If they TAX Disability benefits(DLA/PIP/ESA)How much £ to lose? Tax calculation Help!

billywilly

dori2o wrote: »

The thing to consider before trying to calculate how much worse off you may be if DLA is taxed is at what level of income it becomes taxable.

It isn't necessarily the case that it will just be added to other taxable income and taxed from £10600 upwards. It could be the case that it only becomes taxable if you have an income in excess of £50k etc.

I fully expect that the issue of whether DLA/PIP becomes taxable will be addressed in the up coming budget. Changes won't be immediate and so there will be plenty of time to discuss the effects of the changes.

Either way, ALL benefits should be made taxable. It won't affect means tested ones as they will not exceed the tax personal allowance. However ALL income over £10600 be it benefits, wages or whatever should be taxed.
At least that way, benefit awards will be worth more to those who are on a low income.

dori2o

billywilly wrote: »

Either way, ALL benefits should be made taxable. It won't affect means tested ones as they will not exceed the tax personal allowance. However ALL income over £10600 be it benefits, wages or whatever should be taxed.
At least that way, benefit awards will be worth more to those who are on a low income.

The problem with that is that is sort of defeats the object of calculating what levels the benefits should be set at. DLA/PIP isn't set by just plucking a figure from the air, it was calculated based on actual additional costs from a selection of different people sufferring various different disabilities. All you do by taxing it is reduce the amount of money a disabled person with another sourse of income, which in the majority of cases is likely to be from employment, has to spend on their additional costs. This could actually lead to some disabled people being unable to continue working if they were unable to afford to pay these additional costs. Is this what we want?

Certainly I would have to reconsider the ability to remain in work should my DLA/PIP be reduced/taxed as I spend all of it and more on additional costs which currently allow me to remain fit enough to continue working.

billywilly

dori2o wrote: »

The problem with that is that is sort of defeats the object of calculating what levels the benefits should be set at. DLA/PIP isn't set by just plucking a figure from the air, it was calculated based on actual additional costs from a selection of different people sufferring various different disabilities. All you do by taxing it is reduce the amount of money a disabled person with another sourse of income, which in the majority of cases is likely to be from employment, has to spend on their additional costs. This could actually lead to some disabled people being unable to continue working if they were unable to afford to pay these additional costs. Is this what we want?

Certainly I would have to reconsider the ability to remain in work should my DLA/PIP be reduced/taxed as I spend all of it and more on additional costs which currently allow me to remain fit enough to continue working.

So presumably you would think that it is acceptable for someone to claim and be awarded PIP/DLA/AA and have a household income of around £100,000 a year?
And that you would be more than happy if some household with that level of other income would get the same as someone who is trying to live on Income Based ESA?

Our beloved PM for example? He who claimed DLA for his child whilst at the same time earning that level of income on his own merit ignoring what his wife was also earning.
And not wanting to be biased, the same went for Gordon Brown when he was PM, he had his snout in the DLA trough for his child.

Means testing of all benefits is long overdue as is the taxing of them if the household of two adults has an income of say double the tax free allowance - £21,200 pa and £10600 if it is a single household.

I personally don't see anything wrong in asking those over that amount to make a contribution towards the costs of their disability.

billywilly

dori2o wrote: »

The problem with that is that is sort of defeats the object of calculating what levels the benefits should be set at. DLA/PIP isn't set by just plucking a figure from the air, it was calculated based on actual additional costs from a selection of different people sufferring various different disabilities. All you do by taxing it is reduce the amount of money a disabled person with another sourse of income, which in the majority of cases is likely to be from employment, has to spend on their additional costs. This could actually lead to some disabled people being unable to continue working if they were unable to afford to pay these additional costs. Is this what we want?

Certainly I would have to reconsider the ability to remain in work should my DLA/PIP be reduced/taxed as I spend all of it and more on additional costs which currently allow me to remain fit enough to continue working.

So presumably you would think that it is acceptable for someone to claim and be awarded PIP/DLA/AA and have a household income of around £100,000 a year?
And that you would be more than happy if some household with that level of other income would get the same as someone who is trying to live on Income Based ESA?

Our beloved PM for example? He who claimed DLA for his child whilst at the same time earning that level of income on his own merit ignoring what his wife was also earning.
And not wanting to be biased, the same went for Gordon Brown when he was PM, he had his snout in the DLA trough for his child.

