To ask what's the beef with benefits?

Some posters get my goat. It's my goat get your own.
Mobility cars are necessary due to the many medical appointments meetings reviews OT SALT and accessing specialist stuff that is never ever local, or on a main transport link, that's even if you can use public transport.

It wouldn't work with old vehicles due to depreciation, higher repair bills and potential recovery costs on breakdown.

I don't begrudge people with mobility needs to have an allowance for this. But I don't understand how the economics of car purchase would change for someone with mobility needs (other than needing a bigger vehicle).

An older car would cost more money to run.

there's a sweet spot. a new car is the most expensive (it loses value the minute it leaves the lot) and a 200 pound rust bucket is going to breakdown. but 5-10 year old cars can be very cost effective.

There's defo an agenda Dawn
I thought the comments levelled at me were unnecessary too.

Only my comment wasn't actually levelled at you, as I explained before. It's sarcasm aimed at someone who was doing a really good impression of behaving like a dick.

Greyhound, you weren't clear in your post about what you were getting at. I pointed out why we can seem a little jumpy at times. You are starting to look like you are pursuing something now.

notaunique it's a bloody nonsense, this government has cut taxes for the rich. Regularly. There is plenty of evidence demonstrating this.

So really greyhound you're saying that you're provoked by my comment. Fair enough.

But I'm supposed not to respond to provocation? In the name of debate?

Yes carers allowance is taxable.
But I don't get taxed.
Because I don't have enough coming in to get to the taxable level.
That's hardly kerching is it?

And yeah I get why 'sainted taxpayer' is going to rile. Just as gleefully telling me that services I rely on to survive are going to be cut did. Not that that was you, but that's the kind of comment I'm responding to.

Again, I've been a taxpayer. I intend to be again.

I was also under the impression that benefits were taxed. (so even the most channel 5 worth benefit "scrounger" is a tax payer)

easy to say why not just change the amount and eradicate the tax, but something to do with pension contributions?

That sometimes you find out surprising things. -like this coalition government haven't cut taxes for the rich they (the rich) pay a greater percentage than ever before... (and I "the poor" pay less tax)
shock

Of course that's not implying that they are by any means "the good guys",
It was just a random and weird fact that came up when I was actually trying to search for a link (since a distinction was made between opinion and facts with links earlier)
but it goes to show that it's difficult to believe a lot of what's quoted on TV.

but mostly it shows that when you actually look at the figures, "the sainted tax payer"™ barely pays for them self anyway.

So, brand new cost of vehicle at bulk purchase price less lease premiums x 156 less sale price = downpayment.

No it doesn't become unreliable, not.
The basis of the scheme is that the vehicle (whatever it is) is leased for the mobility component of DLA or PIP for three years. The component is the same for EVERYONE in receipt of it, regardless of personal income.

Then the vehicle is sold so that motability recoups the cost of the vehicle.

It wouldn't work with old vehicles due to depreciation, higher repair bills and potential recovery costs on breakdown.

If a person puts down a hefty downpayment they can have a different vehicle. Whether that is down to want or need is irrelevant - you can have luxury or a people carrier that doesn't matter, what matters is the depreciation rate and what motability will get for the vehicle at the end which obviously will be less for a people carrier than other models (hence the high downpayment) and for high end luxury vehicles.

BUT the daily mail campaigning for any vehicle over a £2k downpayment meant that people carriers got wiped out too. Quite a few people need them due to boot size.

The idea is that the scheme breaks even. That's it.

Well, you do have to wonder why someone would rock up on page 21 of a thread so rich in material to discuss and pick one single comment.

No comment about a poster being gleeful that services we depend upon (not just want, depend upon) will be withdrawn from us.

No, nothing about that.
Just picking at a sarcastic comment made after pages of being goaded.

I am sorry you appear to think that carer's are greedy, not entitled to breaks and shouldn't (albeit for very, very short periods of time) put themselves first on occasion.

I never said that.
(so now it's you taking things out of context?)
in fact what I said is that when you read the thread you should sympathise and
"feel angry that people who are sick and those that care for them as a full time job don't get anything near the minimum wage for what they are doing all day, and all night all week."

(I can't honestly see how that can be taken as anything other than support and saying that those people who are carers should have "looking after theif family" recognised as a full time job, and get paid "at least" minimum wage for doing that job, for every hour that "they" need to do that job.

no, I don't know the ins and outs of the mobility scheme,
That's why I asked, you you just want, or is that a real need.
Maybe this is something that I'll never fully understand unless I experience it?
However I also don't believe that when a car suddenly gets to three years old that it suddenly becomes unreliable?

Don't worry about it Dawn, it's more bullshit bulked out with as many words as possible.

Right and after reading the thread you're surprised?
It's a sarcastic comment aimed at someone who is doing a really good job of behaving as I'd expect a complete dick to!

greyhound
The way we are frequently victimised on these threads, it's surely easy to see why we may be a tad aggressive. Your post wasn't exactly clear, was it.

That sometimes you find out surprising things. -like this coalition government haven't cut taxes for the rich they (the rich) pay a greater percentage than ever before... (and I "the poor" pay less tax)