MSE News: Half a million could lose disability benefits

nannytone_2

dktreesea wrote: »

The problem from the taxpayer's point of view is that the DLA seems to be a payment to compensate people for being disabled, regardless of whether or not the DLA is actually needed to relieve the disability directly. This list is from May 2011, but take a look at some of the conditions that qualify for disability allowance:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jan/18/disability-living-allowance-data
All of those conditions may well make the people who suffer from them miserable. And may also mean they cannot function at the same level as an able bodied person. But where do you draw the line? At what point does the taxpayer's interests override the right of the person with an impairment to help themselves to the taxpayer's money?

And the numbers receiving DLA are increasing, in spite of the government's best efforts to restrict eligibility.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statistical-update-disability-living-allowance-claims
Of course they are increasing. It's so financially rewarding to be labelled "disabled".

maybe those ( relatively dew) people find having a 'disability' rewarding, but i can assure you, that those of us that struggle to do many of the most basic things for ourselves would much rather function normally than get the £40 a week ireceive in DLA

clemmatis

dktreesea wrote: »

The problem from the taxpayer's point of view is that the DLA seems to be a payment to compensate people for being disabled, regardless of whether or not the DLA is actually needed to relieve the disability directly. This list is from May 2011, but take a look at some of the conditions that qualify for disability allowance:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jan/18/disability-living-allowance-data
All of those conditions may well make the people who suffer from them miserable. And may also mean they cannot function at the same level as an able bodied person. But where do you draw the line? At what point does the taxpayer's interests override the right of the person with an impairment to help themselves to the taxpayer's money?

And the numbers receiving DLA are increasing, in spite of the government's best efforts to restrict eligibility.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statistical-update-disability-living-allowance-claims
Of course they are increasing. It's so financially rewarding to be labelled "disabled".

Of course the numbers receiving DLA are increasing. Before it was introduced in 1992 zero people received it. Too few of us granted it between then and now have had the decency to die off to make "the taxpayer" as exemplified by people like you happy. And new claimants have had the gall to claim it. So, again, numbers are going up.

As for your counterposing the interests of "the taxpayer" and "the person with an impairment", DLA is not means tested. IOW many DLA claimants pay income tax and indeed many are helped to stay in work by their DLA.

clemmatis

dktreesea wrote: »

The problem from the taxpayer's point of view is that the DLA seems to be a payment to compensate people for being disabled, regardless of whether or not the DLA is actually needed to relieve the disability directly. This list is from May 2011, but take a look at some of the conditions that qualify for disability allowance:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jan/18/disability-living-allowance-data
All of those conditions may well make the people who suffer from them miserable. And may also mean they cannot function at the same level as an able bodied person.

There is only one condition that confers automatic entitlement to DLA: terminal cancer. All other applicants must demonstrate care and/or mobility needs.

bigboybrother

dktreesea wrote: »

Of course they are increasing. It's so financially rewarding to be labelled "disabled".

A work colleague of a few years back told me that one of the best things that had ever happened to him was when the DWP awarded him DLA and described him as being 'disabled'.

His net household income went up like a rocket not just with the £70 or so of DLA but all of the other additions, perks, and add on premiums he received.

DLA opened so many doors for him that he is quids in pocket not to mention his new car (all costs found) and no more parking charges.

Dunroamin

clemmatis wrote: »

There is only one condition that confers automatic entitlement to DLA: terminal cancer. All other applicants must demonstrate care and/or mobility needs.

Incorrect, I'm afraid. You can claim DLA (or AA for that matter) under the "Special Rules" for any terminal condition, not just cancer.

clemmatis

bigboybrother wrote: »

A work colleague of a few years back told me that one of the best things that had ever happened to him was when the DWP awarded him DLA and described him as being 'disabled'.

His net household income went up like a rocket not just with the £70 or so of DLA but all of the other additions, perks, and add on premiums he received.

DLA opened so many doors for him that he is quids in pocket not to mention his new car (all costs found) and no more parking charges.

And what about you, Andy? Or were you turned down?

Dunroamin

nannytone wrote: »

maybe those ( relatively dew) people find having a 'disability' rewarding, but i can assure you, that those of us that struggle to do many of the most basic things for ourselves would much rather function normally than get the £40 a week ireceive in DLA

But people in your situation don't just get DLA - they get ESA and LHA/HB/CTB as well. As you've detailed in the past, you receive far more in benefits than you would earn working full time for NMW.

There's nothing wrong with that and it's right that people should be supported but it's misleading to say that a disabled person like you only receives £40.

clemmatis

Dunroamin wrote: »

Incorrect, I'm afraid. You can claim DLA (or AA for that matter) under the "Special Rules" for any terminal condition, not just cancer.

My apologies. I'm not sure it affects my point, though.

nannytone_2

people working full time for NMW would also get working tav credits abd HB/LHA and CTS

p deliberately said ' for thise of us that struggle' not isolation it to myself.
i know i am lucky to get direct payemnts, but that supplies a service and has no monetary value to me.

as we all know DLA is given for a specific purpose, and is NOT classed as income by law.
si receive about £190 a week ( including all HB/CTS) so not more than someone of a similar age, living in a similar property who gets NMW.
as you know well, i would love to work and did so for many years.
don't try to make me feel guilty for having a disability

Dunroamin

nannytone wrote: »

people working full time for NMW would also get working tav credits abd HB/LHA and CTS

p deliberately said ' for thise of us that struggle' not isolation it to myself.
i know i am lucky to get direct payemnts, but that supplies a service and has no monetary value to me.

as we all know DLA is given for a specific purpose, and is NOT classed as income by law.
si receive about £190 a week ( including all HB/CTS) so not more than someone of a similar age, living in a similar property who gets NMW.
as you know well, i would love to work and did so for many years.
don't try to make me feel guilty for having a disability

I'm certainly not trying to make you feel guilty but I do wish that you'd stop trying to fiddle the figures. Someone in your situation receives £230 per week which is equivalent to someone non disabled earning a salary of £13,500 on which income you wouldn't be eligible for WTC or any other benefit and out of which they'd have to pay fares and other work related expenses.

I don't begrudge the money to anyone in your situation and, obviously, most people would prefer not have the disability but you have at least the same income as someone earning this sort of wage. I just like to get the facts straight.