Should disabled benefits be means tested?

[NicD]

Tannedbaldhead said:

I would also like to ask why are you so disgusted.

Are you disgusted that the very rich of my home town get free bussing to schools. Should they move closer to the schools?

thank you for the correction.

I am disgusted because of immorality of modern people. I and many others have to pay for this and other crazy schemes

I am not sure about the bus example you mention but the Price scheme is an absurd misallocation of public resource.

[Tannedbaldhead]

NicD said:

[
I am disgusted because of immorality of modern people. I and many others have to pay for this and other crazy schemes

I am not sure about the bus example you mention but the Price scheme is an absurd misallocation of public resource.

Firstly Ms Price probably pays more tax in fun than you and I combined pay in earnest and the misallocation of public resources as you put it is a result of a cost benefit exercise where it has been decided that it is more cost effective to pay to transport pupils to a central school than to provide more local schools.

Furthermore, to be fair to Ms Price it looked like she was prepared to contribute to a new free school to be located locally. The govt refused to go with that option.

I'd worry more about the morality of big business dodging tax at every opportunity than the odd millionare parent of a very profoundly disabled child being provided free transport.

Bear in mind that, by statute, all children required to travel over a certain distance do so free regardless of the parent's income. I lived more than 2 miles from my school back in 1980. As such, and in spite of my parents both earning relitively high incomes I recieved a free bus pass. That was in Thatcher's time in Govt so it's not some wishy washy lefty (as those nasty UKIPpy types would call it) policy. At the same time the able bodied children of well to do occupants of particularly isolated rural farmhouses were taken to school in council paid taxis.

[crankedup]

ninja-lewis said:

crankedup said:

Seems to me that the disabled have had a rough ride with the current Government policies. All the rhetoric about how those in Remploy were being held back and how outdated the Remploy system was. We should be integrating the disabled into the work place not segregating them. All laudable of course, the reality is that those that lost their work with Remploy most have been unable to find any employment whatsoever. One of the East Anglian regional Remploy closed last year, not a single former employee has landed alternative work.

The ESA examinations have been roundly criticized for their lack of 'real World' plausibility together with a total lack of empathy with the claimants within the system.

The rhetoric came from disabled people not working in Remploy ghettos. The Remploy factories cost £25,000 per employee, not all of whom were disabled. That same funding could help far, far more disabled people into the work place through Access to Work.

Government ministers have to look at the greater good.

The rhetoric has also come from those directly affected, it's not just rhetoric either, its painfully an injustice of implementing a well meaning policy without regard to Social or financial well being of those affected.

Didn't answer the problem of those Remploy employees unable to find any type of employment since losing their work due to the closure of Rempoy! The closure program would be a good thing from the Social POV, as you mention,but so many ex employees remain isolated from employment.
Government Ministers who may concern themselves of 'the greater good' need to spend as much energy finding solutions to the problems they have created to these former employees. O n the basis of the lead up to the current situation it appears the Ministers are only concerned with the bottom line.

[paranoid airbag]

Timmy40 said:

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.

Why? It's not a car insurance policy. It's money a democtractically elected government has taken, then chosen to give to, in this case, disabled parents. Not a freely-signed contract that both parites are obliged to fulfil.

A company is freely able to offer a means-tested policy, I just suspect it wouldn't do well.

[mph1977]

ninja-lewis said:

The rhetoric came from disabled people not working in Remploy ghettos. The Remploy factories cost £25,000 per employee, not all of whom were disabled. That same funding could help far, far more disabled people into the work place through Access to Work.

Government ministers have to look at the greater good.

remploy was little more than an extension of the old pity based concept of sheltered workshops

given some of the rhetoric expressed by the powerfully built types on PH about how they would never employ an ex public sector worker, how they avoid employing women with functioning reporductive tracts and other such kipperesque stuff it's unsuprising that ex-employees of remploy are having a hard time in the job market .

25 K as a one off payment throughj access to work for physical adaptations to the work place can go a long way especially if oyther service/process improvement projects are on the go , rather than the constant drip feed of government money that remploy required for it's directly managed sites ...

[Negative Creep]

mph1977 said:

loafer123 said:

Negative Creep said:

It is in that it is still possible to get more money by staying at home than going out and working full time for minimum wage

That is true.

while someone working for the minimum wage wouldn;t be getting 25 k in benefts, they might be getting something

if young , fit and single they may well get some HB ( fit here referringto not being eligible for PIP)

if they have a partner who doesn't work or only does a few hours they may get some tax credits as well

if they have kids they'll get child benefit ( which has now become means tested to a degree rather than totally universal) child tax credits and a higher rate of HB becasue of the need for additional bedrooms(s) depending o nthe age and geneder mix of their kids

Anyone living by themselves and on anything over 13k is unlikely to get any tax credits or Housing Benefits

[Sticks.]

mph1977 said:

remploy was little more than an extension of the old pity based concept of sheltered workshops

I think this sort of remark illustrates a lack of understanding of the positive effect of employment to the individual - physical, mental, psychological - as well as the wider society. Remploy could no doubt have been improved, but that would have cost money, while closing it saved money.

