bedroom tax

skintandscared_2

nannytone wrote: »

cases like the OP are few and far between.
,pst are from people aggected that are told to use their DLA ( as little as £20 a week) to pay the top up instead of using it for its intended use, which is paying for the additional costs that a disability causes

Thankfully you are right nannytone and cases like this are rare. Most of us are truly sympathetic to the plight of disabled people at the moment and are disgusted with the cuts that cause so much hardship. I totally agree with 99% of your posts. But please choose your battles carefully - sympathy is lost when you try and defend people who clearly shouldn't be defended.

bloolagoon

evenasus wrote: »

Struggle? Are you serious?

There are probably thousands of working families who would love the chance to struggle on the same income as the OP.

Yes whilst paying off vast debts, however, as they are on benefits they can go BR without using excess income to pay it off (I certainly don't agree with this, it's just the way it is, and is my personal pet hate).

I read their SOA as benefits included everything, DLA, HB etc. AGain my personal feelings are that DLA is income in part, but many posters insist it is not and mysterywoman has some kind of law that it cannot be counted (not sure on that, but have seen her, nanny tone and others say DLA isn't counted).

Therefore after paying rent, removing DLA and council tax, paying debts they could struggle, once debts have been removed via BR they will have a huge amount of spare income and as this appears to be very soon then as I pointed out to them, the £280 pm they seem to find easily to pay debts, once removed will leave them a much higher income for £65 a month rent.

Benefits for disabled can certainly be high, but on here you can't seem to talk about that (especially with children), so my hands remain under buttocks.

bloolagoon

cianalas wrote: »

from what you are saying you seem to be accepting that is actually correct, not a spoof/troll post? I have read the 'numbers' of people monthly income before but I guess I just skimmed over them before, not really understood or thought about how much that actually is in terms of what a working person would take home after tax and national insurance. I used this link to work it out - http://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php

Again please dont shoot me down as I am truly trying to understand and be clear but can someone explain to me about 'reason for no car expenses mobility car' - is this a separate benefit which should also be included in the total benefit package or part of a DLA package.

People can swap their high mobility component for a mobility car (ie in this case a parent has one for the child's mobility), no costs as insurance, MOT, service, tax etc are included in the mobility scheme.

cianalas

So that is in addition to the £3058? again sorry if I am asking stupid questions I am just trying to understand properly what is being said

bloolagoon

cianalas wrote: »

So that is in addition to the £3058? again sorry if I am asking stupid questions I am just trying to understand properly what is being said

Where do you get £3058?

Their total benefits are £2223 plus wages.

Yes workers even millionaires can get mobility cars, anyone who gets higher rate mobility element can swap their mobility part for a car. There are people who have vast incomes still use this for their child or themselves.

nannytone_2

skintandscared wrote: »

Thankfully you are right nannytone and cases like this are rare. Most of us are truly sympathetic to the plight of disabled people at the moment and are disgusted with the cuts that cause so much hardship. I totally agree with 99% of your posts. But please choose your battles carefully - sympathy is lost when you try and defend people who clearly shouldn't be defended.

im not defending the OP. i am as staggered by the amounts as everyone else.

but because these are the cases that are highlighted in the media, a lot of people seem more than willing to think that every disabled person, or family with a disabled child attracts huge amounts of benefit. and its just not the case, in fact far from it

when posts are case s[ecific, thats fine. but the posts get very general and they start to be attacks on disabled people in general

tpl

nannytone wrote: »

youre not only talking about this post.

you siad ' the benefit fundamentalkists try to shoot down in flames anypne that comments on some cases'

this obviously isnt 'one of those cases' as everyone is in agreeance that the OP should be more than able to cover the additional costs.

the thing that winds us 'fundamentalists# up if when posters on this forum suggest that losing 20% of someones cash income is 'budgetable' when they are already barely managing.

very, very few claimants receive the amounts that the OP is speaking of

oh, for goodness sake.....I will say again, my particular comments about this financial situation were only about this particular post,..not about anyone else's situation. I won't/can't comment on any other situation without the information. If I have commented on other situations it will be written in those particular threads, where the information is given. Anyway, I don't want to get drawn any further into a futile discussion with you.

cianalas

I was reading the SOA monthly income details - £2489 and then adding the daughter's DLA £569 which seems to be in the wrong part of the SOA - is my adding or the addition of the DLA wrong? As I said that is purely a factual effort to understand what is being said so I can rephrase the question - would a millionaire's or any other recipient of high mobility component be additional to the DLA here. I just really want to understand how things work.

nannytone_2

disabled people/families with disabled kiddies are nop different from any other froup of the population.
some go by the book and follow the rules.
ithers play the system. im not saying for a second that this is the case in this circumstance, but there will always be thise whi adapt their lives to maximise benefit, and they are the exception rather than the rule

bloolagoon

nannytone wrote: »

im not defending the OP. i am as staggered by the amounts as everyone else.

but because these are the cases that are highlighted in the media, a lot of people seem more than willing to think that every disabled person, or family with a disabled child attracts huge amounts of benefit. and its just not the case, in fact far from it

when posts are case s[ecific, thats fine. but the posts get very general and they start to be attacks on disabled people in general

Tax credits are increased greatly for each disabled child and added to with severe disabilities. Doing a quick check on HMRC, 1 child with a severe disability gives £7491 pa in tax credits.

This is 1 child in addition to DLA and any other appt benefits.

This is not bashing, I'd never ever want any of my children to have severe needs, nothing can compensate for that, but the figures are not deniable.