Means testing of all benefits is long overdue as is the taxing of them if the household of two adults has an income of say double the tax free allowance - £21,200 pa and £10600 if it is a single household.

I personally don't see anything wrong in asking those over that amount to make a contribution towards the costs of their disability.

I would also add that the ability to get a Motability car is means tested. How can it be right that a household of two adults with one or both working earning in excess of those figures be allowed to have a subsidised car when they can afford to buy or lease their own quite easilly

merlin68

Well you had a motability car with your 85k in savings, Billywilly.

billywilly

merlin68 wrote: »

Well you had a motability car with your 85k in savings, Billywilly.

Yes for a short time, but I also owned a new car in addition. The Motability one was for my sole use and too damn small to do anything with it. The family car however is a 7 seater which is a lot more suitable for our needs.

GlasweJen

I think it should only be applied to the claimant, ignoring their partners income, or taxing it above the £22K mark.

2 x NMW is a joke in terms of working out if a household can afford a disability, do you have any idea how much a decent wheelchair costs? Or how can you afford a carer to come in on 2 x NMW, including paying them a pension at 1% of their income and being liable for insurance, tax and have to pay them at least minimum wage.

Disabled people are disadvantaged at finding work, vulnerable in relationships and have had enough upheaval with the welfare reforms, why not pick on families with millions of kids or the tax evading companies who can well afford it but don't want to upset their precious share holders.

dori2o

GlasweJen wrote: »

I think it should only be applied to the claimant, ignoring their partners income, or taxing it above the £22K mark.

2 x NMW is a joke in terms of working out if a household can afford a disability, do you have any idea how much a decent wheelchair costs? Or how can you afford a carer to come in on 2 x NMW, including paying them a pension at 1% of their income and being liable for insurance, tax and have to pay them at least minimum wage.

Disabled people are disadvantaged at finding work, vulnerable in relationships and have had enough upheaval with the welfare reforms, why not pick on families with millions of kids or the tax evading companies who can well afford it but don't want to upset their precious share holders.

TBH I think even £22k per person is still too low to consider it being ‘taxed‘.

The average salary in the uk is around £26.5k and in most places in the country people would struggle to live on this.

If it has to be taxed/means tested then it certainly should not be considered to be done so on any income below £50k and should only be calculated based on the claimants income not the household.

I fear however that DLA/PIP will not be the only disabled support that the Tories hit hard. Those of us who receive help from Access to Work should also be concerned as I believe that this will be significantly restricted after July 8th, despite the fact the Tories claim to want to help the disabled into work and this is by far the best way to help them do this.

Many employers have already expressed concerns at current plans to limit AtW and have suggested they would no longer be able to consider disabled people for employment if the funding for specialist equipment/travel was no longer available/cut.

IMO we (the disabled) are on the verge of being taken back 20+ years in terms of the progress that has been made in helping the disabled live as normal lives as possible and stay in work/return to work.

These changes to DLA etc are just the first in a long line and I fully expect drastic changes to not only welfare but aso the Equality Act which protets the disabled from dicrimination at home and at work.

nannytone_2

its a bit disingenuous to say directly that people are going to be taxed on disability benefits.
whilst andy says that he received DLA and his disability costs were non existent, there are many more, for who this is untrue.
i pay 60% of my DLA as co payments towards the cost of my PA.
the additional amount is paid out in fuel, parking and help towards the upkeep of her vehicle.

so i should be taxed on services?

billywilly

nannytone wrote: »

its a bit disingenuous to say directly that people are going to be taxed on disability benefits.
whilst andy says that he received DLA and his disability costs were non existent, there are many more, for who this is untrue.
i pay 60% of my DLA as co payments towards the cost of my PA.
the additional amount is paid out in fuel, parking and help towards the upkeep of her vehicle.

so i should be taxed on services?

As I pointed out before and nobody gave me a straight answer.

Do you think it is right if the household income is say £100,000 pa that they should receive DLA/PIP/AA at the same rate as someone who is just about managing to scrape a life together on IS/ESA?

Surely it is only fair that if you have that level of income you should use it to pay for the extras that your disability creates and not be able to claim any additional income/benefits?

Both Cameron and Brown set themselves up as poor examples when they each claimed DLA for their children. They had enough surplus money to cover the costs without recourse to public funds.

And then what about those that don't have these 'extra' costs? Should they still entitled to an award in the same way and for the same amount as someone whose award doesn't come close to matching the 'extra' costs?