The state benefits system mega-thread.

[Gary L]

The trick with "leaked" documents is to forewarn you on purpose.

you discuss it. and you get ready for it. and you accept it.

so when they do it you were actually expecting it. so it's not too bad now.


Another thing is.
Dave is coming back for more because you didn't scream loud enough the last time.

Perhaps if the Tory's would be honest on where the additional cuts of 12 billion are coming from no one would get worked up about leaks but given they will give no details it is not surprising people take leaks more seriously more so at a time when more and more workers within the dwp feel enough cuts have been made. It just sums up what politicians have turned us the public into the mention of cutting 12 billion more from the welfare budget hitting the disabled and their carers barely gets a mention despite the relatively small numbers that will be affected but if they were to announce an increase in income tax of 12 billion the public would go nuts and it's that twisted attitude this bunch of Tory's prey and rely on.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by nomadking

All that is being SUGGESTED by CIVIL SERVANTS is a sort of means testing. If you were receiving benefits, then carers allowance would continue. The suggestion about DLA & PIP is making them taxable as other benefits already are. If your income is below the tax threshold, there would be NO difference.

Before the 1970's there wasn't much extra support available to disabled people and their carers, then it was decided that help for a persons care and mobility needs would be made by introducing Attendance Allowance and Mobility Allowance (over the years these have become DLA/PIP for children and working age people). Mobility Allowance has all but been abolished and those over retirement age can claim Attendence Allowance if their disability arises after they reach retirement age.

In order to ensure that this Government help towards the extra costs associated with disability were met by the introduction of these new benefits, it was decided that they would be tax free and fully disregarded in the calculation of means tested benefits.

This meant that someone unable to work would receive the way extra help, without the extra money simply being knocked off their existing means tested benefits.

Someone able to work could still receive them and would not have the payments eroded by having to pay extra income tax.

It is worth noting that the help that many disabled people receive for their extra mobility needs actually enables them to work. This is obviously to everyones benefit and their are many disabled people who would have to give up work should this support be reduced or stopped. Besides the human cost of isolation, independence etc this action would actually cost the taxpayer more.

In short, ever since the introduction of these benefits, all Governments have ensured that this extra help is received in full to help meet the extra costs associated with disability by people through no fault of their own.

This is the first time ever that any suggestion that this should change has been made.

At the same time as disabled people were given extra help to meet some of their extra costs in the 1970's, a new benefit for their carers was introduced called Invalid Care Allowance.

This was meant to help towards the loss of earnings experienced by a carer and if they were able to work part time to boost their income, they had a disregard much higher than most other benefits.

Over time, to help reduce the negative perception that many people have of the disabled and to reflect the changing language of modern times, Invalid Care Allowance was renamed Carers Allowance (CA) The Blair administration significantly increased the amount that carers could earn before CA was reduced to help negate the loss of their potential earnings. The rate is roughly 16 x the hourly minimum wage for an adult.

This benefit is taxable and their hasn't been any mention thus far of any transitional protection for existing carers in receipt of Carers Allowance to continue to receive it should it be abolished.

In addition:

- Scrapping Carers Allowance could be counter productive. If carers (who already receive less income because they are unable to work full time) are expected to do it for nothing, they may cease being carers altogether. It would cost us much, much more as taxpayers if they ever did this.

- The current rate of Carers Allowance is £61.35 a week. This compares to Jobseekers Allowance which is currently £72.40.

- Carers Allowance is fully taken into account when calculating means tested benefits- penny for penny.

- Carers Allowance can only be paid for one person at a time to any given carer. If, for example, a parent looks after their disabled partner and child, only one payment is made.

- In order to receive Carers Allowance a carer must care for the disabled person for a MINIMUM of 35 hours per week. If we assume that a carer only ever does the minimum, this equates to a payment of £1.75 per hour, yet the National Minimum Wage is currently £6.50. If (like most) a carer does more than 35 hours per week; even this hourly rate is eroded as no further payment is ever made.

It's not such a good deal in reality is it? It takes a special kind of person to give up their career in return for what they get.

Carers save this country an absolute fortune, often at the expense of their own health and financial position. If the Government try to reduce or take away their current pittance, I predict (and hope for) a huge backlash.

[GrimUpNorth]

@Richard

I read you last post and I must be missing something. Why should benefits not be taxable?

Cheers

Grim

Originally Posted by Kursk

Times have changed. Taxpayers can no longer afford to fund this level of benefit. Nor can they afford to buy user-selected cars for motobility or fund all sorts of handouts like benefits for every child.

The welfare system is a safety net not a lifestyle choice. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

They certainly have ,didn't families used to club together to look after other family members that had disabilities or had fallen on hard times .The whole system of paying family members to look after other family members needs looking at ,in some cases it's just a way for freeloaders to avoid looking for work

[RichardCoulter]

And I bet that every single one of these people with, for example, disabled children would give up their benefits and swap places with you like a shot.

When Invalid Care Allowance was introduced, it was not possible to claim it for one's partner or after retirement age. Over the years, this was changed.

Have you ever considered the fact that if these people stopped caring for these people for £61.35 a week, that it would cost the taxpayer much, much more?

Local Authorities and the NHS would not be able to cope.

---------- Post added at 16:26 ---------- Previous post was at 16:24 ----------

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

@Richard

I read you last post and I must be missing something. Why should benefits not be taxable?

Cheers

Grim

Most benefits are taxable. The reasons why DLA/PIP have never been taxed since their introduction by successive Governments is explained in the post.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

And I bet that every single one of these people with, for example, disabled children would give up their benefits and swap places with you like a shot.

I should imagine that everyone can think of someone they'd like to change places with.

The priority for every parent is to feed and raise their family and, secondarily, to help others.

That order of priority has become more acute in 5 years of financial constraint with a shift in emphasis toward the former by necessity.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

And I bet that every single one of these people with, for example, disabled children would give up their benefits and swap places with you like a shot.

completely missed the point

[Hom3r]

When I was claiming JSA one idiot thought I enjoyed claiming £67 a week, and couldn't seem to grasp I was earning more than that a day.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Most benefits are taxable. The reasons why DLA/PIP have never been taxed since their introduction by successive Governments is explained in the post.

I know why they're not taxed but I asked why they shouldn't be taxed?

Cheers

Grim

[RichardCoulter]

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?

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

When I was claiming JSA one idiot thought I enjoyed claiming £67 a week, and couldn't seem to grasp I was earning more than that a day.

Perhaps the idiot thought that when you earned £67 a day you might have put some to one side in case you might need it during, say, an unexpected period of job-seeking?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

This is what annoys me is that Tory lovers think this is a good idea.

Erm......not all of us

[Taf]

I know several disabled people who use their DLA to pay the extra costs involved with finding and staying in full employment.

Whilst their wages (AFAIK) have been frozen for years, their DLA has increased very slightly, but not enough to absorb all the extra costs involved with transport especially.

Taxation of DLA might make it financially impossible for them to stay in work.

[Osem]

Carers don't only give up their time to those they care for full time, they often give up their chances of a decent job or any sort of career and therefore sacrifice their own security and ability to support themselves when they either lose their role for whatever reason.

A good friend of ours spent quite a few years looking after his profoundly disabled son 24/7 whilst living in a grotty HA flat on an appalling estate. Last year, having come to the end of his tether, he finally made the difficult decision to put his own life/sanity first, get a job and put his son into full time care. Whatever the state spent supporting him and his son over the years pales into insignificance compared to what it's now going to cost for the foreseeable future. There are no cheap or simple solutions to this problem.