Should disabled benefits be means tested?

[Burwood]

What sparked my interest was the need for a Nurse. Why on the school run but not all day? If it does cost £1k/day something is wrong. If it was £100/day assistance no one would care

[Sticks.]

hornetrider said:

She's worth 45m and the state has no money.

Do you think you should be paying for his taxis or her?

What do you think about this point though?

Burwood said:

What about state pension? Should a wealthy person not take their £100 a week or whatever that number is? My parents do and they don't need the money in the slightest. Are they immoral?

Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, if her car was stolen, and the insurance company wasn't doing as well as it had been, should she still claim? After all, she can afford not to?

On DLA more generally, I think the problem with means testing is partly that it will enable some people to work, by helping wih the extra costs, which would, if means testing applied, disentitle them, and then they'd not be able to work, so rely on the state. DLA is very often in the interest of the state as well as the individual.

There are a lot of extra costs for disabled people which aren't covered by any benefit/provision.

[Willy Nilly]

hornetrider said:

She's worth 45m and the state has no money.

Do you think you should be paying for his taxis or her?

If she is worth 45 million quid, she's probably paid quite a bit of tax along the way. Even if he wasn't disabled, I'd be paying for him to get to school and for him to be in school, just like I do everyone elses kids.

A quick google reveals he's blind and autistic so he's going to need quite a bit of care during is life which will be expensive, a taxi ride is going to be bugger all compared to that. You might argue that the state will receive more tax if they pay for him to go to school so his mum can go out and earn loads more money for god knows what and pay a load of tax in the mean time.

On a list of cases deserving of state aid, I'd but him fairly high up.

[hornetrider]

Sticks. said:

What do you think about this point though?

I agree with it. My old man (retired) has two private pensions, and a state pension. He also recently has been diagnosed with a progressive muscle wasting disease and now gets DLA and motability along with his blue badge. He doesn't need either, but he gets it because the system allows him to.

As I said, I think the system is broken.

[crankedup]

Didn't the Government set up the system of 'medical examinations' in a bid to weed out those people the system considered 'well enough to work'? One or two stories in a rag seems to set the PH fraternity in a spin.
Means testing, absolutely not.

[vescaegg]

Willy Nilly said:

hornetrider said:

She's worth 45m and the state has no money.

Do you think you should be paying for his taxis or her?

If she is worth 45 million quid, she's probably paid quite a bit of tax along the way. Even if he wasn't disabled, I'd be paying for him to get to school and for him to be in school, just like I do everyone elses kids.

Interestingly I have read she sends her other two kids to private school which she pays for. So pay for it when you can and want to, but dont when you can get it for free?

[Sticks.]

hornetrider said:

I agree with it. My old man (retired) has two private pensions, and a state pension. He also recently has been diagnosed with a progressive muscle wasting disease and now gets DLA and motability along with his blue badge. He doesn't need either, but he gets it because the system allows him to.

As I said, I think the system is broken.

The other argument is that it's what he's paid in for - his insurance premium in case he needs to claim, except a lot more over many years. If everything had been means tested, it's a disincentive to saving.

I'm afraid I don't buy into the concept that he's getting my/taxpayer's money, it's some of his money back (a view you'll see taken in the threads on Child Benefit).

Btw your dad will be lucky if he gets any physio or support without paying for it. I wish him well.

[98elise]

Willy Nilly said:

hornetrider said:

She's worth 45m and the state has no money.

Do you think you should be paying for his taxis or her?

If she is worth 45 million quid, she's probably paid quite a bit of tax along the way. Even if he wasn't disabled, I'd be paying for him to get to school and for him to be in school, just like I do everyone elses kids.

A quick google reveals he's blind and autistic so he's going to need quite a bit of care during is life which will be expensive, a taxi ride is going to be bugger all compared to that. You might argue that the state will receive more tax if they pay for him to go to school so his mum can go out and earn loads more money for god knows what and pay a load of tax in the mean time.

On a list of cases deserving of state aid, I'd but him fairly high up.