But you're right, ex-Remploy people will find it hard to get other work. The Access to Work budget was always under spent, not least because it took so long to get anything done (unsurprisingly). An employer is more likely to take the time to go through the process for a valued emplyee who becomes disabled; but it's a lot less likely they will to take on a low skilled new employee.

Short term saving, longer term costs imho.

[Tannedbaldhead]

Sticks. said:

mph1977 said:

remploy was little more than an extension of the old pity based concept of sheltered workshops

I think this sort of remark illustrates a lack of understanding of the positive effect of employment to the individual - physical, mental, psychological - as well as the wider society. Remploy could no doubt have been improved, but that would have cost money, while closing it saved money.

I get it. Man (or woman for that matter) wakes up in the morning with a sense of purpose, sense of worth, makes his breakfast and is seen by his family making his way to work. He is happy, occupied, stimulated and feels productive. This physical activity and stimulation will mean our Remploy employee will be less likely to be physically ill or depressed. This positivity will rub off on his kids. They will be better motivated at school, perform better gain better qualifications and in the long term pay more tax.

The alternative? Guy sits at home collects his income related benefits. He gets disillusioned, lazy, overweight, unfit. He'll eat more, smoke more and drink more. He'll get ill. He'll spend more time in hospital (that ain't cheap). His kids will lose the example they would have received in a working family. They will become disillusioned, demotivated. Their performance at school will fall. Their behaviour will deteriorate. They will learn the system. They will become the next generation of dolites. They will become a burden to the country rather than contributers.

Someone described it as paying one man to dig a hole and another to fill it in. Being honest I don't have a problem with that if the alternative is to have the men sitting in a house feeling sorry for themselves, necking Prozac by day and Lager by night and their kids growing up feeling this is a viable lifestyle option.

Taking into account the total whole life costs of the losing this facility I wonder if it is cost effective to the country and society to shut Remploy down.

[mph1977]

Tannedbaldhead said:

Sticks. said:

mph1977 said:

remploy was little more than an extension of the old pity based concept of sheltered workshops

I think this sort of remark illustrates a lack of understanding of the positive effect of employment to the individual - physical, mental, psychological - as well as the wider society. Remploy could no doubt have been improved, but that would have cost money, while closing it saved money.

I get it. Man (or woman for that matter) wakes up in the morning with a sense of purpose, sense of worth, makes his breakfast and is seen by his family making his way to work. He is happy, occupied, stimulated and feels productive. This physical activity and stimulation will mean our Remploy employee will be less likely to be physically ill or depressed. This positivity will rub off on his kids. They will be better motivated at school, perform better gain better qualifications and in the long term pay more tax.

The alternative? Guy sits at home collects his income related benefits. He gets disillusioned, lazy, overweight, unfit. He'll eat more, smoke more and drink more. He'll get ill. He'll spend more time in hospital (that ain't cheap). His kids will lose the example they would have received in a working family. They will become disillusioned, demotivated. Their performance at school will fall. Their behaviour will deteriorate. They will learn the system. They will become the next generation of dolites. They will become a burden to the country rather than contributers.

Someone described it as paying one man to dig a hole and another to fill it in. Being honest I don't have a problem with that if the alternative is to have the men sitting in a house feeling sorry for themselves, necking Prozac by day and Lager by night and their kids growing up feeling this is a viable lifestyle option.

Taking into account the total whole life costs of the losing this facility I wonder if it is cost effective to the country and society to shut Remploy down.

typical PH libertarian logic, someone else can do something aobut it but i won;t contribute to it .

[Sticks.]

Tannedbaldhead said:

Taking into account the total whole life costs of the losing this facility I wonder if it is cost effective to the country and society to shut Remploy down.

Yes, though I think it's taking a long term view, rather then libertarianism as MPH said. There's plenty of research about workless households and inter generational unemployment.

The taxpayer pays, either way, just the outcomes are different. Unless, of course, they're all now volunteering in the Big Society.

[SBDJ]

NicD said:

If you were a multi-millionaire who could live anywhere you choose and chose to live a long distance from the school, and expect the LA to arrange and pay for transport, then you would definitely get my thumbs down.

I wish - I'd be living a lot closer to his school and hospital if I was!

In fact it's something I'm trying to accomplish anyway, made even more urgent because the OH has just lost her license on medical grounds. Sadly I'm not sure it will ever happen.