MSE News: Hidden carers miss out on £1,000s in benefits help

stephief

I have recently started claiming carers allowance, even though I have been caring for my husband for several years. I would care for him with or without the money, that has never been an issue. Of course the extra money now means I can learn to drive which will further help my husband. We never had the finances to do this before. It is a godsend really.

But I dont actually get an 'extra' £58 a week, because we claim ESA it is taken off of that pound for pound, and then a carers premium is added, which is about £31 a week, so effectively I get £31 extra a week for caring for him.

wattdallas

FBaby wrote: »

Although I don't have any issues with an allowance for caring duties, and in the case of parents looking after a severely disabled child who wouldn't be able to be cared for in the education system like other children, it is more than justify.

However, I do have an issue when the carer always compare what they get with what they would get working if they were not a carer. For one, in the case of children, many mothers chose not to work, so it can't be assumed that if the child wasn't disabled, the mother would forceably be working. For two, even if they did work, they wouldn't forceably be better off than they are asa carer with all the benefits it opens to them if they earning power is limited. Some people are trully better off financially being a carer than if they were not.

This doesn't mean I do not sympathise with hard it must be to care for a love one, it doesn't mean I begrudge the benefits they receive, just that I don't systematically assume that if someone is a carer, they must be struggling financially any differently than many other working families.

Choosing not to work and being a sahm is a choice - carers like myself have no choice.

Of course we would be better off finacially if we both worked !!!!!

Dunroamin

wattdallas wrote: »

Choosing not to work and being a sahm is a choice - carers like myself have no choice.

Of course we would be better off finacially if we both worked !!!!!

Not necessarily. Many working couples find that the second income goes entirely to fund childcare and work related expenses.

Sixer

FBaby wrote: »

Although I don't have any issues with an allowance for caring duties, and in the case of parents looking after a severely disabled child who wouldn't be able to be cared for in the education system like other children, it is more than justify.

However, I do have an issue when the carer always compare what they get with what they would get working if they were not a carer. For one, in the case of children, many mothers chose not to work, so it can't be assumed that if the child wasn't disabled, the mother would forceably be working. For two, even if they did work, they wouldn't forceably be better off than they are asa carer with all the benefits it opens to them if they earning power is limited. Some people are trully better off financially being a carer than if they were not.

This doesn't mean I do not sympathise with hard it must be to care for a love one, it doesn't mean I begrudge the benefits they receive, just that I don't systematically assume that if someone is a carer, they must be struggling financially any differently than many other working families.

To be fair, I think caring is an issue that will get more and more important as the population ages. It's important we get it sorted out now to avoid a financial timebomb.

Where family members can support old people at home, you're looking at costs of £800-£1,000 a week in care home fees vs £150 a week in AA + CA.

My grandmother was lucky: she would have been in a home (no income over pension, no assets) were it not for 4 family/neighbour carers. Had only one of us, not four of us, been available, that one would not have been able to work.

Soapn

society has changed dramatically, 50 years ago, old relatives weren't shunted into care homes for a start. And now people do nothing about moan about how much the fees cost and how their inheritance is being wasted.

Chorlie

Is it still the case that once you are of State Pension Age and start to draw your State Pension CA stops, because you can't have both?

LunaLady

Soapn wrote: »

society has changed dramatically, 50 years ago, old relatives weren't shunted into care homes for a start. And now people do nothing about moan about how much the fees cost and how their inheritance is being wasted.

But 50 years ago there were less working women. Nowadays people are living longer and are more likely to survive illnesses that would have killed them 50 years ago.

Mojisola

Chorlie wrote: »

Is it still the case that once you are of State Pension Age and start to draw your State Pension CA stops, because you can't have both?

Usually but you may be entitled to "an underlying entitlement to CA", depending on your income so that's worth checking out.

visionvalue

I gave up my job to look after my Mum and at that time I received £45. When she died my husband became Ill and now has Parkinsons and I cannot claim because he is on low rate motability. We have been told by various organisations don't put a claim in at the moment with the change over of payments as you many lose what you have already got!. I like many others do it for love but it would be nice to be recognised as someone who is up most of the night and during the day having to watch over someone so they don't harm themselves. I watch people around me not even bother looking for work and they get up to £200 per week in benefits. So where is the justice for this?

FBaby

wattdallas wrote: »

Choosing not to work and being a sahm is a choice - carers like myself have no choice.

Of course we would be better off finacially if we both worked !!!!!

Those who would be better off working than paying childcare fees don't really see it as a choice... Not sure why you think that a couple is forceably better off both working if you have young children.