Transferring Carer's Allowance, Help

Lanzarote1938

nannytone wrote: »

DLA is to pay for the increased needs ( such as nappies and mobility aids) for the child and not for the care they are given.

So should DLA still be paid if there are no extra needs that cost money?

ab1982

nannytone wrote: »

if you had to give up work and forgo a full time wage that would be easy?

We have and no its not easy.

nannytone_2

Lanzarote1938 wrote: »

So should DLA still be paid if there are no extra needs that cost money?

i personally don't think it should be.
but the cost of assessing everyone almost constantly for changing needs would probably be enormous.

i don't think that just because someone is a parent, they should have to give up everything for an indefinite amount of time because of a child having additional needs.

speaking personally, my son in law had to give up a well paid full time job to care for the boy after he became ill. my daughter continued to work full time, but they lost around 25k a year ( at the time) and gained £50 a week.
hardly the cash cow that many portray it to be

ab1982

For what its worth I think childcare, either specialist or standard, should be subsidised so its the same rate for everyone. Set it at a very low amount, say £20 a day so its possible for people to work if they want to.

missbiggles1

nannytone wrote: »

i personally don't think it should be.
but the cost of assessing everyone almost constantly for changing needs would probably be enormous.

i don't think that just because someone is a parent, they should have to give up everything for an indefinite amount of time because of a child having additional needs.

speaking personally, my son in law had to give up a well paid full time job to care for the boy after he became ill. my daughter continued to work full time, but they lost around 25k a year ( at the time) and gained £50 a week.
hardly the cash cow that many portray it to be

But, TBF, if their child hadn't had disabilities and they'd both carried on working full time they would have had childcare to pay, so financially that isn't a fair comparison.

nannytone_2

missbiggles1 wrote: »

But, TBF, if their child hadn't had disabilities and they'd both carried on working full time they would have had childcare to pay, so financially that isn't a fair comparison.

so a loss of 24k a year and a gain of 2.6k a year.
that evens up with childcare doesn't it?
and many on here think they shouldn't have rec lived the 2.6k

they both worked until the boy became ill and their standard of living dropped enormously as a consequence.
no choice at all but they should suck it up?

Darksparkle

missbiggles1 wrote: »

But, TBF, if their child hadn't had disabilities and they'd both carried on working full time they would have had childcare to pay, so financially that isn't a fair comparison.

Even taking childcare into account, the person is still worse off.

Income of £25,000 is £20,089 net.

Less childcare £10,000 leaves an income of £10,089.

Carers only give £3224 so the household is still nearly £7000 worse off per year.

Many people then say but you won't have travel costs or lunch costs but not everyone has these additional costs, or no more so than making lunch at home, extra gas/electricity etc.

ab1982

nannytone wrote: »

so a loss of 24k a year and a gain of 2.6k a year.
that evens up with childcare doesn't it?
and many on here think they shouldn't have rec lived the 2.6k

they both worked until the boy became ill and their standard of living dropped enormously as a consequence.
no choice at all but they should suck it up?

We have lost a £20k wage in return for £140 a week maternity pay, when that maternity pay has gone we will either have to pay approx £9k per year childcare or do without the wage or a mixture of both. If working full time by the time tax man has had his bit it will work out at about £5k annual income for a full time job.

No DLA, WTC or Carers allowance- just £20 a week child benefit. I can understand that this is an emotive subject for you but the figures are not that different. Once again I genuinely wish all the best for your family.

We will suck it up with pleasure and count our blessings that he is healthy.

missbiggles1

nannytone wrote: »

so a loss of 24k a year and a gain of 2.6k a year.
that evens up with childcare doesn't it?
and many on here think they shouldn't have rec lived the 2.6k

they both worked until the boy became ill and their standard of living dropped enormously as a consequence.
no choice at all but they should suck it up?

£24k pa gross equates to about £370 pw net - £60 = £310. Given that a full time nursery place is £210 pw, and your SIL has no commuting or other working costs, that isn't an enormous drop in income and, as he claims CA, presumably they get DLA as well.

Not that this is any compensation for the stresses of having a disabled child, but financially, it isn't much of a drop.

missbiggles1

Darksparkle wrote: »

Even taking childcare into account, the person is still worse off.

Income of £25,000 is £20,089 net.

Less childcare £10,000 leaves an income of £10,089.

Carers only give £3224 so the household is still nearly £7000 worse off per year.

Many people then say but you won't have travel costs or lunch costs but not everyone has these additional costs, or no more so than making lunch at home, extra gas/electricity etc.

As I posted above, you've left DLA out of the equation.