MSE News: MPs vote to limit benefit rises to 1%

plum2002

ILW wrote: »

Many min wage jobs are in care, retail etc so cannot go overseas. Rents would follow follow wages if left to the market.

I believe you forgot to read the last part of my first sentence - 'or go into administration' Companies cannot afford to pay the true cost of employment - that is why the Government is supplementing low wages. It's not difficult, do keep up.

dori2o

shedboy94 wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that everyone who receives DLA is a genuine claimant, and do you believe that everyone should should get additional money regardless of whether they incur additional costs or not directly relating to their disability?

Whether you want to belive it or not, the vast majority of people on DLA are genuine, and again, the vast majority do incurr extra costs, some of those costs are less obvious than others. Whether that be due to needing a special diet, costs associated with transport (most disabled people have a need to visit the doctor on a regular basis and this increases petrol/public transport costs for them), costs of equipment, special beds, medications/suppliments/creams/drugs that are not available on the NHS but do have thereputic and healing properties, costs of treatments not available on the NHS, costs associated with home repairs (many people wouold have been able to do these on their own without the need for tradesmen).

I for example cannot use public transport to travel to work due to the changes I have to make from bus-tram-bus etc, and the time it takes plus the walk from the station to work, therefore I am forced to use my car if I want to continue working at the place I work.

Travelling in the car daily is three or four times as expensive as travelling by bus/train/tram in the mornings, and vastly more expensive after 9:30 as I get can travel on public transport for free after 9:30 weekdays and all day Saturday/Sunday/BH.

I have no choice, it is the only way I can travel to work.

I also use the DLA to offset a reduction in the number of hours I work, which was recommended by ATOS (my employers OHA), to help me to balance my work/home life against my disability as a way of improving my attendance. So far it has worked.

If we go for a day out I can now use the Mobility Scooter that has kindly been donated to me by a Charity linked to where I work. However, if we go on a long weekend break, or a weeks holiday in a caravan I cannot get the scooter in the car along with the luggage as I only have a small car (which is mine by the way not motabilitys) so I have to hire one from where ever it is we go. That is more expense.

The scooter, I had hoped, may have allowed me to try using public transport as it would have cut out much of the walking from the tram station/bus stops. However that is a non starter as Metrolink and First Bus do not allow Mobility Scooters on board.

I also have to pay for Mobility Scooter insurance as part of the T&C's of being provided a scooter, plus all the maintenance costs, which I have no problem with considering I have been provided with a £1700 scooter. It is still however an expense I wouldn't have if I was not disabled.

So, whilst you may not see that money has been spent on helping as person with their disabilities, it doesn't mean there are not expenses that you do not see or know about.

dori2o

ILW wrote: »

Or the other option is to stop all working benefits. Businesses will have to pay more to attract any staff and workers will have to learn to live within their means.
I do believe that the idea of getting virtually everyone one benefits was a Nulabour/Gordon Brown idea which was actually confirmed by Ed Balls on the TV last weekend.

Great idea. Make millions homeless without the ability to earn sufficently to pay even for just the essentils.

Cutting working benefits will not force employers to pay more. It may in actual fact cause them to pay less knowing that Joe Bloggs has no choice, work or don't eat.

One thing is for certain, you seem to under the false belief (brought on the the Governments propaganda and reading toomuch of the DM) that welfare spending is bankrupting the country. It couldn't be further from the truth, unfortunately you are too stupid to understand that.

Your idea however, continuing the theme of being stupid, WOULD bankrupt the country.

ILW

dori2o wrote: »

Great idea. Make millions homeless without the ability to earn sufficently to pay even for just the essentils.

Cutting working benefits will not force employers to pay more. It may in actual fact cause them to pay less knowing that Joe Bloggs has no choice, work or don't eat.

One thing is for certain, you seem to under the false belief (brought on the the Governments propaganda and reading toomuch of the DM) that welfare spending is bankrupting the country. It couldn't be further from the truth, unfortunately you are too stupid to understand that.

Your idea however, continuing the theme of being stupid, WOULD bankrupt the country.

