LEGAL places to put capital that are not taken into account by DWP by DWP

clemmatis

FBaby wrote: »

Having read many posts here over a number of years, I think that most mean tested benefit claimants who can save income to such an amount that it starts affecting their benefits are those in receipt of DLA. The problem is that DLA is not an income provided on the basis of the costs incurred due to their disability.

Correct. It is -- like AA --

a benefit that provides a cash contribution towards the extra costs of needs arising from an impairment or health condition

Not to meet the costs, towards the costs.

FBaby wrote:

So whereas some genuily need to spend more and are struggling, others acumulate the benefit to the extend of not knowing what to do with their money.

Could that be because it is, like Child Benefit, not means-tested?

FBaby wrote:

I was once upon a time a single mum earning circa £40K, hence paying 40% of part of my salary. By the time I had paid the hefty childcare costs, transport, mortgage, and the cost of keeping the house in decent working order, I just never had a penny to save at the end of the month

Big mortgage? (No benefits?)

FBaby wrote:

I might not have been disabled, but my life managing a very demanding job and raising my children alone was very tough.

And you don't think it would have been even harder if you'd been disabled?

FBaby wrote:

There are many people in a similar situation, working hard, paying their taxes yet unable to save much at all. How is it right that the taxes they are obliged to pay, hence not being able to pay, should go towards people who are paying no such taxes yet receiving enough in return to allow them to save it? It is utterly ludicrous, an insult to those who do work hard and just get by, and a complete disincentive to do so.

Then perhaps you should arrange to be disabled. You could of course still work: DLA is not an out of work benefit
.

FBaby

And here we go again: the 'would you rather be disabled' it's not about either or it's about fairness. I will repeat myself: those who get DLA and FINANCIALLY need it do not get to save such amount, however a number of claimants have needs that no finances can really help. This is the case file two of my friend who children have learning difficulties. They go to main steam school and do not have extra costs associated to their disability (send before I get the reply 'but you don't know' tress I do know!). Saving money because benefits are not spent on what they are claiming for in the first place is the issue not receiving DLA in itself.

princessdon

I fail to see the relevance. It is not like they are giving individuals or households £40k plus in benefits.

Some households do indeed receive £40K (or the take home equivilant in benefits).

I can't see any argument for someone saving £16K whilst on benefits and in the same breath say benefits are breadline. Anyone who has lived on the breadline knows that saving £6 - £16 is not possible, not at all.

If they can save that value - then their benefits are too high

I don't begrudge disabled or ill a holiday, a nice life, a comfortable life - but the abiility to save £16K whilst I bust my gut and pay for that is something I personally struggle with.

DLA and AA should be means tested - then parents get EXTRA tax credits (doesn't DLA cover that need?).

Some on benefits are being hit hard with forthcoming changes - to the point where they are below what I would deem an acceptable amount to live on (something as a tax payer I find hard). Yet others can save vast amounts of money. Surely there is an imbalance there somewhere?

FBaby

fail to see the relevance. It is not like they are giving individuals or households £40k plus in benefits.

No but their disposable income might not be far apart. Once i'd paid for childcare, travel costs and other convenience due to lack of time, what was left over was much less than £40k.

Naf

FBaby wrote: »

No but their disposable income might not be far apart. Once i'd paid for childcare, travel costs and other convenience due to lack of time, what was left over was much less than £40k.

Your convenience is your savings. Is saving you your time - some people can't even manage that.

sparkycat2

FBaby wrote: »

And here we go again: the 'would you rather be disabled' it's not about either or it's about fairness. I will repeat myself: those who get DLA and FINANCIALLY need it do not get to save such amount, however a number of claimants have needs that no finances can really help. This is the case file two of my friend who children have learning difficulties. They go to main steam school and do not have extra costs associated to their disability (send before I get the reply 'but you don't know' tress I do know!). Saving money because benefits are not spent on what they are claiming for in the first place is the issue not receiving DLA in itself.

DLA is not intended solely to help towards care and mobility needs costs of those who have such costs. It is intended that claimants can spend the money however they choose, the aim being to improve their quality of life.

In parliamentary select committees on DLA they state that the care and mobility criteria are proxies for gauging level of disability. That the money should be spent however the claimant pleases and that it is a shame that in some areas claimants have to use the money to pay towards care or mobility needs that in other areas are provided cheaper or for free. They give examples of good ways in which DLA maybe spent. Examples include someone who buying a new living room carpet so they feel happy about inviting friends round. Another example is someone buying a large flat screen TV because they enjoy watching TV. The aim is improving quality of life.

I think it is a sign of societies compassion and generosity to those misfortunate enough to be ill/disabled enough to claim it. That we would like them to get some enjoyment out of being alive

I agree that if the money is just accumulating in a bank account it is not serving it's purpose. Because having more money in a bank account probably does not improve quality of life. But I do not resent the fact they get the money I would just encourage them to spend it, treat themselves.

enabledebra

sparkycat2 wrote: »

DLA is not intended solely to help towards care and mobility needs costs of those who have such costs. It is intended that claimants can spend the money however they choose, the aim being to improve their quality of life.

