50% cuts to disabled childrens money

ab.da54

TrixieB wrote: »

4046 people, that's jumped - hopefully some people are signing up just not posting about it. I believe they need to hit 10,000 to get it discussed?

No, I think it's 100,000, Trixie.

sassyjo

TrixieB wrote: »

Also the changes will mean that if you have more than one disabled child you'lll have to choose which disabled child will qualify for disability payments as it will be limited to one per family.

Utter madness.

Sorry for the daft question but is this true?
I have 3 disabled children and I know we wouldn't cope without the help of what is now DLA, gosh that makes me feel sick with worry.

TrixieB

Yes these are what they are proposing to do Sassyjo *hug*

Disgusting isn't it?

I know there are changes afoot to DLA and they will be seperate, but with regard to this I am posting about it's the extra disabled elements of Tax Credits that will be affected.

I'd encourage anyone concerned to write to their MP detailing their own personal circumstances and the change that it will make to you as a family. They are there to work for US and put our views across so make them work for it!

Excellent article here in the Independent last week http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/parents-of-disabled-children-furious-at-cuts-to-allowances-6275831.html and also a reply from the lady concerned on here http://www.toomanycuts.blogspot.com/2011/12/does-every-disabled-child-matter.html

System

not all disabled children [parents] get this extra tax credit , we have approx household income of £30k pa and don't get the disability premium as we earn too much.

TrixieB

Hope you'll still sign though Chrissy

I've not got a disabled child but have suddenly found myself disabled this year when previously fit and well and working and all of that - it can happen to anyone so I have signed.

3v3

savemoney wrote: »

Typical uncaring government shame on them

Playing Devil's Advocate here ... the country is in trillions of debt; the Govenment's income is soley dependent on tax payers. How would *you* decide to spend taxpayers money? And, before you answer, do consider, are you biased towards your own circumstances? (Naturally )

What has become "disgusting" is, a certain political party who prays on a person's vulnerability and sensitivity to win votes, knowing that their "benefits" are unsustainable; yet the overall aim remains the same: all politicians, whichever party, are concerned with ... themselves

So, tell me: why should your average tax payer, pay for your choices? I know that sounds harsh, these are harsh times; but, I am old enough to recall a time when the responsibility (financial and otherwise) for one's offspring was just that: the responsibility of the parents, not the average tax payer.

Another question: if there were NO benefits to assist you with your children, how would you have coped (aka, how people coped before any added financial assistance was available)? Or, do you only "cope" because of the additional assistance you get?

Not wishing to upset anyone (although it is by definition an emotive subject) but I do genuinely wish to know?

cherryaa

3v3 wrote: »

Playing Devil's Advocate here ... the country is in trillions of debt; the Govenment's income is soley dependent on tax payers. How would *you* decide to spend taxpayers money?

So, tell me: why should your average tax payer, pay for your choices?

Another question: if there were NO benefits to assist you with your children, how would you have coped (aka, how people coped before any added financial assistance was available)?

Hi, 3v3. I hope you don't mind my clipping your quote down to the questions I can answer - for myself and others, though not everyone of course.

1. Before I decided to spend the taxpayers' money, I would ensure the taxpayers were paying their share. In doing this, I'd ensure the deficit was £25 BILLION less than what it is. See today's news. Saving an estimated £3bn on welfare pales in comparison to this ... benefits for the wealthiest remain uncut.

Also, I would require big businesses to take a hit just like everyone else. I would not be making taxpayers fund the wages of their staff, nor giving those businesses £5k of taxpayers' money a time to get the free staff.

I'd consider putting price controls temporarily in place, to ensure taxpayers could afford to buy stuff instead of paying inflationary prices.

Lastly, I'd increase the minimum wage by at least 15% because taxpayers currently fund breadline wages via tax credits and housing benefit.

These measures would free the economy from its current stranglehold, money would flood into the national coffers and taxpayers would be getting what they paid for.

I don't know about you, but when I pay taxes I don't expect them to be used to fund private jets and offshore mansions.

2. I didn't choose to become disabled! I was very well-off before it happened; if you think I chose to live on less than £90 a week, you're very mistaken. I used to spend that down the pub several nights a week.

Likewise, people don't choose to have disabled children. The concept of 'choice', as applied to people in need, is absurd and damaging.

3. Before there were benefits, we had very high rates of infant death and death in childbirth (the standard measure of a healthy society). We had beggars of all ages, teeming with infections, all over the streets. We had children being sold into prostitution and other forms of slavery. Crime rates were astronomical. If you go to a less-developed country on holiday, you will see all these horrible things. That's what we had.

cherryaa

Sorry, me again. Please consider this:

So, tell me: why should your average tax payer, pay for your choices?

Assuming you are younger than me (likely), my taxes paid for your education, your healthcare and dental treatment growing up, the facilities you used to play sports, the police who brought you home when you got lost and your further education or apprenticeship. Did you choose to need those things? No more than I chose to fund other people's children, no. That's how a society works and I defend it absolutely.

Richie-from-the-Boro

The intention [ in the case of this thread subject ] under the forthcoming UC rules are to :

- directly align each child to the DLA equivalent
- award DLA / or / carer element / but not both
- but you can get carer for one child and DLA for a~n~other
- set the adult & child amount at the same level

#1."""Families could lose £1,300 a year, this will be such a blow to families already struggling with increased costs due to caring for a disabled child."""

Trixie if your subject is the money each individual disabled child will lose, keep it that way, so we can evaluate what is actually happening and not get sidetracked into other non child centred areas.

#4. """David Cameron in PMQs last week was asked about BENEFIT cuts by another MP - which he rightly said no, as they are not classed as benefits. They are Tax Credits."""

Trixie, much as it sticks in my throat, he is correct. DLA is for the extra costs of care & mobility not tax credits - you appear to be saying you want the money twice.

However there is a problem with the Governments proposal, and its a very very big one.

The model its following is the correct presumption that an adult will be financially better off in work than claiming benefit .. .. .. however children don't work .. .. and a disabled child already faces many many extra barriers to escaping poverty, plus care & mobility costs, let alone leading anything like the sort of 'normal' childhood life his/her friends have

cherryaa

Wasn't there something else about removing the child's National Insurance / Social Security guarantee, going, forward? I haven't delved into this but saw several complaints that severely disabled children will end up dependent on their parents for life.