Transferring Carer's Allowance, Help

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

missbiggles1 wrote: »

No but I can of course trust you to twist it into some kind of "anti benefits" crusade :T

Anybody who would take money for

" keeping them company, reading to them or with them, doing a jigsaw with them or watching a film with them. Perhaps even taking them out simply for a flask of soup and roll sat by the beach, countryside or whatever"

a close relative or their own child should be ashamed of themselves.

If we stopped paying CA for this level of "care" then we could afford to pay a decent amount to those who really do care for someone with substantial disabilities.[/QUOTE]

There is nothing wrong with that level of care if it means the person avoids going crazy as a result of just staring at four walls with no interaction.

Somoene with substantial disabilites also needs shopping fetching and attendance in the form of interaction such as someone to do stuff with.

Like I say unless you are living it you won't know. Of course I am guessing your ideas of anyone who should be in receipt of any state help for disabilites should just be in a permanant vegetative state. Who of course also needs someone with them to do mind stimulating stuff.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

missbiggles1

perhaps you can define the "level" of care you expect someone to receive where the family gets carer's allowance. What is your expectation, giving details of caring activities, of the 5 hours or more spent caring for a disabled person through CA?

missbiggles1

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

Anybody who would take money for

" keeping them company, reading to them or with them, doing a jigsaw with them or watching a film with them. Perhaps even taking them out simply for a flask of soup and roll sat by the beach, countryside or whatever"

a close relative or their own child should be ashamed of themselves.

If we stopped paying CA for this level of "care" then we could afford to pay a decent amount to those who really do care for someone with substantial disabilities.

There is nothing wrong with that level of care if it means the person avoids going crazy as a result of just staring at four walls with no interaction.

Somoene with substantial disabilites also needs shopping fetching and attendance in the form of interaction such as someone to do stuff with.

Like I say unless you are living it you won't know. Of course I am guessing your ideas of anyone who should be in receipt of any state help for disabilites should just be in a permanant vegetative state. Who of course also needs someone with them to do mind stimulating stuff.[/QUOTE]

I lived it for nearly 10 years, looking after my severely disabled husband (high rate AA), so you can put your assumptions where the sun doesn't shine!

Scattering benefits around for those who don't need it just leaves less in the kitty for those who do.

nannytone_2

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I don't think it is written but, with most couples, it's the one with the lower income who gives up work to look after children.

my son in law was the higher earner, but he had to be the one caring because a 4 year old, with the control of a newborn . his head had to be supported, and due to steroids, he weighed around 3 stones.
my daughter was physically incapable of repeatedly lifting him

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

missbiggles1 wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with that level of care if it means the person avoids going crazy as a result of just staring at four walls with no interaction.

Somoene with substantial disabilites also needs shopping fetching and attendance in the form of interaction such as someone to do stuff with.

Like I say unless you are living it you won't know. Of course I am guessing your ideas of anyone who should be in receipt of any state help for disabilites should just be in a permanant vegetative state. Who of course also needs someone with them to do mind stimulating stuff.

I lived it for nearly 10 years, looking after my severely disabled husband (high rate AA) , so put your assumptions where the sun doesn't shine!

ETA
And do try to use the quote function properly.[/QUOTE]

Ohh what was wrong with him then?

Darksparkle

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I don't think it is written but, with most couples, it's the one with the lower income who gives up work to look after children.

Yes so likely the other person is on more than £25,000. We don't know therefore I can't compare CTC payments.

As said, in both circumstances tax credits would be possible. Depends entirely on the facts which we don't have.

missbiggles1

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

I lived it for nearly 10 years, looking after my severely disabled husband (high rate AA) , so put your assumptions where the sun doesn't shine!

ETA
And do try to use the quote function properly.

Ohh what was wrong with him then?[/QUOTE]

Severe COPD, on oxygen for 8 years. He died in October.

ab1982

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

You don't think all needs 1:1 care. There we go again. Making assumptions based on nothing or perhaps a perception of a neighbour down the road.

:rotfl:

Is this sentence intentionally funny?

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

ab1982 wrote: »

:rotfl:

Is this sentence intentionally funny?

The only thing funny here is that a dedicated benefits section seems to be attracting benefit bashing trolls such as yourself. I thought I had mistakingly entered the biggotted auspices of the Discussion Time area of the forum.

An OP comes on and asks a perfectly civil question regarding carers allowance wich is seized up on with people's narrow, poorly substantiated opinions of the rules of the system.

ab1982

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

The only thing funny here is that a dedicated benefits section seems to be attracting benefit bashing trolls such as yourself. I thought I had mistakingly entered the biggotted auspices of the Discussion Time area of the forum.

An OP comes on and asks a perfectly civil question regarding carers allowance wich is seized up on with people's narrow, poorly substantiated opinions of the rules of the system.

Well if you read half as well as you !!!!! you may notice that I was making a very specific point. I haven't assumed a single thing or offered any bigoted opinions.