Carers allowance breaches modern slavery laws surely

This graphic is very misleading. Tax evasion is hugely different to tax avoidance. Tax Justice are hardly an independent, objective body. Also if you include tax avoidance then you should also include benefit maximisation but interestingly they haven't bothered to quantify that.

I gave birth to two children with disabilities and was subsequently forced out of the workplace for the best part of 20 years. That’s 20 years I didn’t make contributions to my pension (apart from my NI being paid). I’m now mid/late 50s in a far lower position in my career than I could have been with naff all in my pension. Because we lived on one income for so long, my husband also hasn’t been able to put much into his pension either!

carers allowance didn’t even touch the sides!

People always argue with the figures, because otherwise the narrative of this graphic is inhumane in a civlised society.

A society which chases benefit fraud before tax evasion, and does nothing to address the poverty that unclaimed benefits will inevitably cause needs along hard look at itself and the politicians it elects.

The message is more that if you have an ill or disabled relative, at any point in your life, then unless you are independently wealthy you cannot both care for them and have a decent standard of living
Sums it up well I think. The difficulty is that ultimately it is a choice we make, to become a carer, which is why the allowance is not supposed to replace an income.

If you were entitled, why didn’t you claim?

More people now now are net beneficiaries from the state than are contributors.

Yes. Amazon. Google. Microsoft. Apple.

I think it might lead to more claims. I was a mother with 4 children, one was ten days old when we found out this was permanent. DH lost his job but his benefits plus my wages were a struggle and yes I'd have claimed and £83 a week would have made a difference.

While more would, I feel be appropriate, I think at the very least the earnings threshold should be adjusted or lifted. If PIP is awarded without means testing then so should CA. It wouldn't lead to more claims I don't think because if you're a higher earner CA doesn't give any advantages (as far as I recall) except a piddling 83 a week, so the hassle wouldn't necessarily be worth it. Just my thoughts.

No, it doesn't. The assumption is that if informal care went away then the state would have to foot the bill for everyone's care. They don't have to do this. They can change laws and rules to reflect this. If it becomes unaffordable then the rights to care will be restricted or removed. Ultimately the people who lose out will be those who need the care.

Your whole argument is based on the idea that 'care is care'. For your argument to hold you would have say that choosing to have a baby, and then caring for that newborn, is the same as caring for someone with life changing injuries after an RTA. No. These are two different types of care. The first one can be anticipated and the caring relationship is entered into voluntarily. The second one isn't anticipated and the caring relationship is compulsory (due to lack of statutory services). These just aren't the same
Nope, I don't need to prove that caring for a newborn baby is the same as caring for a victim of a RTA. No two people have exactly the same needs and therefore need exactly the same care. Looking across the disabled people I know, they have completely different needs but still undoubtedly all need care. They can't look after themselves completely independently and need someone to support them undertaking basic tasks. The fact that care needs can be anticipated or not doesn't take away from the fact that the fundamental act of providing care exists across different groups of people (the old, the disabled and children). Similar issues exist in terms of people having to sacrifice earning potential or shell out a hell of a lot of money to meet these needs. Also it isn't always true that those caring for the old or children have made this choice. Not all children are planned and many adults children feel forced into caring for their elderly relatives.

Adults with learning disabilities don't 'often need similar levels of care and support that would ordinarily be provided to children'. For example, lifting a kid who's 2 stone isn't the same as lifting an adult who's 12 stone. Similarly, feeding a toddler who can push your hand away isn't the same as feeding an adult who can punch you in the face. Same with bathing. Same with continence issues. It's completely different
I have direct first hand experience of the fact that often adults with learning disabilities do need similar levels of care and support. Not all learning disabled people need lifting, spoon feeding or bathing.

