Dla/ca

FBaby

can you imagine what would happen when many carers are forced to find work to make ends meet

But not all carers would work if they didn't get CA or worked before they became elligible for it. Many mums claim it for their children when they were and always intended to be stay at home mums regardless of whether their child had a disability or not. They are actually getting an additional income to what they expected in the first place.

I think those who do give up a job to care for someone should be entitled to a much higher allowance whilst those who didn't work before should get nothing.

It would leave those who never worked/gave up work many years ago
who claim that they were intending on going back to work/start work. These should be considered individually.

benniebert

50Twuncle wrote: »

STOP SCAREMONGERING - These are just one option that the government is considering !!
for "WON'T" read "MAY NOT".

Put it another way, do you think that people will be happy if there is a free for all in claiming benefits even when you have over £16,000 in the bank? I don't think so and the new government will believe so.

But we will have to see, but just remember which government said that benefits needed reform hence why ESA and PIP were dreamed up?

benniebert

50Twuncle wrote: »

benniebert : I am still waiting for an answer .

1. Yes considerably so


2. No as I have over £16,000 in the bank and pensions that I paid into throughout my life at the expense of not having holidays, cars and other material objects. Consequently there is no need for me to claim extra from the state even though I would be entitled to an award if I did


I was brought up to look after number 1 as no one else would.

benniebert

50Twuncle wrote: »

If they decided to cut CA from 40% of claimants - can you imagine what would happen when many carers are forced to find work to make ends meet - leaving many disabled people alone for long periods of time with no support.. horrific - they won't get away with thid

They would only cut CA if you exceeded the means tested amount of income coming into the household.
Why would you want to claim CA if you already had more than the government said you needed to live on? Isn't that simply greed?


Or are you in favour of paying out benefits no matter what money they have in the bank or how high their income already is?

benniebert

FBaby wrote: »

I have to say that I also don't understand why DLA is not mean tested when just about every other working adult age benefits are. CB is now means tested, yet we all know that children cost money, about the same to meet their essential needs so why is is different with disabilities.

Different people with different disabilities will need different levels of additional income. Yet as it is, this is irrelevant whem claiming, everyone get the same (within the bandings) regardless of whether they actually need the additional income or not. I think DLA/Carer needs serious reform to adapt to actual financial need rather than assumed need based on the condition.

I strongly believe that some disabled people actually need a much higher income to cope with their disabilities whilst some don't need it at all. I have a number of friends who claim DLA for their children and clearly say that they don't need it as no additional money can help with their child's disability and their household income is such that they don't need DLA to get them a decent life, but they are entitled, so they claim...and spend the money on luxuries because they can.

Yet another friend of ours has had a serious stroke at 50 and this has totally changed his and his wife's life. They had to sell their house and live off the proceed whilst spending money to make his life better as he was left seriously disabled. They are now running out and are worried how they will cope as he is getting weekly private physio sessions to help him with the pain which he can't get on the NHS and weekly counselling sessions because at the moment, he is so depressed, they are scared of the implications. Yet, they might have to stop these or at least seriously reduce them when their savings run out.

To think that both are getting the same amount of benefits and that one is using it to go on exotic holidays whilst the other is worried about the implications of reducing essential sessions really makes me think that the system is just very very wrong as it is now and really needs to be reformed.

It is wrong. I may have radical ideas and opinions, but when you really look at what is happening, as you have, they don't seem radical at all - in fact they make good sense.

50Twuncle

benniebert wrote: »

They would only cut CA if you exceeded the means tested amount of income coming into the household.
Why would you want to claim CA if you already had more than the government said you needed to live on? Isn't that simply greed?


Or are you in favour of paying out benefits no matter what money they have in the bank or how high their income already is?

The government set limits are too low !!

Indie_Kid

If you means test DLA, you means test the blue badge and the other passported benefits. But the person whose partner brings home £100,000 a year who is paralysed needs a blue badge just as much as the couple in the same situation who receive income based benefits.

Oh, and I've seen what carers do (my mum is one; but employed and I have a friend who carers for his severely disabled son whilst holding down a full time job) and for what they do, it already is a pittance. I do remember mum saying it wasn't worth giving up work to care for my brother because of how much money she'd lose.

DLA isn't based on condition. You have to prove you have care and /or mobility needs.

NYM

benniebert wrote: »

It is wrong. I may have radical ideas and opinions, but when you really look at what is happening, as you have, they don't seem radical at all - in fact they make good sense.

Does anyone else post under your username ?

On one hand, you post that you 'use' whatever means you can to claim as much as you can and in others you lambaste people for using the system to claim what they're entitled to !

cbrown372

benniebert wrote: »

1. Yes considerably so


2. No as I have over £16,000 in the bank and pensions that I paid into throughout my life at the expense of not having holidays, cars and other material objects. Consequently there is no need for me to claim extra from the state even though I would be entitled to an award if I did


I was brought up to look after number 1 as no one else would.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5201605

hmmmm

Problem is, who is number 1 today the Easter Bunny?

50Twuncle

cbrown372 wrote: »

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5201605

hmmmm

Problem is, who is number 1 today the Easter Bunny?

The truth will always "out" - well done for spotting that...