Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think very few carers will benefit from the “ increase “ in carers

134 replies

Ionlytrymybest · 30/10/2024 13:27

reading the budget and I can see some carers may benefit
those who can work along side up to the maximum amount allowed of earnings or those with partners who work full time with a wage good enough to not be on UC.

but many full time carers are on universal credit, so the increase in these cases is surely pointless they won’t see an increase in their monthly money at all as it is deducted 1.00 for 1.00 from Universal credit ?

so unless they change the 1.00 for 1.00 deductions it’s not really that big of a change ?

OP posts:
kitsuneghost · 30/10/2024 13:45

Ionlytrymybest · 30/10/2024 13:39

You said before they would get more money they “earn “ and less from benefits. So it’s one or the other.

Edited
Show quote history

I may have misunderstood, sorry

I thought you were saying they wouldn't benefit from payrises as for every pound more they earn in wages, a pound is taken away in benefits.

So for example, if they were £100 wage £100 benefits before then £110 wage and £90 benefits after.

ChestnutSquash · 30/10/2024 13:44

TomatoSandwiches · 30/10/2024 13:41

My son is 8, he is cognitively 0-3 and is extremely high needs, doubly incontinent, no language at all and other health/social communication issues.

I get paid in my own right £81.90pw (taxable) to care for him, which includes night waking every 1.45-2hrs for an hour at least, the only rest and sleep I can get is when he is at school, he has to be supervised 24/7 and we despite being awarded PA hours there is no one willing to take the job so holidays is even more full on.

If my son was to be looked after by the state entirely his costs would be in the multiple of thousands per week.

£81.90pw.

I am so sorry. It really is disgraceful.

Original poster
Ionlytrymybest · 30/10/2024 13:42

TomatoSandwiches · 30/10/2024 13:41

My son is 8, he is cognitively 0-3 and is extremely high needs, doubly incontinent, no language at all and other health/social communication issues.

I get paid in my own right £81.90pw (taxable) to care for him, which includes night waking every 1.45-2hrs for an hour at least, the only rest and sleep I can get is when he is at school, he has to be supervised 24/7 and we despite being awarded PA hours there is no one willing to take the job so holidays is even more full on.

If my son was to be looked after by the state entirely his costs would be in the multiple of thousands per week.

£81.90pw.

I hear you.

OP posts:
TomatoSandwiches · 30/10/2024 13:41

My son is 8, he is cognitively 0-3 and is extremely high needs, doubly incontinent, no language at all and other health/social communication issues.

I get paid in my own right £81.90pw (taxable) to care for him, which includes night waking every 1.45-2hrs for an hour at least, the only rest and sleep I can get is when he is at school, he has to be supervised 24/7 and we despite being awarded PA hours there is no one willing to take the job so holidays is even more full on.

If my son was to be looked after by the state entirely his costs would be in the multiple of thousands per week.

£81.90pw.

Original poster
Ionlytrymybest · 30/10/2024 13:39

kitsuneghost · 30/10/2024 13:36

benefits is not a wage but it is an income
so income should not change

Show quote history

You said before they would get more money they “earn “ and less from benefits. So it’s one or the other.

OP posts:
ChestnutSquash · 30/10/2024 13:39

I worked part time for years because I was caring for elderly parents. I never claimed carer's allowance because I was earning over the limit and we needed my salary to pay the bills. DH worked full time so I did the bulk of the care. The knock on effect is a much lower pension than I would otherwise have earned. Given how much money carers save the government and the tax payer, I think it is still a very unfair situation.

kitsuneghost · 30/10/2024 13:36

Ionlytrymybest · 30/10/2024 13:32

But they don’t treat it the same as a “ wage “

Show quote history

benefits is not a wage but it is an income
so income should not change

Original poster
Ionlytrymybest · 30/10/2024 13:32

kitsuneghost · 30/10/2024 13:31

The point is the more they earn, the less the government needs to pay
I doubt they will be worse off it is just more from wages and less from benefits which is a good thing.
We all agree that working people should not need ANY benefits don't we.

But they don’t treat it the same as a “ wage “

OP posts:
kitsuneghost · 30/10/2024 13:31

The point is the more they earn, the less the government needs to pay
I doubt they will be worse off it is just more from wages and less from benefits which is a good thing.
We all agree that working people should not need ANY benefits don't we.

Swipe left for the next trending thread