Mobilty cars .....Joke

Cornucopia

facade wrote: »

You are making the same mistake that a lot of people, including myself make- imagining for one second that 25, 30, 40 or more years of paying through the nose for "National Insurance" entitles you to anything, as if you deserve to get something back for your investment...

Not at all. I am simply trying to unpack the "septic snowball" of noxious ideas that "Tothepoint" has brought to the forum. I don't have any issue with people getting what they need irrespective of their prior contribution.

It appears to me that he has layered a number of vitriolic points one on top of another, and at each stage lurched off from his key idea (such as it is) by adding something unrelated or irrelevant to it.

As the founders of the Welfare State said: From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.

michaelvintner

Personally I would rather be broke and driving a banger worth £500 than qualify for motorbility. From my very limited understanding if you qualify then you get an allowance which allows you to get a modest car (Ford Focus etc) if you want anything else you have to find the money yourself. Personally working legs and the ability to get around without crying in pain versus a shiny car then I would choose the legs and no pain. I am sure that 99.5% of people who qualify for motorbility would choose the same. Yes there are people playing the system but unlike the Daily Mail and The Sun I do not believe it is a majority but a small minority.

Richard53

1.The 'free car' is an irrelevance. It is simply the way that the recipient of DLA chooses to spend their allowance.


2. If you object to a disabled person having a Motability car, what you are objecting to is a disabled person being supported by other taxpayers for their mobility needs. If that is what you object to, man up and say so.


3. As other have said ad nauseam, DLA is nothing whatsoever to do with work. It is based on a person's mobility needs and nothing else. Many people use their Motability car to be able to work, thus contributing back to society when they would otherwise be sitting at home idle.


4. Some people choose to live a life on benefits without working when they could work. My view is that this is wrong and should be stopped, but that is absolutely nothing to do with the state helping people with their mobility needs. You can't live on DLA.


5. If you find someone with a Motability car who you think does not deserve it, report it to Motability. They will investigate, I can assure you. They don't like people scamming the scheme either.


6. I am not a leftie by any means, but I do have compassion for people whose life choices are limited by something beyond their control.


And yes, some comments on this thread have ben utterly vile and ignorant. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Mercdriver

Tothepoint. wrote: »

They pay tax with the benefits they receive. So the tax payers paying for their car and every time they're taxed.

Benefits without employement is free living. Maybe that's you.

Never make assumptions they make an !!! out of me and you. Oh and it's employment.

In actual fact, I am a higher rate tax payer. However I have been in the position where I needed benefits when I was knocked from my bike years ago - though you pay back incapacity benefit through your tax code after you go back to work. I also had to pay it back through loss of earnings, as part of the claim agaiinst the person that hit me, so I've paid it back twice. That was after having been in full time work for 9 years.

Despite the fact that I have had some eyewateringly high tax bills, I don't resent the fact that there are people that need support from the tax that I pay. That is the modern principle behind taxation - though income tax was originally installed to fund a war.

Oh and sorry Joe Horner I had to quote Mr I wish i had a point to come back on his wrong assumption...

Joe_Horner

Mercdriver wrote: »

Oh and sorry Joe Horner I had to quote Mr I wish i had a point to come back on his wrong assumption...

No problem - my cardiovascular system had already been subjected to that comment before I ignored him Besides, as you say, it was needed in order to make your excellent point

Nilrem

michaelvintner wrote: »

Personally I would rather be broke and driving a banger worth £500 than qualify for motorbility. From my very limited understanding if you qualify then you get an allowance which allows you to get a modest car (Ford Focus etc) if you want anything else you have to find the money yourself. Personally working legs and the ability to get around without crying in pain versus a shiny car then I would choose the legs and no pain. I am sure that 99.5% of people who qualify for motorbility would choose the same. Yes there are people playing the system but unlike the Daily Mail and The Sun I do not believe it is a majority but a small minority.

Yup

If you want anything other than a basic car (think base level Astra or Corsa spec) you tend to have to find the money for the upfront payment.

The thing that the likes of the Daily Mail and Express never bothered to tell their readers (and their readers don't think enough to check it themselves) is that the more expensive cars with the big upfront payments that used to be on Motorbility tended to actually make the scheme some money above the running costs at the end of the lease, and thus subsidise other vehicles (especially the ones that need big adaptations).

I know a few people who get mobility allowance/PIP and they'd much rather pay the money than receive it if it meant they didn't have the disability.
They'd be overjoyed to lose the money/car in exchange for not being disabled.

One of the things about people like the op is that they can't even be bothered to do any background reading on what qualifies people for motorbility despite the fact the information takes about 15 seconds to find on google.

Tothepoint.

Mercdriver wrote: »

Never make assumptions they make an !!! out of me and you. Oh and it's employment.

In actual fact, I am a higher rate tax payer. However I have been in the position where I needed benefits when I was knocked from my bike years ago - though you pay back incapacity benefit through your tax code after you go back to work. I also had to pay it back through loss of earnings, as part of the claim agaiinst the person that hit me, so I've paid it back twice. That was after having been in full time work for 9 years.

Despite the fact that I have had some eyewateringly high tax bills, I don't resent the fact that there are people that need support from the tax that I pay. That is the modern principle behind taxation - though income tax was originally installed to fund a war.

Oh and sorry Joe Horner I had to quote Mr I wish i had a point to come back on his wrong assumption...

Well I'm sure you weren't out of pocket once the insurance money came through.

Tothepoint.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Who hasn't? My disabled friend worked for 25 years before becoming too ill to work.


I think you have missed the point. No one disputes the reality that some people live on benefits. Some of those people live on benefits for an extended period.

I suppose the difference is that none of us resent those people.

We know that the benefits system is far from generous and far from being a walk-over in terms of paying benefits where there is no entitlement.

We also know (I expect) that disabled people can find it very difficult to gain employment, even where their skills match or exceed those of able-bodied candidates.

9-25 am itv, 2 pm itv and 9 pm channel 4 or 5.

Choose any one you wish and see for yourself.

Mercdriver

Well actually I was out of pocket. Was forced to take a lower compensation payment because my work took me abroad for months and the other side put an amount into court, and so my solicitors told me to take a payment that was 50% of what they told me to refuse 6 months earlier. The joys of no win no fee meant that if I continued to fight it, it would have been at my risk. Liability wasn't an issue the amount was.

Cornucopia

Tothepoint. wrote: »

9-25 am itv, 2 pm itv and 9 pm channel 4 or 5.

Choose any one you wish and see for yourself.

You are still confusing long-term unemployed with long-term disabled. They are not the same thing.