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

missapril75

FBaby wrote: »

I do understand what you say though about the cost of evaluating the actual costs for individual people

I don't see that as a massive issue. The alternative needn't mean assessing the needs of every disabled individual.

I'll bring up the old system of Supplementary Benefit again. It allowed for additional REAL costs to be covered. And, yes, they were sometimes a bit fiddly, but once calculated that was pretty much it; they didn't need constant revision.

The important part is that system worked hand in hand with other factors, like Unemployment Benefit being higher than basic Supp Ben (unlike now where JSA rates are the same whether you paid the contributions or not) and there was Earnings Related Supplement. A full Retirement Pension was also higher than basic Supp Ben.

It meant that, usually, benefits and pensions met the needs of most people. For the few who had other expenses, there was Supp Ben.

Similarly, DLA could have been set at rates a bit more appropriate (realistic?) so that people didn't get more, or a lot more, than was "needed" just so others could get "enough."

For the few that didn't get enough for their individual real costs, then a separate needs assessment could be done. Thus you retain a simplified system but one that can still target and meet real need.

Or the government can carry on splashing the cash regardless of true need. Or just cutting it for everyone haphazardly as usual.

sparkycat2

missapril75 wrote: »

Similarly, DLA could have been set at rates a bit more appropriate (realistic?) so that people didn't get more, or a lot more, than was "needed" just so others could get "enough."

For the few that didn't get enough for their individual real costs, then a separate needs assessment could be done. Thus you retain a simplified system but one that can still target and meet real need.

Or the government can carry on splashing the cash regardless of true need. Or just cutting it for everyone haphazardly as usual.

To get DLA care component you need care and if you want to carry on viewing it as solely for provision of care it is extremely cheap.

DLA HRC £77.45 a week to provide care day and night
DLA MRC £51.85 a week to provide care throughout the day or watching over them at night.
DLA LRC £20.55 a week to provide care some of the day

To DLA HRC or MRC in some cases you could add
Carer's Allowance £58.20

If instead you want to meet real costs does that mean you want social services or the NHS providing realistic and adequate levels of care support for people currently reliant on family and friends or do you want to carry on relying on family and friends providing the care, if so is the proposition to increase carer's allowance to more than £58.45 a week, or just to cut the disabled person's benefit

Is the idea that in situations where disabled people live in a household that cares for them. So the household is saving the tax payer money by standing by and caring for their relative, as opposed to their relative being a hospital inpatient or residential care home resident or otherwise more heavily relaint on local authority or NHS care provison. That more money can be saved by cutting the disabled person's benefit.

Those living in residential care homes do not get the care component of DLA so on that basis would you remove the care component of DLA completely and only pay money directly for care costs. In which case how much should carer allowance be for caring for someone throughout the day or watching over them at night, or carring for them night and day. Or will it be nothing on the basis that friends and relatives should provide care for free.

I view DLA care components and Carer's Allowance as already being care on the extremely cheap.

missapril75

sparkycat2 wrote: »

....That more money can be saved by cutting the disabled person's benefit.....

It sounds as if you assume that anyone questioning the appropriateness of DLA and the amounts involved is in favour of supporting the government in cutting benefits.

clemmatis

missapril75 wrote: »

It sounds as if you assume that anyone questioning the appropriateness of DLA and the amounts involved is in favour of supporting the government in cutting benefits.

I'd say that's born of experience, unfortunately. After all, a thread that began with a question about possible future assets of £6000 turned into something of an orgy of attacks on DLA.

Similarly, DLA could have been set at rates a bit more appropriate (realistic?) so that people didn't get more, or a lot more, than was "needed" just so others could get "enough."

As a number of[posters here have said, DLA is, according to the DWP, a contribution towards the additional costs of being disabled. And the figures show that, the figures sparkycat2 just posted show it. Of course we could titrate DLA to fit exact costed needs -- in theory, anyway -- and if we did, possibly that would mean some genuine claimants would be cheaper; possibly. Certainly, many would be more expensive, and perhaps most would.

Or the government can carry on splashing the cash regardless of true need.

You'll be ecstatic to know that DLA is being abolished, that its replacement will be more difficult to get, and that that will be, in large part, because the criteria will change; so many genuine claimants now won't get it.

It sounds as if you assume that anyone questioning the appropriateness of DLA and the amounts involved is in favour of supporting the government in cutting benefits

Gosh. Well, you did say

so that people didn't get more, or a lot more, than was "needed" just so others could get "enough."

How, by the way, do you feel about Child Benefit? Wouldn't you, an awful lot of people who get it don't need it. Is the government to carry on splashing the cash regardless of true need? Shouldn't every child's exact needs be costed? Aren't a lot of people getting more, or a lot more, than is "needed" so others can get "enough"?

princessdon

How, by the way, do you feel about Child Benefit? Wouldn't you, an awful lot of people who get it don't need it. Is the government to carry on splashing the cash regardless of true need? Shouldn't every child's exact needs be costed? Aren't a lot of people getting more, or a lot more, than is "needed" so others can get "enough"?


But they ARE "means testing it" - well not really means testing - but removing it from some. It should be means tested (properly) but at least it isn't universal now.

clemmatis

princessdon wrote: »

But they ARE "means testing it" - well not really means testing - but removing it from some. It should be means tested (properly) but at least it isn't universal now.

Ah.. I thought they'd only change Child Tax Benefit.

Guardian wrote:

Parents earning up to £60,000 will still be entitled to some child benefit payments after the chancellor watered down his plans to reform the system
...
Instead of removing the benefit as soon as one parent fell into the higher rate band, Osborne said the reduction would be tapered out once one parent earned £50,000 at a rate of 1% for every £100 earned over that threshold. Once one parent earned £60,000 a family would lose the benefit entirely.
...
The change means a family with one parent earning £25,000 and one earning £45,000 will still receive the full benefit, while a family with one parent earning £25,000 and a second earning £55,000 will receive £527.80 a year for their first child and £348.40 for each younger child.
...

The chancellor said that under the new system 90% of families, around 750,000 households, would continue to receive child benefit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/21/child-benefit-threshold-rises-50000-2012-budget

Well, I suppose DLA means testing could be modelled on that.

missapril75

clemmatis wrote: »

I'd say that's born of experience, unfortunately. After all, a thread that began with a question about possible future assets of £6000 turned into something of an orgy of attacks on DLA.

With such a tabloid style response I'm not sure it's worth responding to you but I'll give it a try.

As a number of posters here have said, DLA is, according to the DWP, a contribution towards the additional costs of being disabled.

And a number of posters have also given personal experience of not needing it. None of them have suggested the other view is not valid.

You'll be ecstatic to know that DLA is being abolished,

Why on earth would you say that? You wouldn't be making the most stupid, ridiculous assumption about someone you don't know would you? Dearie me.

that its replacement will be more difficult to get, and that that will be, in large part, because the criteria will change; so many genuine claimants now won't get it.

What else would you expect from a Tory government with a history of such things?

FBaby

You can't compare CB because no child cost nothing. It might be that some families can financially support them without the help of benefits but they will inevitably spend money on them A LOT! However it is not always the case with DLA. If you need care to cook and get dressed and have a lovely partner to do all that for you it will not cost you more because you can't do it yourself.

I feel I'm repeating myself over and over I don't have an issue with DLA or people claiming it even if they earn a decent salary as long as that money does go directly on the disability. I have an issue with those who don't need that money to help them with their disability but spend it on luxuries they wouldn't be able to afford without DLA. It might be a minority I really Hope so unfortunately I know a few who admit to fall in that category.