Should disabled benefits be means tested?
Discussion
In light of celebrity whopper Katie Jordan Price (net worth circa 45m) admitting to having her disabled child shuttled to and from school at taxpayers expense, is this right? No doubt the child will get some kind of DLA and motability type benefit also.
Now, obviously disabled people should have complete access to these type of services, however is it right that the taxpayer foots the bill if the individual has vast wealth? Is the system broken? Should the state only be there to pick up the tab when one is incapable of paying oneself?
My view is yes, the system is broken.
Thoughts?
Now, obviously disabled people should have complete access to these type of services, however is it right that the taxpayer foots the bill if the individual has vast wealth? Is the system broken? Should the state only be there to pick up the tab when one is incapable of paying oneself?
My view is yes, the system is broken.
Thoughts?
The kid only gets taken to school miles away as the local council shut down his local special needs school,to save money apparently. Whether his mega bucks mum should pay it herself is another thing entirely-thats on her conscience.
Means testing DLA is too expensive,as VERY few people have enough money to take them off it. It has been looked at & would have cost more than it saved.
Means testing DLA is too expensive,as VERY few people have enough money to take them off it. It has been looked at & would have cost more than it saved.
The problem is that disability benefits are there to address the extra cost to you over an able bodied person. There are plently of disabled people who earn enough to pay their extra costs, but would then effectively be earning less than their peers which is unfair.
There does come a point where its just taking the piss though, if I had 45m I would be ashamed of taking from the state.
If it were to be means tested then it should be above the point where the extra from benefits make no real difference to your life. That would mean the cut off would be very high and save very little.
There does come a point where its just taking the piss though, if I had 45m I would be ashamed of taking from the state.
If it were to be means tested then it should be above the point where the extra from benefits make no real difference to your life. That would mean the cut off would be very high and save very little.
My friends and I had a big debate about this earlier this week and turns out I am the only one who thinks she should have morally wanted to pay for it herself if she was a decent person. I understand its legal, she has paid probably massive amounts of tax and whatnot but that wasnt my point.
I knew I had lost when they all started throwing around that she was 'entitled' and therefore should do it.
I knew I had lost when they all started throwing around that she was 'entitled' and therefore should do it.
vescaegg said:
My friends and I had a big debate about this earlier this week and turns out I am the only one who thinks she should have morally wanted to pay for it herself if she was a decent person. I understand its legal, she has paid probably massive amounts of tax and whatnot but that wasnt my point.
I knew I had lost when they all started throwing around that she was 'entitled' and therefore should do it.
What? She's a dame now??I knew I had lost when they all started throwing around that she was 'entitled' and therefore should do it.
This thread has ruined my morning.
98elise said:
The problem is that disability benefits are there to address the extra cost to you over an able bodied person. There are plently of disabled people who earn enough to pay their extra costs, but would then effectively be earning less than their peers which is unfair.
I believe this is correct in principle and in an ideal world its a sound line of reasoning but as a country we are living outside our means and we have to make cuts so shelving a few principles is fine with me.I am btw disabled myself(amputee) and my disability does cost me extra in my general life(I do make a saving on socks!). I could claim certain benefits but I choose not to as I earn a decent living and its wouldn't feel right. I like it that there is a safety net if my circumstances change but until them I'm happy to pay my own way just like everyone else.
For starters the article claims £1,000 per day which is not the case. You can blame the system not KP. It is very easy to sit there and judge. It is probably one of the very few entitlements she takes which is a drain on resources.
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?
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?
hornetrider said:
Willy Nilly said:
It is the boy that is disabled and not either of his wealthy parents.
So? They are legally responsible for him until he's 16. What's your point?I am sure his mum and dad would much rather him not be disabled and pay for him to do all the normal stuff kids without disabilities do. His mum and dad have a few quid and will have paid a few quid in tax, but won't be getting any more in state aid to help him than if they have a very average wage.
There will come a time when he will be an adult and just because his mum and dad had relatively successfully careers, doesn't mean he will and it will be even more difficult with a disability. His mum is quite a bright person, so hopefully with a bit of state aid now and his mums guidance he will be less of a burden to us when he grows up.
It irks me as much as the next person that people are too lazy to work and sit at home breeding at our expense, but what ever disability KP's boy has is not his fault and I don't mind giving him a helping hand.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff