Permitted Savings

Mojisola

confuseddaughter wrote: »

Do I remember rightly that an Irish couple who won the lottery were still allowed to keep their motability car as well as keep their full Guaranteed Pension Credit payments?

As DLA isn't means tested, it doesn't matter what your savings are when you claim it.

Cameron used to claim DLA for his disabled son.

evenasus

Mojisola wrote: »

As DLA isn't means tested, it doesn't matter what your savings are when you claim it.

It's wrong and should be stopped.

SandraScarlett

evenasus wrote: »

It's wrong and should be stopped.

I can't see what's wrong with it. It's surely more worthy giving those who are disabled their allowance, than rewarding someone who has a huge family, and no intention of seeking work?


xx

Indie_Kid

evenasus wrote: »

It's wrong and should be stopped.

Why? Why should a disabled person be financially worse off because they have a disability? For some, it's the only way to get a blue badge, which for obvious reasons, shouldn't be means tested.

And how do you decide where to draw the line? There are many disabled people out there whose disability costs them far in excess of what their DLA is. So, they're already financially worse off. Why make them worse off even more because they have a working partner / have savings? Which may be used to pay for their care later in life or the expensive equipment they need?

evenasus

SandraScarlett wrote: »

I can't see what's wrong with it. It's surely more worthy giving those who are disabled their allowance, than rewarding someone who has a huge family, and no intention of seeking work?

Sorry, I didn't mean DLA should be stopped. I meant that it shouldn't not be means tested.

Why on earth should someone who has millions in savings be given DLA? Surely, it should go to the disabled people who really need it.

Indie_Kid

evenasus wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't mean DLA should be stopped. I meant that it shouldn't not be means tested.

Why on earth should someone who has millions in savings be given DLA? Surely, it should go to the disabled people who really need it.

If you means test DLA, you have to means test AA too. That disabled person with millions in the bank may still really need their blue badge, which for them, DLA may be the only way of getting one.

confuseddaughter_2

evenasus wrote: »

It's wrong and should be stopped.

I agree with you. If you have enough cash in the bank to buy your own car why can it be right that you are still entitled to DLA and a car? Shouldn't it be a case of making sure that those that can't afford one get one to help with their disability? Am I right in thinking that like what I am sure I heard a while back, someone that wins a few million can still get financial help if they have a disability? I don't understand that logic.

confuseddaughter_2

Indie_Kid wrote: »

If you means test DLA, you have to means test AA too. That disabled person with millions in the bank may still really need their blue badge, which for them, DLA may be the only way of getting one.

They should means test all benefits including Attendance and DLA. I would be shocked and annoyed if my dad won millions and still expected his DLA payments. Likewise for my mum, she wouldn't need her Attendance money. what is £80 a week when you have millions in the bank earning you about £700 a week in interest per million (yes I had to use my calculator - there were too many noughts for my fingers!)?
As for the Blue Badge, isn't there a scheme where you can get one of those from the council without having a DLA award? There must be as you can't get one if you are on Attendance and you see plenty of older people with them?

frasersmum123

It won't be stopped anytime soon because David Cameron claimed DLA for his son, so means testing it would bring a media storm down on the government.

confuseddaughter_2

frasersmum123 wrote: »

It won't be stopped anytime soon because David Cameron claimed DLA for his son, so means testing it would bring a media storm down on the government.

Maybe not with this current government, but what about the next one? It has already been made clear that further cuts to benefits will have to be made as from next year the likes of which will dwarf what we have already seen. Also, pensioners and the elderly have escaped any of current cuts but there is a growing argument from the general population that they should be hit hard after the election. Why should they be treated as a 'special case'.