Can this be right for a disabled couple?

gayleanne

Yes this about the right amount, and they would also be entitled to housing benefit and council tax.

nannytone_2

i go to the gym about 3 times a week.
ots been !!!! for the past week for a refurb.
somone in their wisdon thought it was a good idea to paint it dark red and dark grey. they also have all new equiptment.

if i didnt get DLA, i wouldnt be able to pay my friends fees and so would no longer be able to go as its all too visually confusing for me.

DLA isnt money for nothing.
its paid to try to give people with real and debilitating conditions some degree of quality of life!

sniggings

nannytone wrote: »

i'd bet that theres not a whole lot of millionaires that jump through the DLA's hoops for an extra £80 a week

you will be amazed I bet, David cameron has said many times he claimed it for his son and Tammy Grey claims it too, both on good wages but don't feel any shame in still taking money they don't need.

nannytone_2

its tannie not tammy

[Deleted User]

op your figures dont make sense AT ALL

Notmyrealname

woodbine wrote: »

op your figures dont make sense AT ALL

They never do when someone is having a Daily Mail rant.

sniggings

challfour wrote: »

Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson is a fantastic example of how people can overcome their disabilities.

On the other hand, I don't think it is right that she is claiming DLA when it is clear that she does not have the same financial difficulties as many others do.

Mind you it would be very interesting to know just how many of the Para-Olympic stars also claim DLA on the basis of care needs and/or mobility issues?

We will have to disagree there, making someone a Dame or Sir because they take part in sport is a joke.

SkyeKnight

challfour wrote: »

Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson is a fantastic example of how people can overcome their disabilities.

On the other hand, I don't think it is right that she is claiming DLA when it is clear that she does not have the same financial difficulties as many others do.

Surely a non-disabled person on the same income as her would be better off because they wouldn't have all the same costs she has related to her disability? The DLA is to cover her extra costs so I think it's fine to claim it if she wishes to - though it would be admirable if she didn't.

rogerblack

SkyeKnight wrote: »

Surely a non-disabled person on the same income as her would be better off because they wouldn't have all the same costs she has related to her disability? The DLA is to cover her extra costs so I think it's fine to claim it if she wishes to - though it would be admirable if she didn't.

DLA does not have to be spent solely on the disability needs.
Neglecting the actual cost of care also skips the thorny question of how someone who is assessed as reasonably needing 24 hour supervision should purchase this on 70 quid a week.

sniggings

SkyeKnight wrote: »

Surely a non-disabled person on the same income as her would be better off because they wouldn't have all the same costs she has related to her disability? The DLA is to cover her extra costs so I think it's fine to claim it if she wishes to - though it would be admirable if she didn't.

but then the money is not given because of need but because the person is disabled, which then turns it into compensation or trying to create a level playing field but in trying to do so you are taking money from poorer people to give to richer people because they are disabled, might be fair to the disabled person but not so fair to the poorer person that is paying for it.

I suppose you either believe the state is meant to support disabled people even when they are able to do it themselves or that the state is there to support people if they can't do it themselves.