have the same freedoms that the able bodied enjoy and take for granted.

Motability is a great (if somewhat expensive) scheme and should be protected at all costs.

Modern cars are far more reliable than they used to be. I understand the supposed benefit of a new car however many new cars have plenty of visits to the garage for repairs etc during there early life. If it was more economical to run a brand new car wouldn't we all be doing it? If cars are being used to get to work etc and this is the main reason I assume these people are earning a wage the same as anyone else who would normally have to pay for there own transport costs. Don't get me wrong, I think the concept of the motability scheme is a very good one however I think its implementation may need more of a look at.

OptionARMAGEDDON

Despite what many of the bigots on this forum believe, disabled people have the same rights everyone else has in this country. Unfortunately they don't have the same freedoms that the able bodied enjoy and take for granted.

Sorry, employment law entitles them to the same rights to get a job at the same rates of pay. The rest of us need to pay the capital cost of a car, and so should people who are "disabled". I put it in brackets after reading some of the dodgy criteria for the motability scheme, on top of the fact there are plenty able minded people earning good money and getting a car free of charge. By all means, assist lower income disabled people with conversions, but having a disability shouldnt be an instant "get a free car".

Typical guardianista using typical socialist arguements to justify wanton excessive state spending on a (largely) pointless scheme.

SingleSue

And as pointed out before, having a disability is not an instant 'get a free car'. Only those who receive high rate mobility component.

In fact, you can have a disability and not receive any rate component of DLA at all!