The country for years has been spending more than it has been taking in taxes, the majority of that spend going on welfare or the administration of welfare (I include NHS). How can that be sustained?

shedboy94

dori2o wrote: »

Whether you want to belive it or not, the vast majority of people on DLA are genuine, and again, the vast majority do incurr extra costs, some of those costs are less obvious than others. Whether that be due to needing a special diet, costs associated with transport (most disabled people have a need to visit the doctor on a regular basis and this increases petrol/public transport costs for them), costs of equipment, special beds, medications/suppliments/creams/drugs that are not available on the NHS but do have thereputic and healing properties, costs of treatments not available on the NHS, costs associated with home repairs (many people wouold have been able to do these on their own without the need for tradesmen).

I for example cannot use public transport to travel to work due to the changes I have to make from bus-tram-bus etc, and the time it takes plus the walk from the station to work, therefore I am forced to use my car if I want to continue working at the place I work.

Travelling in the car daily is three or four times as expensive as travelling by bus/train/tram in the mornings, and vastly more expensive after 9:30 as I get can travel on public transport for free after 9:30 weekdays and all day Saturday/Sunday/BH.

I have no choice, it is the only way I can travel to work.

I also use the DLA to offset a reduction in the number of hours I work, which was recommended by ATOS (my employers OHA), to help me to balance my work/home life against my disability as a way of improving my attendance. So far it has worked.

If we go for a day out I can now use the Mobility Scooter that has kindly been donated to me by a Charity linked to where I work. However, if we go on a long weekend break, or a weeks holiday in a caravan I cannot get the scooter in the car along with the luggage as I only have a small car (which is mine by the way not motabilitys) so I have to hire one from where ever it is we go. That is more expense.

The scooter, I had hoped, may have allowed me to try using public transport as it would have cut out much of the walking from the tram station/bus stops. However that is a non starter as Metrolink and First Bus do not allow Mobility Scooters on board.

I also have to pay for Mobility Scooter insurance as part of the T&C's of being provided a scooter, plus all the maintenance costs, which I have no problem with considering I have been provided with a £1700 scooter. It is still however an expense I wouldn't have if I was not disabled.

So, whilst you may not see that money has been spent on helping as person with their disabilities, it doesn't mean there are not expenses that you do not see or know about.

I didn't ask about your additional costs, I asked if everyone should get money, even if they incur no additional costs? Should alcoholics get additional money to enable them to buy more alcohol for example? Children with ADHD (used to be called naughty when I was young)......what additional expenses would they incur? Children with Asthma.....inhalers are free on NHS (I know because my child has asthma, but I don't claim DLA)

Morlock

ILW wrote: »

...most single mothers chose to have children they are incapable of supporting.

Bigoted rubbish from you as usual.

Do you think that the majority of single parents work or not?

dori2o

shedboy94 wrote: »

I didn't ask about your additional costs, I asked if everyone should get money, even if they incur no additional costs? Should alcoholics get additional money to enable them to buy more alcohol for example? Children with ADHD (used to be called naughty when I was young)......what additional expenses would they incur? Children with Asthma.....inhalers are free on NHS (I know because my child has asthma, but I don't claim DLA)

I see you have taken the Daily Mails bait hook line and sinker.

Who are these people who don't incurr ANY additional costs?

Instead of believing the Governments propaganda, why not look into the actual figures of Alcoholics/Asthma sufferers who claim DLA.

As for ADHD, I guess you're another idiot who claims the illness doesn't exist despite heavy medical evidene that it a very real condition that childern and adults suffer from.

I fell sorry for those who had that condition as children and were simply written off as naughty and didn't get the help that is desperately needed for any child with any of the behaviour conditions.

As for costs, again there are many for people who suffer from ADHD, you're just too ignorant to see it.

ILW

Morlock wrote: »

Bigoted rubbish from you as usual.

Do you think that the majority of single parents work or not?

Working is not the point, if state support is more than any contribution.

dori2o

ILW wrote: »

Working is not the point, if state support is more than any contribution.

The vast majority of the population, other than probably the top 5-10% get more out of the country than they pay in.

I assume then you suggest ALL forms of state support, roads, lighting, police, army, fire, paramendics, health services, libraries, government employees etc are removed from everyone and everyone should pay a fee for using these services at the point of use?

ILW

dori2o wrote: »

The vast majority of the population, other than probably the top 5-10% get more out of the country than they pay in.

I assume then you suggest ALL forms of state support, roads, lighting, police, army, fire, paramendics, health services, libraries, government employees etc are removed from everyone and everyone should pay a fee for using these services at the point of use?

People should feel a sense of duty to limit the amount of support they require and strive to be self sufficent. Or that is my opinion anyway. Others feel the state owes them a living whatever they do or don't do.