50% cuts to disabled childrens money

Richie-from-the-Boro

cherryaa wrote: »

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.

No, if I REM correctly the 2 [ or more ] child max was / is / will be set at £87:50x2=£147 for just that reason. Setting it to above the £147 would mean families would suffer reductions of +50% as you say on NI / UC / CC etc.

I'll see if I can find the info for you.

EDIT: Found it here

TrixieB

Richie, it's not the same money twice though is it, DLA and Tax Credits/disabled premiums are seperate and DLA for children is going to be left out of Unversal Credit. There are reasons why the need was felt to begin to rpovide this extra money to families with a disabled child so it's not exactly the same money twice over for the same thing.

Also read up on the bill myself, the proposed amendments etc from last week http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/welfarereform/documents.html which are a little more uptodate than your link there - good if you suffer from insomnia

Factor in too lone/two disabled parents caring for disabled children. they are planning to take away the ability to claim DLA for oneself while claiming carers for your child. A two parent household where one is not diabled can obviously get around this.

I'll post more tomorrow, am tired and eyes are going.

As for CHOICES 3v3?

You think anyone chooses to have a child born disabled/become disabled or to be disabled themselves?? I cannot even put itno words what I want to say I am so digusted by that comment :mad:

System

signed [4128] , although i have signed and do have a disabled teen i accept that there isn't a bottomless pit of money.

Richie-from-the-Boro

TrixieB wrote: »

Richie, it's not the same money twice though is it, DLA and Tax Credits/disabled premiums are separate and DLA for children is going to be left out of Universal Credit. There are reasons why the need was felt to begin to provide this extra money to families with a disabled child so it's not exactly the same money twice over for the same thing.

Also read up on the bill myself, the proposed amendments etc from last week http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/welfarereform/documents.html which are a little more up to date than your link there - good if you suffer from insomnia

Factor in too lone/two disabled parents caring for disabled children. they are planning to take away the ability to claim DLA for oneself while claiming carers for your child. A two parent household where one is not disabled can obviously get around this.

I'll post more tomorrow, am tired and eyes are going.

As for CHOICES 3v3?

You think anyone chooses to have a child born disabled/become disabled or to be disabled themselves?? I cannot even put into words what I want to say I am so disgusted by that comment :mad:

TrixieB,

Sorry I do not agree with your understanding of the proposals, although I do agree with the proposition that if you were to put three UC experts in one room you would get six entirely different answers. It is just that complex a subject, and yes I agree with your insomnolence point .. .. reading too many of these documents will make your eyes bleed and your head explode.

You referenced this document as support for why I was misinformed .. .. I see nothing, nothing at all that's different to what I said in #21, it may well be more up to date in date terms but the info is identical to #21.

A noticeable coincidence ? or just a conspiracy theory !

In the very very early days of the IB50 [original] when we had Poll tax / HB / rent rebate / ERS / income support / mortgage support / etc the treasury invented an arithmetic formulae that 'just happened' to pay each claimant 2 new pense too much. This 2p coincidently [STRIKE]deliberately[/STRIKE] took the threshold level for income support [ and its passported additional benefits ] just 2p over the minimum, and thus you were denied the income support element.

Fast forward to this year and the proposed welfare changes and UC, what I have noticed, and no one seems to mention, is that all the 'multitude' of different elements of UC seem to 'knit' together to form one [STRIKE]similar[/STRIKE] mathematical rule. If their intended distribution does not eliminate the overlap of benefit elements those in workless households will lose +50%.

That is to say for every £1 extra they give with their left hand they will take £1:50 with their right hand.

Triggles

I think that while people are spouting about all the fantastic riches they seem to assume come to those with disabled children, they might want to look at a few things.

For example :

- families that that have a disabled child are much more likely to be living on a very low income, mainly because one parent has had to stop working to care for that child

- parents that are FT carers of their disabled child actually cost the government much much LESS money than when a disabled child is put in residential care or having paid carers come into the home.

- safe and reliable child care for a disabled child is nearly impossible to find, especially when it needs to be someone that can handle severe medical problems.

- the government relies on the fact that most parents of a child with disabilities would not just say "that's it, you'll need to put them in care as I can't cope" so parents continue to take the hits and cuts from the government, with less and less support. If all these children were in care, instead of being cared for by parents, the cost would be staggering.

- parents of disabled children also have a higher rate of depression and marital problems as well, due to the lack of support and the isolation.

It's not a cake walk. It's not "the good life." It's a long hard haul most days, and most parents are simply trying to allow their child to have a good quality of life.

I find it dreadful that David Cameron is quite happy to play upon a technicality in this situation. I'd say he should understand, as he had a child with disabilities, but he of course would not as financially he did not have to struggle as many do.

GlasweJen

Just a small point but for me if you claim you can't look after yourself then you should not be able to claim carers allowance for looking after anyone else. Anyone on middle or high care DLA cannot by definition be left alone for long periods for a substantial part of the day, they therefore cannot be reliable for anyone else's care.

GlasweJen

I find it dreadful that David Cameron is quite happy to play upon a technicality in this situation. I'd say he should understand, as he had a child with disabilities, but he of course would not as financially he did not have to struggle as many do.

You mean he earns too much for tax credits so doesn't get this help even though his child was severely disabled.

Triggles

GlasweJen wrote: »

You mean he earns too much for tax credits so doesn't get this help even though his child was severely disabled.

Actually, I said what I meant. If YOU, however, want to say that, then that's obviously your choice. Kindly do not tell me what I mean.

keelyjrs

GlasweJen wrote: »

Just a small point but for me if you claim you can't look after yourself then you should not be able to claim carers allowance for looking after anyone else. Anyone on middle or high care DLA cannot by definition be left alone for long periods for a substantial part of the day, they therefore cannot be reliable for anyone else's care.

Well excuse me I am on DLA high rate and still manage to be a fantastic mum to my autistic son. I use my direct care payments to emply a personal assistant to help me look after him with the things I struggle with like pushing him on the swings, transport and nappy changes.

Just because someone has a physical health problem does not mean they cannot be a carer and full time hands on parent to their child.

GlasweJen

I just don't think this "being supportive" thing cuts it. Carers allowance should be about directly giving care. If a claimant can't do X then a carer allowance should only be given to the person who is doing X instead.

I just don't see how anyone can say "no I can't shower myself but I can bath my three kids safely".