Osborne looks to slash benefits bill

PaulW1965

globalds wrote: »

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

Both sides should have a reasonable increase.

Why are you having a pop at company directors? Most people in this country think it's ok for footballers and "celebs" to earn millions but seem to think our business leaders should live on nothing? Mad.

RenovationMan

OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »

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.

Out of interest, what are the dodgy criteria for the motability scheme? Do you have examples of 'able minded' people earning good money and getting free cars. Also, what does 'able minded' mean?

dori2o

OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »

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.

The fact is, having a disability costs money. In medication, special diet, adaptions, treatment/therapy that may not be available on the NHS, etc etc.

DLA is a benefit that helps those with disabilities, who meet the criteria, with the extra costs.

Some people decide to forfeit that money and have a car instead. It's one or the other, not both. Therefore, the extra costs for their disability are coming out of their other income. So they are in a no better position than someone without the extra costs who undoubtedly has a far better quality of life, and more options, than the disabled person.

AS for your claim that the 'dodgy criteria' is unfair, there is only 1 criteria. They must be in receipt of the Higher Rate Mobility component of DLA, and have an award that is valid for at least 3 years.

Also the car is never theirs. It is returned at the end of the agreement, or sooner if the DLA ceases for whatever reason.

Are you aware of just how hard it is to get DLA at the moment, let alone the HRM component?

dori2o

PaulW1965 wrote: »

Why are you having a pop at company directors? Most people in this country think it's ok for footballers and "celebs" to earn millions but seem to think our business leaders should live on nothing? Mad.

I personally have no problem with Directors earning a higher salary than the plebs below them.

What I do have a problem with is directors who set their own salary increases which bear no resemblance to the way the business is going, or give them selves a 30/40/50% payrise but restrict the rest of the employees to 2 or 3% at best, or pay themselves extortionate amounts of money in bonuses which again in the majority of cases do not reflect the status of the business.

So no, I don't believe company directors should live on nothing, I do believe they probably should be paid the highest salaries in the company, but I also believe there should be some kind of regulation on what they can award themselves both in terms of salary increases and bonuses/dividends etc.

OptionARMAGEDDON

dori2o wrote: »

The fact is, having a disability costs money. In medication, special diet, adaptions, treatment/therapy that may not be available on the NHS, etc etc.

DLA is a benefit that helps those with disabilities, who meet the criteria, with the extra costs.

Some people decide to forfeit that money and have a car instead. It's one or the other, not both. Therefore, the extra costs for their disability are coming out of their other income. So they are in a no better position than someone without the extra costs who undoubtedly has a far better quality of life, and more options, than the disabled person.

AS for your claim that the 'dodgy criteria' is unfair, there is only 1 criteria. They must be in receipt of the Higher Rate Mobility component of DLA, and have an award that is valid for at least 3 years.

Also the car is never theirs. It is returned at the end of the agreement, or sooner if the DLA ceases for whatever reason.

Are you aware of just how hard it is to get DLA at the moment, let alone the HRM component?

Good. If it isnt being spent on boosing the UK economy at the moment, then its wasted cash in my view. I read much in the below and it makes me sick to the stomach.

http://www.disabilityalliance.org/dlalaw.htm#Alcoholism

Really? Arguing alcoholics should be entitled to DLA? What frikking planet are these people on?

The transient and immediate effects consequent on a person choosing to consume too much alcohol should not be taken into account when considering entitlement to DLA. See also CDLA/396/2004, CDLA/362/2003 and CDLA/2408/2002 .

!!!!!!!?!?!

Why should the parent of a child with aspergers be entitled to a car? Its not exactly a physical disability is it? Why should they be entitled to a brand new 3 series for having a child with (albeit due through a mental disablement) behavioural issues?

CDLA/2973/1999* (21/01) states that, for high rate mobility component, diabetic ulcers on the feet may constitute a danger to life or be likely to lead to a serious deterioration in health when walking.

Should we be giving cars to people or DLA to people who despite being warned by their doctor, developed an illness through poor choice of diet and sloth?

I am not arguing the scheme shouldnt exist in some form or other. But banging on about the big evil government when we are giving free cars away to people because they are alcoholics takes the biscuit in fiscally difficult times.

RenovationMan

OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »

Why should the parent of a child with aspergers be entitled to a car?

Where does it say that they are?

SingleSue

OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »

Good. If it isnt being spent on boosing the UK economy at the moment, then its wasted cash in my view. I read much in the below and it makes me sick to the stomach.

http://www.disabilityalliance.org/dlalaw.htm#Alcoholism

Really? Arguing alcoholics should be entitled to DLA? What frikking planet are these people on?

!!!!!!!?!?!

Why should the parent of a child with aspergers be entitled to a car? Its not exactly a physical disability is it? Why should they be entitled to a brand new 3 series for having a child with (albeit due through a mental disablement) behavioural issues?



Should we be giving cars to people or DLA to people who despite being warned by their doctor, developed an illness through poor choice of diet and sloth?

I am not arguing the scheme shouldnt exist in some form or other. But banging on about the big evil government when we are giving free cars away to people because they are alcoholics takes the biscuit in fiscally difficult times.

Not all parents of Aspergic children are...I have one Aspergic child and one complex autistic child and neither receive high rate mobility (in fact, only one of them receives DLA at all!). The Aspergers and complex autism is not their only disabilities either, they also both have physical ones too.

OptionARMAGEDDON

http://www.asdfriendly.org/board/index.php?showtopic=15453

OptionARMAGEDDON

SingleSue wrote: »

Not all parents of Aspergic children are...I have one Aspergic child and one complex autistic child and neither receive high rate mobility (in fact, only one of them receives DLA at all!). The Aspergers and complex autism is not their only disabilities either, they also both have physical ones too.

In which case the DLA claim could be processed in terms of the other disabilities surely, and aspergers could be ignored in the asessment surely?

SingleSue

The one with Aspergers is the one who does not receive DLA.

And why would the Aspergers be ignored, it does cause care needs over and above those experienced in 'normal' people, depending of course on the severity of the condition. For example, he is not safe to be out and about on his own, he has no sense of danger, has appalling short term memory, poor social skills, poor life skills etc.

These are all needs which need to be addressed and yes, do cost extra money for therapies, equipment etc.

Do you actually know what it is like to have a child with ASD?