Council Tax Support 500% increase in Council Tax - not so supportive

pipkin71

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Do you know how many carers we have in this country working for a minimum of 35 hours a week on £60 a week?!

Young carers don't receive any money and in some instances can often do as much as adult carers.

mysterywoman10

Absolutely true!! my link above hopefully highlights the overall massive problem as a country we face.

pipkin71

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Absolutely true!! my link above hopefully highlights the overall massive problem as a country we face.

I think carers do a fantastic job, whether or not they receive carer's allowance and they are not as highly regarded as they should. It can be a difficukt task, but often one done out of love and there should be more support for carers out there.

mysterywoman10

Very true Pipkin and with that I will bid you are very good night. x

mumps

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

I would go further actually if you knew anything about disability you will know that carers of this country save it a fortune!!

My family as you refer to them were higher rate tax payers and had it not been for my parents help we would not have survived. So I consider myself fortunate that I was in that position because many do not have that to fall back on.

So be careful what you wish for because to keep a severely disabled person or child in care costs a hell of a lot more.

Do you know how many carers we have in this country working for a minimum of 35 hours a week on £60 a week?!

What about the carers working for a minimum of 35 hours a week who get nothing, because we do another job as well. But how can it all be paid for? I think there has to be a limit.

mysterywoman10

By targeting those most in need.

The link actually mainly refers to unpaid carers and yes working full time and caring is very hard. Atlhough you can receive carer's allowance and earn up to £100 a week as I'm sure you are aware.

The point being if someone does it long term and ends up making themselves unable to care through working 70 hours a week in two jobs then it will cost more money if they are no longer able to care for their loved one?

Another way of looking at it is, if all carers were paid NMW for caring a minimum 35 hours a week for their loved one. Wouldn't this free up many jobs for others? Rather than struggling to do two full time jobs?

sunnyone

pipkin71 wrote: »

I agree that the rates set out by social services can be much higher than you would arrange yourself - for example, here the allowance, which they give for night time care is around £36 per hour but other agencies offer night-time care at a cheaper rate so if you don't qualify for direct payments, it is cheaper to organise things yourself.

I employ two carers directly and I pay both a fair rate for the job they do.


Direct payments do give you a lot of control with regards the carers you pay for though. I couldn't pay someone who lives with me, except in exceptional circumstances, which they would have to agree to, but no idea what those exceptional circumstances would be, but I can choose who meets my care needs.

We are not eligable for direct payment, we might be eligable soon when my new wet room is payed for/converted but we havnt even got as far as getting estimates yet but I would like it dont ASAP as my virual wet room is now unsuitable for me.

I qualify as exceptional needs in my area because my husband has had a stroke/kidney failure/heart failure etc. which has left him severely disabled too.

barnaby-bear

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

I am all for ideas and advice but I really do find it unacceptable when posters start telling people "they should move" as a solution, this is clearly a last resort for anyone and they don't really need telling.

For everyone else, in private rental, a mortgaged house or lodging wheter working or not; if income changes, moving is the often the only option... not just the last resort. In private rentals you often have to move once a year and take the hit - so many people on equivalent incomes have to top up their rent in private and move frequently that people just don't get the social housing mindset that they might have to do one move or pay for something.... the luxury of a spare room and stable tenure is something most people haven't got and when there's a deficit *something* has to be cut... plus psychologically the unfairness to those in private rental grates - why should they subsidise a spare room when they are expected to move at 2months notice frequently and don't get spare rooms?

mysterywoman10

I totally agree that the private rented sector needs to be far more strictly regulated and more security given to tenants. This would probably save a lot more money to the state as well in terms of HB.

I am not talking about people in either sector who could easily move.

100,000 affected homes have been adapted and paid for, so unless the person who it was adapated for is no longer there or there is a need I would agree yes they could move. But if they happen to have a room lift going into a box room it's hardly their fault is it? So why should they take a cut in benefits and clearly they can't move or if they did another property would have to be adapted. The box room with a lift in it is no longer a bedroom anyway.

If the legislation had made allowances for these situations and the above is just one example, then in principle I would not object to it.

I hope that clarifies my stance.

gayleanne

Wales isn't affected this year, don't know about next year though.