Mobilty cars .....Joke

Mercdriver

GTE_Boy wrote: »

The state give out money by way of benefits. You can use that benefit to get a car. So the state provide your car. It's not hard to comprehend unless you're stupid.

(my bolding). This is the main issue. Get is being used in a pejorative way. You don't get a car, you get a lease to a car in exchange for the financial benefit that you are entitled to. When used to say get a car it purports ownership of said car. And those that purport it know it.

AdrianC

GTE_Boy wrote: »

The state give out money by way of benefits. You can use that benefit to get a car. So the state provide your car. It's not hard to comprehend unless you're stupid.

If you use that benefit money to lease a car outside of the motability scheme, is that still the "state providing the car"?

Robisere

No, Motability customers do not own the cars, but any infraction of the relevant laws and rules, will result in losing the payments and the car.

I once had a neighbour who had lived through brain cancer and consequently suffered neurological damage. He was able to drive, but his mobilty was impaired. He was awarded DLA for "Help with getting around" as the system described it then. However, his wife was one of the most controlling, and dumbest, people I ever met. She insisted that her husband buy a car, instead of taking a Motabilty vehicle. It did not matter how much I explained to her that meant paying for insurance, servicing, tyres, recovery, etc. She still insisted that "We need the payments." - then they bought a series of old bangers which cost them a lot of money to keep on the road. I even took the sums they had paid out in one 2 year period, and calculated that it had cost them more than 35% of the DLA payments, which could have bought them a new car every 3 years. All they would have to buy, was the fuel, and a newer car would be more economical anyway.

Eventually they moved: something they had done several times over the last few years, because the wife was one of those people who is never satisfied with where she is, or what she has. Then her husband died. A year later she moved back to our area again. Now she lives in a Sheltered Housing flat in town, but when we met her whilst shopping in town, she looked back on their time here with nostalgia, saying that she wishes he could get a transfer to our village Sheltered Homes. i miss her husband, he was a good (but henpecked) man. I wish I could miss his wife when we are in town.....

I do not understand people who buy cars when they have DLA Mobility payments. One said to me "But it's not yours!" "No," said I, "but what's the difference - I use it just as you use yours, except that mine is much younger, regularly serviced for free, and can be trusted to start and run."

The above represents a slight change of subject, from the attacks of the Benefits-Bashing Fascists here.

GTE_Boy

AdrianC wrote: »

If you use that benefit money to lease a car outside of the motability scheme, is that still the "state providing the car"?

Yes, if it's solely funded by benefit.

But you can't get a motability car without the benefit.

AdrianC

GTE_Boy wrote: »

Yes, if it's solely funded by benefit.

So your idea of "state providing" is purely down to the source of funding, and the motability scheme's existence is irrelevant. The "state provides" cornflakes, private-sector housing, underwear, etc etc...

But you can't get a motability car without the benefit.

Who said you could?

GTE_Boy

AdrianC wrote: »

So your idea of "state providing" is purely down to the source of funding, and the motability scheme's existence is irrelevant. The "state provides" cornflakes, private-sector housing, underwear, etc etc...



Who said you could?

Who said they don't?

Richard53

At the risk of repeating something I posted earlier, the motability scheme is revenue-neutral as far as state expenditure goes. You take it as cash or as a car, your choice - it is irrelevant to the taxpayer.


If your objection is on the basis that the state should not be paying any benefits to disabled people, then have the courage to say so.

AdrianC

GTE_Boy wrote: »

So your idea of "state providing" is purely down to the source of funding, and the motability scheme's existence is irrelevant. The "state provides" cornflakes, private-sector housing, underwear, etc etc...

Who said they don't?

So what about if only a small portion of a household's income comes from benefits? Does the "state provide" a fraction of the cornflakes?

[Deleted User]

Nilrem wrote: »

And how many people are in the house?

Chances are the "classic" car is only used for a limited number of miles either due to insurance (a lot are on very limited mileage policies), reliability, or comfort reasons.

Also many disabled people are married or live with families, I know this may come as shock, but those family members may well have their own cars just like in any other family!
It doesn't mean that the disabled person doesn't still need their own car.

If they're like a lot of people I know with a motorbility car and a second, the "runabout" is likely to be relatively cheap and not necessarily reliable but needed for a family member to get to work.

Oh and two normal cars + a classic is not a "fleet", not in this day and age in many areas, many families seem to have at least two cars now, edging to 3 or more in many cases if there is a late teen (or older) living at home. About a third of the families on my street seem to own at least two cars, with several at 3 or more active cars (classic and hobby vehicles* not included as they tend to be not be "regular use")


*such as the beaten up landrover one neighbour has, or the old sporty car another pulls out of the garage for a few runs a year.

No it's just a married couple and they both use the Motability car and the other car and vice versa. The classic car is out all the time also especially in the spring summer when all the car shows are on and some of those can be 50+ miles away. My family have known them for decades so I know and I'm not just speculating.

They have also had 4 or 5 cars on the go in the past before selling one etc as he likes to tinker on with them.

Car_54

GTE_Boy wrote: »

The state give out money by way of benefits. You can use that benefit to get a car. So the state provide your car. It's not hard to comprehend unless you're stupid.

I must be stupid. Please bear with me.

If the recipient of the benefit chooses not to lease a car, but spends it on his weekly groceries, would you say the state was providing food and drink? Or is it only cars that you find morally reprehensible?