Its a fair point about her paying taxes. She will have contributed vastly more than I ever will in taxes, so she has more than paid her fair share into the welfare state.

If I had that sort of money I wouldn't claim, in the same way I would use private healthcare and private schools, but I can't condem someone who has paid into the state claiming what they are entitled to.

[kowalski655]

hornetrider said:

..... He also recently has been diagnosed with a progressive muscle wasting disease and now gets DLA and motability along with his blue badge. He doesn't need either, but he gets it because the system allows him to.......

If he doesnt have the need for help with care & getting around then why is he getting DLA? Did he tell porkies on the claim form?

Burwood said:

What sparked my interest was the need for a Nurse. Why on the school run but not all day? If it does cost £1k/day something is wrong. If it was £100/day assistance no one would care

Also if his parents were Mr & Mrs Average, no one would care.
I guess that a nurse will be at the special school anyway so 1 will be available all day

[hornetrider]

kowalski655 said:

hornetrider said:

..... He also recently has been diagnosed with a progressive muscle wasting disease and now gets DLA and motability along with his blue badge. He doesn't need either, but he gets it because the system allows him to.......

If he doesnt have the need for help with care & getting around then why is he getting DLA? Did he tell porkies on the claim form?

Don't be silly. I'm saying financially he doesn't need the allowance it gives him. He needs the blue badge though as he really struggles with walking (uses a stick) and can't do steps at all.

[Burwood]

kowalski655 said:

hornetrider said:

..... He also recently has been diagnosed with a progressive muscle wasting disease and now gets DLA and motability along with his blue badge. He doesn't need either, but he gets it because the system allows him to.......

If he doesnt have the need for help with care & getting around then why is he getting DLA? Did he tell porkies on the claim form?

Burwood said:

What sparked my interest was the need for a Nurse. Why on the school run but not all day? If it does cost £1k/day something is wrong. If it was £100/day assistance no one would care

Also if his parents were Mr & Mrs Average, no one would care.
I guess that a nurse will be at the special school anyway so 1 will be available all day

I'm not sure no one would care- a big part of the issue is the cost. I have little confidence that 1k/day is correct but if it is then it's not on regardless of who pays.

[Rovinghawk]

Willy Nilly said:

If she is worth 45 million quid, she's probably paid quite a bit of tax along the way. Even if he wasn't disabled, I'd be paying for him to get to school and for him to be in school, just like I do everyone elses kids.

A quick google reveals he's blind and autistic so he's going to need quite a bit of care during is life which will be expensive, a taxi ride is going to be bugger all compared to that. You might argue that the state will receive more tax if they pay for him to go to school so his mum can go out and earn loads more money for god knows what and pay a load of tax in the mean time.

On a list of cases deserving of state aid, I'd but him fairly high up.

You make a fair point. I was against her getting anything based on her wealth (plus the fact that I detest her) but on balance I'd accept she's paid in more than she's likely to take out.

[hornetrider]

Rovinghawk said:

I was against her getting anything based on her wealth (plus the fact that I detest her) but on balance I'd accept she's paid in more than she's likely to take out.

That's not the point though is it. If everyone got out what they put in, there's be no money for the truly deserving who've never been able to put in, or put in little over their lives.

The welfare state in my view should be there as a safety net for those who can't afford certain services. Being a gazillionaire and still being able to claim is all sorts of wrong.

[aw51 121565]

kowalski655 said:

hornetrider said:

..... He also recently has been diagnosed with a progressive muscle wasting disease and now gets DLA and motability along with his blue badge. He doesn't need either, but he gets it because the system allows him to.......

If he doesnt have the need for help with care & getting around then why is he getting DLA? Did he tell porkies on the claim form?

Certain diagnoses automatically generate eligibility for PIP, I'd suggest - certainly back in 1999 this was the case for DLA with certain rates of the care and/or mobility components as a starting point (subject to later rethinks if the condition worsened and this could be demonstrated).

