Do I tell DWP ?

CTcelt1988

Your previous link was rubbish, as the DVLA are aware that I drive with adaptions. I also do not use my legs to drive.

It's just rubbish how the DWP can twist things to suit their agenda of cutting benefits.

FBaby

but are you saying that a recipient of DLA or PIP should not be able to have a reasonably priced holiday at all.?

I'm saying that DLA/PIP shouldn't be used for that purpose. If it can be saved all year to afford a holiday, it is not needed.

Being disabled in itself is stressful over and above the normal stresses of life that everyone gets.

This is the sort of generalisation taken as a justification that I have an issue with. Yes, being disabled comes with issues, but assuming that as a whole, disabled people are more stressed than non disabled, especially when stress is the reason many call themselves disabled is not a fair reasoning. Stress is subjective and very much comes down to how people cope with it or not. You can have two people in the same situation, both under stressful conditions, but one will get on with it whilst the other doesn't. Are you saying the latter is therefore more deserving of a nice holiday than the former? Yet that's how PIP has a perverse incentive attached to it that is not for the benefit of society as a whole.

FBaby

Is it wrong? I cannot see any regulation for DLA at least, that says what I must spend the money on or why I should not give it away.

You sound like Frog! Yes, we know you are entitled to it because you know the rules that mean you can legally claim it. That doesn't make it right though and this is exactly why I believe it is more than time that this legislation is overthrown. Most people think the same, but nobody has the guts to confront those outspoken group that will inevitably accuse anyone doing it that they hate disabled people, even if the proposal involves a redistribution to support disabled people who can evidence they have a financial need to directly support them with their disability.

At least it is refreshing to read someone openly admitting to what many are doing but pretend not to!

TheNickster

FBaby wrote: »

You sound like Frog! Yes, we know you are entitled to it because you know the rules that mean you can legally claim it. That doesn't make it right though and this is exactly why I believe it is more than time that this legislation is overthrown. Most people think the same, but nobody has the guts to confront those outspoken group that will inevitably accuse anyone doing it that they hate disabled people, even if the proposal involves a redistribution to support disabled people who can evidence they have a financial need to directly support them with their disability.

You consistently ignore any argument in this thread about tax avoidance but it is knowing the rules that allows the aggressive tax avoider to legally avoid their obligations to society (pay their taxes) and live a whole life of luxury. Yet you complain that some disabled claim and get pip/dla because they know the rules and then have a modest holiday.

Some people are jealous of disability benefits but never it seems the disability.

I would be more inclined to agree with some of what you say if tax avoidance methods and loopholes were overthrown - until then I would oppose any proposal to tax or means test disability benefits.

FBaby

You consistently ignore any argument in this thread about tax avoidance but it is knowing the rules that allows the aggressive tax avoider to legally avoid their obligations to society (pay their taxes) and live a whole life of luxury.

The usual response when running out of argument! If others do, what can't we! Both are wrong, although in one case, it's giving less, in the other, it is actually taking, so in my views not directly comparable.

Oh and the usual conclusion that anyone has any objection in the way PIP is paid, it must be jealousy! Jealousy of what? I don't want the money, I want it to go to those who have financial need for it. It's not me!

As said, there is a moral issue and there is a legal one. Can't change people's morals. You can't change the attitude of entitlement that seems to be propagating in our culture, but political agendas can be. I am just hoping the extent of the financial burden will prompt someone to do something about it sooner rather than later.

CTcelt1988

That's what PIP was supposed to be, to be given to those that genuinely need it.

The opposite has happened where genuine people are losing crucial support due to farcical assessments.

50Twuncle

CTcelt1988 wrote: »

That's what PIP was supposed to be, to be given to those that genuinely need it.

But is that ....financially need it or physically need it ?
Because don't forget that many full time workers (on full salaries) get exactly the same rate as unemployed...

Tommo1980

Working or not, surely the point of PIP is to level the paying field. So 2 people earn 30k a year. One has a disability that incurrs a financial cost. The other does not. PIP would offset some of the financial cost of the disability putting both individuals on a level playing field.

That is why PIP is not means tested, it applies equally to all levels of income.

Nice idea in theory!

Tom

FBaby

One has a disability that incurrs a financial cost

And that is exactly the crux of the debate. There is an assumption that there is a financial cost, but in many cases, there isn't and the assessment is not aimed to identified whether it does. Which why, people like Rbilly and many others are able to pass the assessment without occurring a financial cost related to his disability, so can pass it on to someone else.

Some disabilities can be eased by buying equipment, resources, time etc... to lessen the impact of the disability. In other cases, no money will make that disability easier to live with beyond what would be easier for anyone, disability or not.

Take two claimants. Both can't cook a meal for themselves. One of them is married and has never cooked a meal alone in their lives because it's always been their wife's role. There is no actual financial need for this money as there is no need for them to be able to enjoy a decent meal.

The other person however is on their own. Their condition means they require a special diet. They can either order meals being delivered daily or pay for someone to come and cook for them. This will cost them money to do and without it, could affect their health.

It is very wrong that both should be entitled to same amount of benefits when one has a need for it whilst the other doesn't.

The reality is that DLA/PIP is currently administered as a 'compensation' for being disabled. This is not how it should operate. The government has a history of providing funding as 'rewards' (for being married), 'incentives' (for having children), and 'compensation' (for being disabled), these being therefore non mean tested.

Well the first is now mean tested, so is the second, it is now time to do the same with the third.

50Twuncle

FBaby wrote: »

And that is exactly the crux of the debate. There is an assumption that there is a financial cost, but in many cases, there isn't and the assessment is not aimed to identified whether it does. Which why, people like Rbilly and many others are able to pass the assessment without occurring a financial cost related to his disability, so can pass it on to someone else.

Some disabilities can be eased by buying equipment, resources, time etc... to lessen the impact of the disability. In other cases, no money will make that disability easier to live with beyond what would be easier for anyone, disability or not.

Take two claimants. Both can't cook a meal for themselves. One of them is married and has never cooked a meal alone in their lives because it's always been their wife's role. There is no actual financial need for this money as there is no need for them to be able to enjoy a decent meal.

The other person however is on their own. Their condition means they require a special diet. They can either order meals being delivered daily or pay for someone to come and cook for them. This will cost them money to do and without it, could affect their health.

It is very wrong that both should be entitled to same amount of benefits when one has a need for it whilst the other doesn't.

The reality is that DLA/PIP is currently administered as a 'compensation' for being disabled. This is not how it should operate. The government has a history of providing funding as 'rewards' (for being married), 'incentives' (for having children), and 'compensation' (for being disabled), these being therefore non mean tested.

Well the first is now mean tested, so is the second, it is now time to do the same with the third.

What about the third situation - with a disabled person who is married and has (up until recently) been able to pull their weight - but due to a disability is now no longer able to do so.....?

How do your financial rules allow fot claiming DLA/PIP with that person ?