MoneySaving Poll: Have benefits been cut too far or not far enough?

fredandwilma

10pence wrote: »

I've never understood how people in receipt of high rate DLA/PIP can claim carers allowance for each other when stating they cannot care for them self hence the confusion.

No, I don't either. if you can't look after yourself, how can you possibly look after someone else?

10pence wrote: »

If receipt of PIP or DLA they can get more than £70/wk, plus they can work too as it's none means tested.

Of course they can, but what if they are genuinely too ill to work, and are refused PIP?

Dird

Disability allowance should just be scrapped. Give them the equivalent of JSA, why do they need more? The council already provides their medication for free and makes adjustments to their homes for free. With all that spare cash you could set up a ring & ride service for their hospital visits and provide free bus passes for those requiring a wheelchair

jamesd wrote: »

Then there are cases like the woman who wanted to work in looking after animals or similar caring and refused to take available warehouse worker jobs. Her choice but does someone who refuses to take available work merit means tested benefits for those who can't find work?

I don't agree with this being a problem really unless they only want to do a job that almost never appears online. If I was on JSA looking for an IT job then there's no point me accepting a warehouse job then quitting 3 weeks later when I've found an IT job. Just wastes their time

jamesd

If I remember correctly she'd been looking for two years at that point, refusing all jobs that were not in the area that interested her. Some time seems fine to me, particularly the first six months that are contribution-related JSA. But I also think it's not unreasonable for there to be limits.

jamesd

Dird wrote: »

Disability allowance should just be scrapped. Give them the equivalent of JSA, why do they need more? The council already provides their medication for free and makes adjustments to their homes for free. With all that spare cash you could set up a ring & ride service for their hospital visits and provide free bus passes for those requiring a wheelchair

Those things will be of limited value in helping to get out of bed or put on clothes, areas in which some people require assistance.

Lets just say that council assistance for home adaptation is perhaps not as universally and readily available as might be supposed.

Dird

jamesd wrote: »

But I also think it's not unreasonable for there to be limits.

Yeah agreed, seems to be the exact same scenario on the Benefits section right now. Girl on benefits for 12+ months just looking for animal based work and after all this time only finds a 6 hour/week job. I would say JSA should be reduced by a % every 12 months without work but then some will just claim DSA then and the ones rejected will take a job for a couple weeks and enjoy another year with full JSA

jamesd wrote: »

Those things will be of limited value in helping to get out of bed or put on clothes, areas in which some people require assistance.
Lets just say that council assistance for home adaptation is perhaps not as universally and readily available as might be supposed.

That's what family is for. I'm guessing someone claiming DSA isn't using that extra money to pay for a care worker

Lynplatinum

Evening All

In all these discussions no one has mentioned the Elephant in the Room

If every large company paid the tax that they morally should rather than actively looking for legal loopholes to avoid tax then this country would not be debt and further more this country would be able to afford to pay decent living benefits to the disabled, the retired and those unemployed through no fault of their own. We could have excellent schooling and health care - rather than scraping around looking for cuts and cheaper options. :mad:

This is not just an issue of figures - it is one of morals.

There are, and always will be, a proportion of benefits claimants who are 'working the system' - just as, importantly, there are, and always will be, a proportion of companies and individuals who will 'work the tax system'. :mad:

Morally we should make it unacceptable to 'work' either the benefit or the tax system.

Just as we have with wearing seat belts - not buying certain coffees - not buying non fairtade goods. We, the public, can do something about this! :cool:

Do not support organisations who have been revealed as 'working' the tax system and report those 'working' the benefits system.
Its up to you.

jamesd

Lynplatinum wrote: »

We, the public, can do something about this! :cool: ... This is not just an issue of figures - it is one of morals.

Yes, we can. We can explain that politicians who make that pitch are trying to trick voters and that is a question of morals.

Lynplatinum wrote: »

If every large company paid the tax that they morally should

Taking money from large companies is taking money from our own future pensions, which are typically invested in those companies as well as others. Except for those in unfunded public sector pensions.

Lynplatinum wrote: »

We could have excellent schooling and health care - rather than scraping around looking for cuts and cheaper options.

We already do have excellent schooling and health care.

Spending on education in real terms came close to doubling between 1998 (56 billion) and 2010 (99 billion). It's dropped a bit since then, to 85 billion, but is still way above 1998 levels. Spending per student is higher than Italy, Japan and France but lower than the US. It doesn't seem unreasonable to cut back to say 1998 levels, since schools were hardly poor then.

Public sector spending on health care roughly doubled in real terms between 1997 and 2009 and has increased slowly since then. Annual health spending per person is roughly the same now (£2022) as it was in 2010 (£2025). Again, it doesn't seem unreasonable to drop back to say 1998 levels because health care was far from horrible in 1998.

Real terms means inflation-adjusted.

Lynplatinum

Jamesd - I can see your point but we have to look at the increased population in realation to expenditure and do our calculations per head rather than en masse for realistic comparison. Sorry need to head for bed as am working tomorrow and need to sleep

Also health care treatments and the way we need to provide study opportunities have changed over the years. As a society we should look to improve - not go backwards?? (although some old-style things could do with returning - such as a sense of morals!)
Nite and thanks for your interesting response.

fredandwilma

Lynplatinum wrote: »

Jamesd - I can see your point but we have to look at the increased population in realation to expenditure and do our calculations per head rather than en masse for realistic comparison.

Which then leads us on to political issues as to why we can't cope with our increased population as a nation, such as immigration. Our country doesn't have the resources to cope with our expanding population at the rate it is.

jamesd

Lynplatinum wrote: »

I can see your point but we have to look at the increased population in realation to expenditure and do our calculations per head

If you look at my post again you'll find that it contains per head observations showing that education spending per head is higher than many comparable countries and health spending per head is essentially unchanged compared to 2010.

Lynplatinum wrote: »

As a society we should look to improve - not go backwards??

More money isn't necessarily forwards since there are alternative choices that can be made for the money instead. That could be lower taxes, debt repayment, more spending on means tested benefits or some other combination.