GDP per capita wise (the relevant metric here) we are absolutely not one of the richest countries in the world. We are in fact 17th richest in Europe and poorer than all the other countries you have listed. You should also research what countries with comparative GDP per capita do (hint: none pay family members the equivalent of minimum wage to care for the disabled). I will not discuss economics with someone that believe the Tories mishandling PPE means that we have enough money to pay for a enormous care bill. We simply don't. They aren't hoodwinking you or pretending. Scarcity is real. Look at the state of our exploited planet and the environmental catastrophe we find ourselves in to understand that scarcity is built into nature, our existence and ultimately all economies. We don't have infinite resources to trade, we will never have infinite money.

I think there is a danger in pushing for more. The result would probably be tougher rules and lots of carers, maybe the majority, getting nothing.

I say that as a carer who got nothing as I had to work and now get pension but I'd hate people to lose out.

I'm not sure it's fair to suggest though that it's the state that relies on informal care

Financially, the state absolutely does rely on informal care.

Yes, I agree. The message is probably broader. I'm not sure it's fair to suggest though that it's the state that relies on informal care. Ultimately it is your disabled relative relying on this (as mine does too). The state can't meet the care needs of every disabled person. If the state fails then it isn't the state that will lose out but the disabled individuals. Our loved ones. This is why we do it. As I mentioned before, my big wish is that we have an honest and open discussion about this as a society instead of pretending that the state realistically can meet everyone's care needs. It sets up unrealistic expectations and ultimately leads to huge disappointment and resentment. The welfare state only can go so far.

Your whole argument is based on the idea that 'care is care'. For your argument to hold you would have say that choosing to have a baby, and then caring for that newborn, is the same as caring for someone with life changing injuries after an RTA. No. These are two different types of care. The first one can be anticipated and the caring relationship is entered into voluntarily. The second one isn't anticipated and the caring relationship is compulsory (due to lack of statutory services). These just aren't the same.

Adults with learning disabilities don't 'often need similar levels of care and support that would ordinarily be provided to children'. For example, lifting a kid who's 2 stone isn't the same as lifting an adult who's 12 stone. Similarly, feeding a toddler who can push your hand away isn't the same as feeding an adult who can punch you in the face. Same with bathing. Same with continence issues. It's completely different.

Our society treats caring for children completely differently to 200 years ago. The idea of 'childhood' is a relatively modern phenomenon. And we aren't 'most countries around the world', we're one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The comparison shouldn't be with Ethiopia, it should be with Finland, or Sweden, or Germany, etc. Why on earth would we want to adopt the practices of developing countries?

In term of 'The reality is though that we do not have the resources or money in the public system to adequately care for the disabled if all family members refused to care for their loved ones or demanded a proper wage for doing so,' this is what is known as the scarcity argument, and it's entirely invented. You have to ask yourself why we don't have the resources or money in the public sector. To answer that question you have to ask yourself where all the money is. As many will recall, there was a magic money tree when the government were giving their mates backhanders during covid to provide substandard PPE. There's also the small matter of corporate tax evasion that costs the UK £billions upon £billions every year. In other words, the money is there, it's just being transferred into the hands of the few at the cost of the many.

^^ I'm not living in a dream world. I perfectly understand the reality of the situation. Yes, we do need to be honest about this and not swallow wholesale the myth of scarcity propounded by a press who are owned by the very people currently benefiting from 'story'.

Agree 💯 OP

Its an absolute disgrace and blatant discrimination. Condemning many thousands of women to abject poverty in old age.

People choosing to have children need to know that of their child is disabled or has additional needs then there is a high chance you will be stuck with a large portion of the caring responsibilities

It’s much broader than that though, many people on carers allowance aren’t caring for their disabled child. The message is more that if you have an ill or disabled relative, at any point in your life, then unless you are independently wealthy you cannot both care for them and have a decent standard of living.

In my case, I care for my disabled child because he’s my child, and I love him. I gave up my £65k a year job to do so, and it’s unlikely I’ll ever earn again due to his needs. And fundamentally, that’s what the state relies on. The love for your relative overriding the financial considerations.

