Should disabled benefits be means tested?

Should disabled benefits be means tested?

Author
Discussion

Willy Nilly

12,511 posts

166 months

Friday 30th January 2015
quotequote all
Burwood said:
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
I THINK, it's not the taxi ride that is costing the ££££ it is having the specialist nurses with him. Considering you can hire a low loader for £500/day, I doubt even the most unscrupulous taxi driver would have the front to charge £1,000 a day to take a disabled boy to and from school and a Mondeo full of Magic Trees.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 30th January 2015
quotequote all
Willy Nilly said:
I am sure his mum and dad would much rather him not be disabled...
Oh FFS, just reading the thread I knew it wouldn't be long before some muppet played the emotive nonsense card. Unfortunately I agree with the rest of the post so maybe I'm a muppet too. Fact is his parents have probably paid more tax than everyone on this thread put together, it's hardly unreasonable that they use the services to which they have contributed far more than most. IMO there is something intrisicly wrong with means tested benefits, denying the people who actually flipping pay for state services the benefit of them. Where do you draw the line? Had your head kicked in? You're rich stop burdening the police and hire a private investigator. Need a hospital? You're rich, go private stop using the NHS.

Claudia Skies

1,098 posts

115 months

Friday 30th January 2015
quotequote all
IMO either all benefits should be means tested or no benefits should be means tested. But even that raises some questions,

  • Is the NHS a benefit?
  • Is state schooling a benefit?
  • Is the state pension a benefit?
And why exactly do I/my employer pay thumping National Insurance contributions?

Katzenjammer

1,081 posts

177 months

Friday 30th January 2015
quotequote all
I enjoy all the "morality of it all" arguements.

If she pays her quota taxes and her disabled child is entitled to certain benefits, that's entirely fair.

If a standard and decent level morality was applied to all fiscal matters and the use of State resources, the State would not be broke in the first place.

jonby

5,357 posts

156 months

Friday 30th January 2015
quotequote all
Claudia Skies said:
IMO either all benefits should be means tested or no benefits should be means tested. But even that raises some questions,

  • Is the NHS a benefit?
  • Is state schooling a benefit?
  • Is the state pension a benefit?
And why exactly do I/my employer pay thumping National Insurance contributions?
It used to be that NI was a separate pot, relating to things like unemployment benefit & state pension. But the cap has been removed and NI in general has just become another tax revenue stream for the govt.....a pretty important one too, as it now contributes more than 20% of total govt (sorry state) income

It's about as meaningful as road tax, insurance tax, holiday tax, business rates and for that matter mansion tax if it ever comes in, in that it's just about whatever the govt can get away with, without any rational justification and certainly has nothing to do with what you get in return. As Mylene Klass said recently to Ed Milliband, it's like pointing at that glass of water and just saying, let's tax it

So to answer your question, you pay it because the govt gets away with forcing you to, not for any particular specific benefit

But the very premise of NHS is free medical care for all. Anyway it can't work both ways - apparently private medical care is immoral so which way is it - rich people should use the NHS or they shouldn't ?

State education is for the children, not the parents, so that's not a benefit to the tax payer. Same as Ms Price's child's transport for that matter.

As for state pension, I'm 43 and I've assumed since I was 18 that the country would be too skint to may me a pension by the time I retire. My views haven't changed - the financial model doesn't stack up

Bottom line is there is of course a terrible problem with uneven wealth distribution but there is also a terrible problem that the number of financial dependents grows and the number of people paying for them diminishes. At some stage, something will snap and it's about far greater problems than someone who has probably paid millions into the system 'letting' the state pay for her disabled child's transport to & from school

Katzenjammer

1,081 posts

177 months

Friday 30th January 2015
quotequote all
Claudia Skies said:
IMO either all benefits should be means tested or no benefits should be means tested. But even that raises some questions,

  • Is the NHS a benefit?
  • Is state schooling a benefit?
  • Is the state pension a benefit?
And why exactly do I/my employer pay thumping National Insurance contributions?
To the list of things that could be defined as benefits I would add the likes of UK R&D tax credits, Research and Development grants, Patent Box tax relief, and the whiole raft of EU grants.

Also is the Civil List .

Plenty of wealthy companies and individuals don't actually need them, but they readily take adavangate of them.

Practically everyone in the UK gets some sort of benefit and/or is a benefit cheat.


Johnnytheboy

24,498 posts

185 months

Friday 30th January 2015
quotequote all
Katzenjammer said:
I enjoy all the "morality of it all" arguements.

If she pays her quota taxes and her disabled child is entitled to certain benefits, that's entirely fair.

If a standard and decent level morality was applied to all fiscal matters and the use of State resources, the State would not be broke in the first place.
Purely as an abstract aside, it's barking that someone that pays tax should get benefits.

There must a cheaper, simpler way of doing it.

9mm

3,128 posts

209 months

Friday 30th January 2015
quotequote all
98elise said:
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.
Taxation doesn't work like that. Hopefully she has paid exactly her fair share, which is a percentage of her income, CT, etc. Paying vastly more than you, me or anyone else doesn't mean she has paid more than her fair share.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 30th January 2015
quotequote all
9mm said:
Taxation doesn't work like that. Hopefully she has paid exactly her fair share, which is a percentage of her income, CT, etc. Paying vastly more than you, me or anyone else doesn't mean she has paid more than her fair share.
I disagree.

loafer123

15,404 posts

214 months

Friday 30th January 2015
quotequote all
BoRED S2upid said:
Yes the system is very broken benefits being capped at over £20k is a smack in the face to millions of low paid workers.

