We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Transferring Carer's Allowance, Help
Comments
-
missbiggles1 wrote: »As I posted above, you've left DLA out of the equation.
But DLA would be paid either way so is not relevant.
The household is still about £7000 worse off. That £135 per week.
Not sure why you mentioned ESA if it's the child that's disabled.0 -
for 39 weeks.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.
then there is the CHOICE to return to work.
the parent of a severely disabled child is doing it for a lifetime, and you resent them £83 a week?0 -
why would there be ESA.missbiggles1 wrote: »£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 ESA 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.
it was the child that was disabled.
there was also no extra in commuting, as the elder boy still had to be taken to school and brought home, and my daughter still had her work commute ( they deliberately chose a school and nursery nearest to where they both worked)
the nursery wasn't that amount, nearer £150 a week.
yes it was a large cost, but they accepted it because they were planning for the future, and having jobs was an important part of the plan.
financially the littleness lines changed EVERYTHING.
he needed specialist equipment. even his chair was over £600 as he had no body tone so couldn't support himself in any way. his walking frame was £1200. the did fundraising to help towards the cost but it was still extremely hard for them to manage.
until you have lived with a child with severe needs you really have no idea, and to begrudge someone £60 a week is incomprehensible.
no need to worry though because my grandson died unexpectedly and so they claim nothing now0 -
for 39 weeks.
then there is the CHOICE to return to work.
the parent of a severely disabled child is doing it for a lifetime, and you resent them £83 a week?
I dont resent anything. I just dont agree with paying parents to mind their own kids, I think there are fairer ways to do it less open to abuse - and dont take that personally its not specifically aimed at you.
If the child has no state provided education or care then I am clearly in the wrong and a lot more than £50/£63/£83 (I think you mentioned all 3 figures) will be required to make up the shortfall. I assumed standard education would apply.0 -
Darksparkle wrote: »But DLA would be paid either way so is not relevant.
The household is still about £7000 worse off. That £135 per week.
Not sure why you mentioned ESA if it's the child that's disabled.
Sorry, I put ESA in my first post when I meant DLA - I've corrected it now.0 -
missbiggles1 wrote: »Sorry, I put ESA in my first post when I meant DLA - I've corrected it now.
It still wouldn't be relevant though
In both circumstances they'd get DLA as its not income based.0 -
why would there be ESA.
it was the child that was disabled.
there was also no extra in commuting, as the elder boy still had to be taken to school and brought home, and my daughter still had her work commute ( they deliberately chose a school and nursery nearest to where they both worked)
the nursery wasn't that amount, nearer £150 a week.
yes it was a large cost, but they accepted it because they were planning for the future, and having jobs was an important part of the plan.
financially the littleness lines changed EVERYTHING.
he needed specialist equipment. even his chair was over £600 as he had no body tone so couldn't support himself in any way. his walking frame was £1200. the did fundraising to help towards the cost but it was still extremely hard for them to manage.
until you have lived with a child with severe needs you really have no idea, and to begrudge someone £60 a week is incomprehensible.
no need to worry though because my grandson died unexpectedly and so they claim nothing now
I don't begrudge anybody CA when caring for someone with a major disability, I never said I did. I was simply making a financial comparison.
Condolences for your loss.0 -
Darksparkle wrote: »It still wouldn't be relevant though
In both circumstances they'd get DLA as its not income based.
True
.... 0 -
I dont resent anything. I just dont agree with paying parents to mind their own kids, I think there are fairer ways to do it less open to abuse - and dont take that personally its not specifically aimed at you.
If the child has no state provided education or care then I am clearly in the wrong and a lot more than £50/£63/£83 (I think you mentioned all 3 figures) will be required to make up the shortfall. I assumed standard education would apply.
at the time carers allowance was just over £50 a week ... now it is £63 thats why the figures are different.
nursery for a severely disabled child is out of reach of the majority of the population and when he turned 4 they were offered two 3 hours sessions at a specialist nursery 50 miles away from where they lived.
having a severely disabled child is a costly affair and to treat it in the same way as maternity leave ( which another poster did) is insulting to all parents that have had their lives swept away overnight when a child becomes disabled.
to then say they should receive nothing at all for looking after their own child is staggering when it prevents them doing anything to improve their families financial situation.
as it stands, carers is paid for providing care over and above ( at least 30 hours a week) what a child of the same age would need.
to have a 15 year old that needs the same care as a newborn is not comparing like for like0 -
Very sad for your & families loss.
I didn't say they should receive nothing (I specifically suggested subsidised childcare) please dont put words into my mouth.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards