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

enabledebra

No -it's not intended to give a better quality of life just an equal one. Figures aren't exact and can't be they're set to be an approximation.

princessdon

enabledebra wrote: »

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.

Laundry - yes given the nature of my illness - if I was single perhaps this would justify - but as a mother of a tribe I wash so often it's not relevant, the washing machine is always on for one reason or another. I wash my duvet cover and sheets nightly - but then as I say - the washer is always on anyway.

That is honestly the only additional cost. I need car for my children (not work, I could get public transport), clothing, perhaps but fairly liquid works wonders. Food (nope, i don't really eat much - hence being under 8 stone).

It's an honest evaluation. others with needs may need it - but having a large family means those costs would be met without this.

enabledebra

And that's the thing, the actual costs are too specific they have to generalise. There is all manner of additional costs that arise but not for everyone. eg someone might need to have clothes specially made or altered; Some need pre prepared vegetables; Some need to bathe 3 or 4 times a day; Some need a car because of disability (many people without disabilities don't have a car - they can manage on public transport even with children); Some need to have the washing machine on all day - even without kids; Some need to pay a handyman to change the lightbulbs etc etc etc The rate is just an estimate/ a best guess.

princessdon

enabledebra wrote: »

And that's the thing, the actual costs are too specific they have to generalise. There is all manner of additional costs that arise but not for everyone. eg someone might need to have clothes specially made or altered; Some need pre prepared vegetables; Some need to bathe 3 or 4 times a day; Some need a car because of disability (many people without disabilities don't have a car - they can manage on public transport even with children); Some need to have the washing machine on all day - even without kids; Some need to pay a handyman to change the lightbulbs etc etc etc The rate is just an estimate/ a best guess.

I appreciate that - and if I needed to financially maybe I would claim, but I do think there are people that claim "coz they can" but without real costs.

I am not innocent. I have claimed CB since my eldest was born because I could and was entitled. Did I need it? Not at all. I actually donate to an Autistic good cause close to my heart as the govt don't do enough for teenagers/befriending/listening and respite. But I claimed because I can and was entitled.

It didn't feed my children, didn't clothe them etc.

There are a lot of "entitled" out there (and yes I am one with CB) that don't NEED the money. The govt needs a more hollistic view instead of one cap fits all.

missapril75

Johno100 wrote: »

Can you remind me when savings rates were anywhere close to the 20% per annum the government calculates you can earn from savings between £8k and £16k?

But why are you looking at the excess only? That's not the full picture.
You can have £6000 for I/S & JSA so there's no loss of income even though you would get interest. If you have, say £7000, the tariff income is £4. That's about 3% pa.

It would still be 3% if interest rates were much higher. It wasn't that long ago.

You win some, you lose some.

As for pensioners, they can have £10000 before it makes a difference. When did £10000 not attract interest?

If you have £10500, that's £1 tariff income. Nearer 0.4%.

I think you can get better than 0.4% on £10000 can't you?

When you look at the whole picture - including the "up to £6000" or "up to £10000" that makes no difference - it looks better.

When you consider that we're talking means tested benefits and that tends to involve people at lower income levels, that likely includes people at lower "savings" levels too and it's a lot more generous in those cases.

I imagine the far greater number of people who have little or nothing spare at all are quite envious of those who can have £6000 or £10000 and still get full benefits.

sparkycat2

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.

Do not know about AA but with DLA part of the intention is that the person can spend the money not only on costs incurred due to disability but on things that make their life more worth living, anything that improves their quality of life.

princessdon wrote: »

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.

With DLA due to the post code lottery as far as what home care support, etc... is provided and what if anything individuals have to pay towards it. Some people use most or all of their DLA to do this, or all of their DLA and additional money. The variation in local support provision is described as local democracy in action. But it is not the sole intention or purpose of DLA.

princessdon wrote: »

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?

DLA is a non-means tested, tax exempt benefit paid to those in and out of work. Anyone eligible can claim it.

But to be eligible for DLA care component you would have care needs that mean you need help from someone else to do everyday things able people can do themselves, be that someone helping you some of the day Low Rate, all of the day or watching over you at night Middle Rate, day and night High Rate. For mobility you would need someone to help you go unfamiliar places Low rate or familiar place High rate or be unable to walk or walk beyond a short distance or be blind.

To get high rates of DLA you have to be severely disabled.

princessdon wrote: »

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

Those are a couple of the examples of the money being spent as intended given to parliamentary select committee on DLA.

If it makes their life seem more worth living then it is money well spent.

For someone housebound they may feel able to invite people round now they no longer have a worn out carpet they are ashamed off, or despite being able to get out and about they may enjoy watching the world on their TV.

enabledebra

princessdon wrote: »

I appreciate that - and if I needed to financially maybe I would claim, but I do think there are people that claim "coz they can" but without real costs.

I am not innocent. I have claimed CB since my eldest was born because I could and was entitled. Did I need it? Not at all. I actually donate to an Autistic good cause close to my heart as the govt don't do enough for teenagers/befriending/listening and respite. But I claimed because I can and was entitled.

It didn't feed my children, didn't clothe them etc.

There are a lot of "entitled" out there (and yes I am one with CB) that don't NEED the money. The govt needs a more hollistic view instead of one cap fits all.

It' s up to you to decide which benefits you will claim if entitled despite not needing them and which you won't. It would cost far more to administrate and they arrived at the figures rationally and on the basis that it's generally the level needed. The alternative is to means test these benefits and you could fill a library with the literature debating the pros and cons of doing that.

sparkycat2

Dunroamin wrote: »

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

The compensation is intended to enable the disabled person to enjoy a quality of life closer to that a able person enjoys. Be that by helping them to meet additional costs incurred due to disability or on things that make them happier to be alive. If the claimant spends the money of things that makes their life seem more worth living and enjoyable it is not money miss spent it is money well spent and as intended. It is part of the intention of the benefit, the purpose of the benefit.

We can judge if the compensation is too high, if the quality of life of the disabled person is higher than the able. By the numbers of people deliberately maiming themselves to the point of severe disability requiring care and mobility needs, so they can claim DLA.

missapril75

FBaby wrote: »

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

This was always my quibble with Income Support. If you had a special diet; special clothing needs; extra laundry costs etc you could get an allowance under Supplementary Benefit to reflect that.

When Income Support replaced Supp Ben, they gave nothing to pay for real extra costs, but they did give Disability Premiums whether or not you had extra costs. And then increased it if you had a healthy spouse. :question:

I don't live in the UK now. My partner is disabled and uses a wheelchair. Other than having to get taxis (and a few more medical appointments than is "normal") our day to day costs are no more than if able bodied.

In the UK my partner would definitely qualify for High Mobility and at least Low Care rate. That would provide nearly £75 a week.

If we were on means tested benefits there would be a further £43 on top, so we'd be above the normal means tested income levels by £118 a week.

Just to pay for a weekly taxi - and that might be covered by some alternative transport provision anyway.

enabledebra

Here's an expert view on disability related costs:

http://www.jrf.org.uk/system/files/1859352375.pdf

or we could carry on speculating...