Lottery winners "on the sick"

[Deva Link]

davepoth said:

State pension isn't strictly speaking a benefit though. Although we know there is no pension fund, contributions are pretend paid into that fund, and you get a pension based upon your contribution to that fund. If you have never worked a day in your life you won't get the basic state pension at all.

Of course it's a benefit. As you've explained, it's a contributory benefit. Same as contribution based JSA.

[10 Pence Short]

Deva Link said:

Of course it's a benefit. As you've explained, it's a contributory benefit. Same as contribution based JSA.

And if these lottery winners have more than £16,000 in the bank, they won't get JSA. Why shouldn't the principle of means testing disability benefits be along the same lines?

[davepoth]

Deva Link said:

Of course it's a benefit. As you've explained, it's a contributory benefit. Same as contribution based JSA.

And I have no issue with contribution based JSA - similarly if said person had paid money into a private unemployment insurance scheme they would get money out and we wouldn't be discussing it.

What I have an issue with is non-contributory benefits, which really should only be for when a person is in dire straits. (and by that I'm not referring to Mark Knopfler as he is quite well off)

[dandarez]

ninja-lewis said:

I suspect they claim not for the money but for the access to other services that receipt of DLA opens up - for example a Blue Badge. Being rich doesn't make you any less disabled and there are some things money simply can't buy.

THIS

'Yeah, take it all back, we don't need it'.

Results in:
'What the f you doing there mate? This is for disabled parking, are you really disabled? B. off! You need a blue badge!!'

[Deva Link]

10 Pence Short said:

And if these lottery winners have more than £16,000 in the bank, they won't get JSA.

They would still get contribution based JSA.

[10 Pence Short]

dandarez said:

THIS

'Yeah, take it all back, we don't need it'.

Results in:
'What the f you doing there mate? This is for disabled parking, are you really disabled? B. off! You need a blue badge!!'

Would it really be so difficult to split the requirement for a blue badge from a means test to determine requirement for financial benefit element? There's nothing to say it has to continue being an 'all or nothing' test.

[davepoth]

dandarez said:

ninja-lewis said:

I suspect they claim not for the money but for the access to other services that receipt of DLA opens up - for example a Blue Badge. Being rich doesn't make you any less disabled and there are some things money simply can't buy.

THIS

'Yeah, take it all back, we don't need it'.

Results in:
'What the f you doing there mate? This is for disabled parking, are you really disabled? B. off! You need a blue badge!!'

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/MotoringAndTransport/Bluebadgescheme/DG_181208

You don't need to be in receipt of DLA to get a blue badge.

[stitched]

Whilst I don't think I would take this money in their position it appears they are both legally and morally correct to take it.
If he had spent his life on benefits then yes my piss would be heating nicely. As he has worked all his life and seen a large proportion of his wages vanish in taxes then he is legally and morally entitled to his claim.
Cast your mind back to the financial crash and the amounts local authorities had managed to place in the infamous Icelandic bank. All the while raising council tax every year.
If you are looking for leeches in this.....

[Deva Link]

stitched said:

If you are looking for leeches in this.....

Yep, another example might be millionaire MP's making outrageous expenses claims.

[s3fella]

I thought Disability LA finished at 65 for fellas? Or does it continue if you'd made a claim prior to 65?

PS, they are merely common chav aholes so hardly newsworthy.

[tank slapper]

s3fella said:

I thought Disability LA finished at 65 for fellas? Or does it continue if you'd made a claim prior to 65?

If you are receiving DLA on an ongoing basis prior to 65 then you continue to receive it afterwards. If you make a claim after 65, then you receive attendance allowance. There are a lot of elderly people eligible for attendance allowance who simply aren't aware that it exists.

[Sticks.]

davepoth said:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/Motorin...

You don't need to be in receipt of DLA to get a blue badge.

No, but it can sometimes be very difficult to get one if you are not.

[tinman0]

stitched said:

Whilst I don't think I would take this money in their position it appears they are both legally and morally correct to take it

By no stretch is it moral for them to get this extra money.

The welfare system was designed as a safety net for people who needed help, not for millionaires several times over.

The only upside of this story is that their neighbours have probably started making their lives a living hell. Which can only be condoned. Reap what you sow fkers.

[dandarez]

davepoth said:

dandarez said:

ninja-lewis said:

I suspect they claim not for the money but for the access to other services that receipt of DLA opens up - for example a Blue Badge. Being rich doesn't make you any less disabled and there are some things money simply can't buy.

THIS

'Yeah, take it all back, we don't need it'.

Results in:
'What the f you doing there mate? This is for disabled parking, are you really disabled? B. off! You need a blue badge!!'

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/MotoringAndTransport/Bluebadgescheme/DG_181208

You don't need to be in receipt of DLA to get a blue badge.

No. But they are 'guaranteed' one, and don't need to be 'assessed' (tested).

[Sticks.]

tinman0 said:

The only upside of this story is that their neighbours have probably started making their lives a living hell. Which can only be condoned. Reap what you sow fkers.

Do you hope for the same for wealthy old people getting the winter fuel allowance? Or maybe your company boss getting child benefit?

[Deva Link]

tinman0 said:

The only upside of this story is that their neighbours have probably started making their lives a living hell.

Pretty unlikely - they'll be well known in the area and they've chosen to stay there so far.

[herewego]

tank slapper said:

s3fella said:

I thought Disability LA finished at 65 for fellas? Or does it continue if you'd made a claim prior to 65?

If you are receiving DLA on an ongoing basis prior to 65 then you continue to receive it afterwards. If you make a claim after 65, then you receive attendance allowance. There are a lot of elderly people eligible for attendance allowance who simply aren't aware that it exists.

And if you make your claim after 65 can you get a free car? Because I thought that free cars were to help working people get to work and I can't understand why retired people would get them.

[tank slapper]

tinman0 said:

By no stretch is it moral for them to get this extra money.

If it is moral for HMRC to go after every penny you earn for tax purposes, it is equally moral for an individual to maximise any allowance he can in the other direction. There is absolutely no difference between the two. The state has the advantage in that it sets the rules and can back them up with violence, so I see absolutely no reason for people not to claim what the rules say they can.

[tank slapper]

herewego said:

And if you make your claim after 65 can you get a free car? Because I thought that free cars were to help working people get to work and I can't understand why retired people would get them.

I don't believe so - DLA has a care component and a mobility component, and you can qualify for either or both. Motability is paid for by the higher rate mobility component. Attendance allowance doesn't have a mobility component only a care one, so you wouldn't qualify for it.

[davepoth]

tank slapper said:

If it is moral for HMRC to go after every penny you earn for tax purposes, it is equally moral for an individual to maximise any allowance he can in the other direction. There is absolutely no difference between the two. The state has the advantage in that it sets the rules and can back them up with violence, so I see absolutely no reason for people not to claim what the rules say they can.

Whoever said income tax was moral?