You're going to have to explain that one.

If someone is low paid, let's say they get £15k gross.

On top they get up to £20k benefits paid net, which is equivalent to, say £25k gross.

So your low paid worker is on £40k pa gross.

Forgive me if I can't find my tiny violin...

Murph7355

37,651 posts

255 months

Friday 30th January 2015
quotequote all
Johnnytheboy said:
All benefits should be means-tested - if it saves money.
I agree - only would go as far as to say that even if there was a cost associated, it should still be done.

My absolute preference would be to stop paying cash benefits at all to anyone.

Oakey

27,523 posts

215 months

Friday 30th January 2015
quotequote all
pete a said:
Worth remembering that the boys father is Dwight Yorke who is also not short of a bob or two.
If only Dwight Yorke could remember that

sugerbear

3,960 posts

157 months

Friday 30th January 2015
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
Johnnytheboy said:
All benefits should be means-tested - if it saves money.
I agree - only would go as far as to say that even if there was a cost associated, it should still be done.

My absolute preference would be to stop paying cash benefits at all to anyone.

And thank god people like you are in a very tiny minority.

You are living in the wrong country. There are plenty of countries in the world that have no benefits and very low tax yet you don't appear to have emigrated.

mph1977

12,467 posts

167 months

Friday 30th January 2015
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
Esseesse said:
Yes and/or reduced anyway. Who knew being disabled got you shuttled around by the state.
But its only a stop gap till they can give you a car.
1. local authorities have a statutory duty to provide transport to the closest appropriate school if you live 3 or more miles away from it

2. Motability is a charity, Motability Ops is a not for profit company owned by Motability and someo fthe banks

3. you are not given a car

4. it is not free , it costs higher / enhanced rate mobility component per month Plus any Advanced payment - it works like a 'just add fuel ' lease , becasue that;s what it is.

mph1977

12,467 posts

167 months

Friday 30th January 2015
quotequote all
crankedup said:
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.
ESA at work related activities is means tested same as JSA

ESA has a work focused functional examination which is very much into the realms of Occ health type stuff

PIP has a differently focused examination system which is focused on activities of daily living.

the stuff in the press usually comes down to two things

1. hand wringing lefties who forget ESA and PIP were Labour policies and ESA was introduced by Labour - they have a pity the poor crip/ spacker / nutter attitude towards disability rather than the integrative and empowering models used in current health care practice and by the more switched on support groups

2. people who do not engage with the assessment process and fail to get proper adivce before completing the application forms etc and then unsuprisingly get thrown before they even reach the clinicla assessment phase


mph1977

12,467 posts

167 months

Friday 30th January 2015
quotequote all
loafer123 said:
BoRED S2upid said:
Yes the system is very broken benefits being capped at over £20k is a smack in the face to millions of low paid workers.

You're going to have to explain that one.

If someone is low paid, let's say they get £15k gross.

On top they get up to £20k benefits paid net, which is equivalent to, say £25k gross.

So your low paid worker is on £40k pa gross.

Forgive me if I can't find my tiny violin...
someone on 15k won;t be getting anywhere near that much in benefits

the benefit cap was introduced to deal with the 2nd or 3rd generation doleites who now have households full of the 3rd, 4th and 5th generation of careeer doleites / future career doleites and keep on popping babies out like shelling peas and encourage their offspring to do the same .

Gandahar

9,600 posts

127 months

Friday 30th January 2015
quotequote all
Who's going to do all this means testing?

On here the public sector is far too bloated anyway you always say wink You right wing guys want your cake and eat it. It ain't going to happen. Sorry. Go read the Daily Mail instead, it will give you your required bastion of doubt confirmation.

Also it makes me laugh how people on here complain this child is getting disability benefit because he is disabled when all children, including those of some posters on here, get child benefit across the board.

Having a child is a lifestyle choice, so why a benefit for it at all? Surely that is more worthwhile commenting on than someone disabled getting his due benefit?




Edited by Gandahar on Friday 30th January 20:57

voyds9

8,488 posts

282 months

Friday 30th January 2015
quotequote all
Parents of disabled children have fought for years to have their children accepted in main stream schools.

Having Harvey ferried to a special school everyday must really be helping the cause.

I wonder if Ms Price feels all disabled children should be separated from a normal education.

Gandahar

9,600 posts

127 months

Friday 30th January 2015
quotequote all
voyds9 said:
Parents of disabled children have fought for years to have their children accepted in main stream schools.

Having Harvey ferried to a special school everyday must really be helping the cause.

I wonder if Ms Price feels all disabled children should be separated from a normal education.
Actually you won't believe the fight parents go through to get their kids sent to special schools if need be.

That's for able bodied kids trying to get into grammar schools in Kent by the way. When you talk about parents and their childrens well being they will do everything to do the right thing, even though it's bks.

Being a commie I think all schools should be comprehensive. My daughter got into her selected grammar school though. Woo !

See what I mean?

mph1977

12,467 posts

167 months

Friday 30th January 2015
quotequote all
voyds9 said:
Parents of disabled children have fought for years to have their children accepted in main stream schools.

Having Harvey ferried to a special school everyday must really be helping the cause.

I wonder if Ms Price feels all disabled children should be separated from a normal education.
paretns of children with mild to moderate learning disabilities, a primary physical disability or a single sensory disability want their kids in mainstream school as they will be living a mainstream life post 18

unfortunately for a a young chap such as KP's lad a mainstream life is not a realistic option dueto his multiple comorbidities and multiple impairments