[jonby]

I try to put the fact that I despise the individual in question to one side when thinking about the answer

I actually really struggle with this one - as someone else pointed out, this is not a legal issue (she is legally entitled to the money) so it's a moral one.

Which actually is then akin to asking for a charitable donation on her part. There is at it's heart, no difference between expecting her to pay for this and expecting someone worth 10s of millions to pay the NHS whenever they use it (assuming they don't have private health cover of course)

That throws up lots of problems. At what financial level is it morally appropriate to pay ? 25 mil ? 10 mil ? 5 mil ? Do earnings come into it or is it just wealth ?

What if the person in question already donates huge sums to charities, or raises awareness for them ?

Does it matter if the person pays 'full' UK tax or avoids it ? For instance if they pay £2mil in tax p.a. and claim back £100k p.a. re: this travel cost, is that person still not paying more than their fair share ?

As I say, I'm torn but when it comes to a completely voluntary charitablesque donation, which is effectively what we are talking about, one thing is for sure - there is no rulebook, no guidelines, no right & wrong - this is an entirely personal decision for someone and whilst I donate a lot to charity, I don't judge those that don't - that's the very point of charity

[Burwood]

Rovinghawk said:

Willy Nilly said:

If she is worth 45 million quid, she's probably paid quite a bit of tax along the way. Even if he wasn't disabled, I'd be paying for him to get to school and for him to be in school, just like I do everyone elses kids.

A quick google reveals he's blind and autistic so he's going to need quite a bit of care during is life which will be expensive, a taxi ride is going to be bugger all compared to that. You might argue that the state will receive more tax if they pay for him to go to school so his mum can go out and earn loads more money for god knows what and pay a load of tax in the mean time.

On a list of cases deserving of state aid, I'd but him fairly high up.

You make a fair point. I was against her getting anything based on her wealth (plus the fact that I detest her) but on balance I'd accept she's paid in more than she's likely to take out.

Like i said early-can of worms. If it's 150k annually on cars, what else is there lurking. For all we know it's 500k total and net she takes from the system. I personally think a cap is required. Cancer patients don't get expensive drugs free. My sister in law who had cancer received no assistance to pay for drugs/treatment that work. The reason being, too expensive so paid out 10k a month. Applying the same logic, a 1k taxi ride is ridiculous end of

[Timmy40]

hornetrider said:

Rovinghawk said:

I was against her getting anything based on her wealth (plus the fact that I detest her) but on balance I'd accept she's paid in more than she's likely to take out.

That's not the point though is it. If everyone got out what they put in, there's be no money for the truly deserving who've never been able to put in, or put in little over their lives.

The welfare state in my view should be there as a safety net for those who can't afford certain services. Being a gazillionaire and still being able to claim is all sorts of wrong.

I see the point. But being devils advocate imagine it's a car insurance policy, you pay your insurance same as everyone else. One day your car is stolen and when you come to claim, the insurer peers in your bank balance and says sorry we're not paying out because you can afford to buy a new car anyway.

[Rovinghawk]

hornetrider said:

The welfare state in my view should be there as a safety net for those who can't afford certain services. Being a gazillionaire and still being able to claim is all sorts of wrong.

I originally thought the same as you. I then heard different viewpoints from those with a fair bit of knowledge of the subject.

Having noted that the cost of means testing can be greater than the savings plus the fact that it can be a disincentive to work hard, I accept that there are circumstances where the wealth of the recipient can be disregarded, especially when they've contributed a fair amount to the exchequer.

[Corpulent Tosser]

Whether or not KP's son should be getting benefits, the system is broken.

Should disability benefits be means tested ? Probably not.

Should able bodied people be able to make a decision to live on benefits indefinitely. Definitely not.

[BoRED S2upid]

Yes the system is very broken benefits being capped at over £20k is a smack in the face to millions of low paid workers.

However you can't means test everything where so you stop! You pay into the system you are ok to take out of the system in my book. A very slippery slope if the wealthy can pay in but not take out anything ever.