MSE News: Disability and carer's allowance claimaints to suffer as inflation falls

tomtontom

schrodie wrote: »

No it certainly doesn't.

It only does if you're thick enough to believe the guff that's written in right-wing rags like the daily mail.

In the case of those in receipt of DLA at one of the higher rates plus means tested benefits, it does. I'm sure you can do the maths for yourself

Indie_Kid

tomtontom wrote: »

In the case of those in receipt of DLA at one of the higher rates plus means tested benefits, it does. I'm sure you can do the maths for yourself

They're very likely to have a lot of money swallowed up by extra costs, possibly a car from Motability, etc. In other words - they're on that level of benefits because of having a severe disability and are likely to have that much left over to pay for these luxuries we all supposedly have.

tomtontom

Indie_Kid wrote: »

They're very likely to have a lot of money swallowed up by extra costs, possibly a car from Motability, etc. In other words - they're on that level of benefits because of having a severe disability and are likely to have that much left over to pay for these luxuries we all supposedly have.

Are they? There are additional costs associated with disability, but can every claimant honestly say that all their DLA, SDP, DP etc is used solely for those costs? I don't think many can.

Indie_Kid

tomtontom wrote: »

Are they? There are additional costs associated with disability, but can every claimant honestly say that all their DLA, SDP, DP etc is used solely for those costs? I don't think many can.

Urgh, this discussion again. Many can say that. Many of us do have extra disability costs, hence higher benefits.

tomtontom

Indie_Kid wrote: »

Urgh, this discussion again. Many can say that. Many of us do have extra disability costs, hence higher benefits.

So you agree - many do not and use their additional income on what could be deemed luxuries, a short holiday or two perhaps?

Indie_Kid

tomtontom wrote: »

So you agree - many do not and use their additional income on what could be deemed luxuries, a short holiday or two perhaps?

Short holidays aren't always a luxury.

matelodave

Benefits are there to help people not starve, they aren't really there to enable them to live in a manner better than the poor bloke down the road who goes out to work every day to pay for them.

I note from #13 the comment about motability - I'd love to have a shiny new car every three years (all expenses except fuel paid for) and I know a few who both get a nice new up-market motor on the scheme. In my view the motability scheme should be for a basic car without all the lights bells and whistles.
It's not up to the rest of us to fund a BMW or ginormous 4x4 when we have to go to work in a 10 year old Fiesta to pay for it.

Likewise short holidays - why should we fund someone to go on holiday when we can't afford it ourselves even though we are working.

The whole idea is to live within your means, not someone else's means. Benefits should be at or preferably below the level of the minimum wage however many kids you had or wherever you lived or whatever you think you need so there's an incentive to go out an earn.
You wouldn't be any worse off than the bloke who earned it for you but you wouldn't or shouldn't be better off either.

nannytone_2

matelodave wrote: »

Benefits are there to help people not starve, they aren't really there to enable them to live in a manner better than the poor bloke down the road who goes out to work every day to pay for them.

I note from #13 the comment about motability - I'd love to have a shiny new car every three years (all expenses except fuel paid for) and I know a few who both get a nice new up-market motor on the scheme. In my view the motability scheme should be for a basic car without all the lights bells and whistles.
It's not up to the rest of us to fund a BMW or ginormous 4x4 when we have to go to work in a 10 year old Fiesta to pay for it.

would you also like their disability to go along with their shiny new car?

and for your future information...
the tax payer DOESNT pay for the car.
the cars are provided by the charity motability.
the recipient pays motability from their disability benefit ...
money they would receive REGARDLESS of whether they trade it in for a car or not.
so it costs YOU the taxpayer NOTHING extra than they already receive.

as for disability benefits only covering basiscs ...
there are 2 types of disability benefit.
out of work benefits like ESA.
they are paid above the rate of HSA for a reason. it reflects the fact that the people receiving ESA are much more likely to be unable to work long term and that they need more than basic benefits as there are long terms costs associated with being unable to work. replacing white goods, furniture for example.
they are also intended to go a little way to compensating people for the disadvanyage they are at when it comes to gaining employment.

by your reasoning, someone who has been disabled since birth and never been able to work should NEVER be able to take a holiday, even though the reason they cannot work is none of their making.
the fact that they are physically at as disadvantage should mean that they deserve to live hand to mouth until the day they die? most would love the opportunity to work and provide for themselves and pay for their own 'luxuries, but unfortunately that is a choice that is denied them.
if you have no money, you have the ability to earn... yet want to force subsitance style living on those that arent fortunate enough to be as healthy as you?

people like you do make me angry!

Indie_Kid

matelodave wrote: »

Likewise short holidays - why should we fund someone to go on holiday when we can't afford it ourselves even though we are working.

By going on a short break, I am giving my parents a much needed break.

Feyfangirl

Both my parents are carers for my youngest brother who suffers from severe autism and other conditions, they are on carers allowance/income support; and they work really hard; they haven't had so much as a cup of coffee to themselves. Carers actually SAVE taxpayer/government money; after all the care industry is actually extremely overstretched as it is. They have tried and failed constantly to seek help from the council for respite care; none of them are equipped to deal with him, due to their being a health and safety risk to staff and other service users.

I personally have Asperger's Syndrome and other health conditions, I am 20 years old and currently looking for a job, have been to numerous interviews and currently trying to make ends meet on my JSA and volunteering in the meantime. Life on benefits isn't the easy ride that some people make out; it can be a nightmare trying to care for those you love who have a condition of which they cannot help with next to no support, in fact they get judged by people who are so say there to help them.

Walk a mile in someone else's shoes before you judge.