In parliamentary select committees on DLA they state that the care and mobility criteria are proxies for gauging level of disability. That the money should be spent however the claimant pleases and that it is a shame that in some areas claimants have to use the money to pay towards care or mobility needs that in other areas are provided cheaper or for free. They give examples of good ways in which DLA maybe spent. Examples include someone who buying a new living room carpet so they feel happy about inviting friends round. Another example is someone buying a large flat screen TV because they enjoy watching TV. The aim is improving quality of life.

I think it is a sign of societies compassion and generosity to those misfortunate enough to be ill/disabled enough to claim it. That we would like them to get some enjoyment out of being alive

I agree that if the money is just accumulating in a bank account it is not serving it's purpose. Because having more money in a bank account probably does not improve quality of life. But I do not resent the fact they get the money I would just encourage them to spend it, treat themselves.

Exactly, it's paid to reflect an estimate of the additional cost of everyday life a disability brings- it's not exact because it can't be as there are only five 5 rates in total and thousands of variables in disability related living costs - so for some people DLA will be more than enough to meet the additional costs and for some it won't be enough. The intention of DLA payments - has IMO been eroded by the increasing demand that people use it to contribute to actual care costs. But it's not alone as JSA etc are also to meet daily living costs but increasingly there is a demand it's used to pay housing costs.

princessdon

sparkycat2 wrote: »

DLA is not intended solely to help towards care and mobility needs costs of those who have such costs. It is intended that claimants can spend the money however they choose, the aim being to improve their quality of life.

In parliamentary select committees on DLA they state that the care and mobility criteria are proxies for gauging level of disability. That the money should be spent however the claimant pleases and that it is a shame that in some areas claimants have to use the money to pay towards care or mobility needs that in other areas are provided cheaper or for free. They give examples of good ways in which DLA maybe spent. Examples include someone who buying a new living room carpet so they feel happy about inviting friends round. Another example is someone buying a large flat screen TV because they enjoy watching TV. The aim is improving quality of life.

I think it is a sign of societies compassion and generosity to those misfortunate enough to be ill/disabled enough to claim it. That we would like them to get some enjoyment out of being alive

I agree that if the money is just accumulating in a bank account it is not serving it's purpose. Because having more money in a bank account probably does not improve quality of life. But I do not resent the fact they get the money I would just encourage them to spend it, treat themselves.

Ok to put this another way. My GM has been entitled to AA for I'd say 10 years based on her needs. But ... I address them (as do my parents when they can but live 100 miles away). She didn't have any additional costs.

I do her shopping, I take her to hospital/GP appts, I take her everywhere she needs to go, I mowed her lawn, I did her decorating, I did everything she needs.

The thought of her claiming when she didn't have additional costings seemed wrong.

I have put in a claim as circumstances have changed. I can't do it all (work is not now as flexible due to changes). She now has to pay for a cleaner, carers etc. so I claimed.

I could *possibly* claim DLA even though I self care with zero costs and a high income. Are you saying everyone should claim because they can as opposed to whether they have to?

A new flat screen TV or a new carpet - is not disability related - but lifestyle

enabledebra

princessdon wrote: »

Ok to put this another way. My GM has been entitled to AA for I'd say 10 years based on her needs. But ... I address them (as do my parents when they can but live 100 miles away). She didn't have any additional costs.

I do her shopping, I take her to hospital/GP appts, I take her everywhere she needs to go, I mowed her lawn, I did her decorating, I did everything she needs.

The thought of her claiming when she didn't have additional costings seemed wrong.

I have put in a claim as circumstances have changed. I can't do it all (work is not now as flexible due to changes). She now has to pay for a cleaner, carers etc. so I claimed.

I could *possibly* claim DLA even though I self care with zero costs and a high income. Are you saying everyone should claim because they can as opposed to whether they have to?

A new flat screen TV or a new carpet - is not disability related - but lifestyle

Are you sure you don't have additional costs to a person without disabilities? People with disabilities of the kind which attract DLA generally have higher heating, clothing, laundry, food, transport costs etc. it's not paid to meet care costs.

Dunroamin

sparkycat2 wrote: »

DLA is not intended solely to help towards care and mobility needs costs of those who have such costs. It is intended that claimants can spend the money however they choose, the aim being to improve their quality of life.

In parliamentary select committees on DLA they state that the care and mobility criteria are proxies for gauging level of disability. That the money should be spent however the claimant pleases and that it is a shame that in some areas claimants have to use the money to pay towards care or mobility needs that in other areas are provided cheaper or for free. They give examples of good ways in which DLA maybe spent. Examples include someone who buying a new living room carpet so they feel happy about inviting friends round. Another example is someone buying a large flat screen TV because they enjoy watching TV. The aim is improving quality of life.

I think it is a sign of societies compassion and generosity to those misfortunate enough to be ill/disabled enough to claim it. That we would like them to get some enjoyment out of being alive

I agree that if the money is just accumulating in a bank account it is not serving it's purpose. Because having more money in a bank account probably does not improve quality of life. But I do not resent the fact they get the money I would just encourage them to spend it, treat themselves.

This sounds to me like compensation for drawing a rubbish hand in life, definitely not something that disability benefits should be about.