How does pip pay for additional care when many need it for equipment, extra heating and other costs of being disabled? Pip isn't a bottomless money pit that people are making it out to be

I don't have the solution and neither does anyone else. I'm not sure there even is one really. The masses funding the vulnerable few worked for decades until the numbers of vulnerable exploded and the working masses have decreased and are struggling with a CoL crisis themselves. Realistically we are going to be entering a particularly painful time as the population pyramid becomes top heavy and care needs massively increase.

The one thing I am absolutely certain of though as we need more honesty in this conversation about what individuals can expect from the state. This is true for children, the disabled and the old. If we know now for example that there is unlikely to be a state pension as we know it for people that are currently 40 or younger then we should be bloody well telling people that. Letting them know that saving for old age is a massive priority. People choosing to have children need to know that of their child is disabled or has additional needs then there is a high chance you will be stuck with a large portion of the caring responsibilities.

"If you care for a disabled relative they should get PIP which should pay for additional care."

If care for your disabled relative costs £100 a hour PIP doesn't go very far.

So what is your proposed solution? In a society where families need 2 working adults to provide a decent standard of living, who is going to care for these people?

ETA I’ve just read a comment on another thread saying that living on one salary is a luxury not many can afford. It’s true. But that’s precisely what carers are expected to do.

It isn’t the care of the disabled person that this post is about. It’s the living expenses of the carer. If people are giving up full time jobs to care for a relative, on an allowance of £83.30 a week, with the expectation that they are providing 35 hours a week care (in reality it is usually a lot more), how are they then supposed to live? Of course the alternative is that they pass the care of the person over to the state, which would cost the state substantially more than £83.30 a week.

I fundamentally disagree. Care is care. You can categorise them differently all you like but the distinctions can be arbitrary and blurry. Almost half of 90 year olds report a disability that limits them a lot and they absolutely will need medical and health care. Many adults with learning disabilities often need similar levels of care and support that would ordinarily be provided to children. The physical act of caring for people is often very similar. I say this from experience before people come at me. I have experience of both.

Our society treats caring for children differently to caring for disabled people but historically in this country and still in most countries around the world, the care of disabled people falls to the family in the same way that the care of the elderly and children would. Your needs wouldn't miraculously become 'social' care just because you hit a certain age.

You are right that we have theoretically made a choice as a country to treat disabled care differently than other forms of care in terms of entitlement to care. The reality is though that we do not have the resources or money in the public system to adequately care for the disabled if all family members refused to care for their loved ones or demanded a proper wage for doing so. It is a grey area. Disabled people have rights to state funded care but these rights could not be exercised if the system can't cope. Hell, the support isn't there right now for my relative to live well if family didn't step in and do a lot for them. Living in a dream world where disabled care could be properly funded because we think it's the morally correct thing to do is never going to happen. Disability rates are exploding and the money available is decreasing. We need to be honest about this.

It’s an allowance, not a salary, which has to be paid for by the state.

More people now now are net beneficiaries from the state than are contributors. If you care for a disabled relative they should get PIP which should pay for additional care.

Carers of adults have no obligation to do so, and save the state huge sums of money. They get £86 pounds a week, for the dedication and hard work. They also keep the person they care for safer than they would be in care settings.

If all of those carers decided to take their 2 weeks holiday at the same time and not provide care, the country would be fucked.

Carers do not have to provide the care, this would cause the NHS/Social Care to collapse as they would be unable to provide the care currently being provided by the army of unpaid carers.

Edit for typo

No it is not like child benefit. Child Benefit is given alongside the basic UC rate and child element of UC

Carers Allowance is deducted from the UC (which is the basic rate plus the carers element)

So a carer who is not working/doesn't have a partner working will get

UC basic rate £400.14 a month and the Carers Element of £201.68.

Carers Allowance is deducted from this. The maximum they are entitled to is £601.82 a month.