Quote:
Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth
I know why they're not taxed but I asked why they shouldn't be taxed?
Cheers
Grim
|
I was just giving a factual account of the history of disability benefits.
My own personal view of the situation is this:
The Government decided to give disabled people a given amount to help with the extra costs associated with disability and mobility needs. They did not want to have these modest payments eroded by the effects of the benefits and taxation system. As a result, regulations were introduced to ensure that Attendence Allowance and Mobility Allowance were both tax free and to ensure that the award of these new benefits were not negated by reducing other various means tested benefits.
Not protecting them from the effects of taxation would have reduced the amount that Parliament wanted to get into the hands of the disabled in order to help to improve their quality of life.
The general idea is that, whatever a persons income, society should help those who face extra costs through no fault of their own ie that their standard of living should not be lower than it otherwise would be if they were not disabled.
Whilst this is laudable, because of the need to make cuts or increase revenue, I think that there is a case for the consideration of removing this tax exempt status or DLA altogether from the more afluent. If someone is disabled and has made a success of their life to become very, very rich, do they really need or deserve society to recompense them for the extra expenses caused as a result of their disability?