So they want to replace PIP/DLA money with vouchers?

[moneyinthebinthatsmrtim]

I don't understand it. It is really worrying me.

This payment helps pay for so many things. I doubt these vouchers would cover that, or give the freedom to shop or buy from where you want or need to.

I included DLA because it's really just the child's version of PIP. Eventually, my profoundly disabled child will be an adult and will have to be on PIP

Is there really any truth in this? I can't see any articles directly quoting Labour or Conservative. I might just be in such a worry that I have missed that bit

Apologies if there is another thread on this too. I am happy to get this one taken off if that's the case

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pip-disability-benefits-plan-rishi-government-critics-b2537209.html

I know loads who get pip in both personal and work related areas and they have more money than many of us earning. Have to remind myself they have to live with disabilities and it's not easy. But many just spend it on their hoarding and hobbies etc. Always have money for days out and expensive equipment and electrical items. Takeaways regularly. Many don't pay rent. Many have savings. Why isn't it means tested?
We work hard and struggle. I don't agree with vouchers though, just for it to be fairer as I see so many people spending it on living the high life.

Rather than PIP suicidal people need mental health interventions by trained professionals. This might include assessments, trauma therapy, medication, community supports, supportive workplaces etc. Shoving them some PIP isn't going to do anything other than trap them on handouts in a state of perpetual dependence!

I agree with this. The way you reduce the number of people needing PIP and other benefits is investment in excellent mental health care, accessible at the earliest point possible when problems manifest themselves, alongside the reinstatement of Sure Start to catch families in difficulty early. We are nowhere near having that.

Tinkering about with vouchers and stigmatising people will achieve nothing.

But it costs her money. Or did you miss the 22 mile round trip to the hospital? That's every 3-4 months. I'm waiting on other appointments too - one is an 80 mile round trip.

You chose to have children. My parents didn't choose to have a disabled child.

You're allowed to think this for yourself, but nobody has to pay any attention to your belief that family should be doing this for free. There are inevitably going to be some disabled people needing help whose families can't or won't do it without being paid, so what then? If your argument is about costs, as has already been pointed out to you, this sort of informal ad hoc payment is going to be cheaper than formal carers.

It's both a financial and moral issue.

However I agree that the false economy approach, that has led to increased need for benefits, needs to end.

Reduce the need for benefits with:

Well-funded good public services, so people get timely and effective help. Reducing the likelihood of them needing benefits

Supportive benefits system. Poverty and health are interlinked.

More social housing. Substandard and unaffordable housing affects health, so people need benefits.
Also lots of people in low paid jobs need benefits to top-up their wages because of housing unaffordability.

Improved child support system. Sometimes the absent parent isn't paying up, even when a high earner, so the RP needs benefits.

Job education and training opportunities

Nobody has to, but their lack of attention which means this review is being carried out to start with 🤷🏼‍♀️ so by all means keep going. This is ridiculous, it’s like saying I’m saving the state money by not putting my kids in care. It’s a completely false argument. Family and friends should care for each other without financial compensation to a degree, and if you don’t believe this then you don’t believe in society and may as well be Thatcher. Where somebody has no family then of course they need paid care, but family shouldn’t be paid for caring for their own children and relatives unless it stops them from working and they therefore need the money.

Have to agree with this, many are simply not struggling on these benefits. I have a number on my fb page claiming disability benefits and they are constantly on European city breaks taking their grandkids away. One did 3 concerts/ gigs in four days in different cities recently not cheap ones either with overnight hotel stays. Agree it should be means tested.

For a start, some members of society can't be trusted to make choices that the rest of society feels is beneficial or healthy or productive.

That's just fact.

But that isn't what is being discussed here, what's being discussed here is a state benefit which is designed to pay for the additional costs of having a disability.

And whether or not those additional costs should be evidenced or not and go towards the extra costs or if they should just be a cash payment.

My brother has been on it for schizophrenia for 20 years and spends large portions of it on weed.

It takes money out of the criminal system and means it's spent in the economy.

European stays aren't that expensive now though.

If you means test it, it's going to cost far more. Many find pip doesn't cover everything. You're then means testing things like carers tickets, blue badge, travel passes, etc.

I don't know if it would work though. Dealers would just start accepting Tesco vouchers.

Why stop at PIP being given as vouchers? Jobseekers, single mums, the working class, pensioners - can any of them be trusted to spend it 'properly'?

THE NEW RULES

Charity shop clothing only. No one needs new clothes. Or clothes that fit. Correct sizes are for those who contribute.

No alcohol, fags, processed foods or birthday cards. Verbal birthday wishes are good enough for the poors (do they even celebrate?).

Food vouchers are too generous. It should be gruel only. And make sure it's store brand gruel. None of that fancy brand name stuff.

Children can get books from the library. We'll be closing it down soon though, so make sure you get all your reading in before then.

Haircuts can be done at home. But you can't actually buy scissors as they aren't on the approved list, so try your teeth in the first instance.

Wait - you still have teeth? Lah dee dah! No dentist for you then. You don't need them for gruel anyway...

Feel free to add on.

Agree. This is what I see all the time as well.

You said a few posts ago that benefits are a financial, not a moral issue. With that in mind, I'm asking about the money and practicalities, not your feelings about Thatcherism, society etc.

So let's get back to the question of paying family members. I'd first of all like to know how widely you want to define family. Are we talking cousins, cousin's kids, great nieces and nephews? Spouse/partner's relatives, in laws? You'd need a definition of that one first.

Then, once we've decided what a family member is, we'll still be left with some disabled people who have relatives who could help for free, but won't. They'd still often be cheaper than formal paid carers. So how should the state respond in this situation? Please be specific.

What I said is very simple. Where a family or friend is caring for you, and not to an extent it affects their working hours, there should be no payment.

We cannot afford it. Does Labour’s manifesto not scare you? They’ve admitted we are skint and have no money to spend.

It’s all very well attempting ‘gotchas’ but it’s piss taking situations like this that means people with cystic fibrosis, Down’s syndrome and paraplegia will miss out. We have to either cut the number of claimants or cut the payments, and I think the former.

For a start, some members of society can't be trusted to make choices that the rest of society feels is beneficial or healthy or productive.

Newsflash: the rest of society doesn't get to have a say in what is best for a disabled person. The disabled person knows best what works for them.

Non-disabled people aren't dehumanised like this. Non-disabled people's decisions aren't scrutinised like this. Non-disabled people aren't expected to justify how they spend money.

Your post is textbook ableism.

Newsflash: the rest of society doesn't get to have a say in what is best for a disabled person. The disabled person knows best what works for them.

Including PP’s schizophrenic brother who spends it on cannabis?

Until two years ago I was a full time carer for DS, it got to the point where I couldn’t afford to live on the measly amounts so had to go back to work. He still needs the same amount of care it just means I am trying to keep an extra plate spinning on top of everything else. I am also lucky to have a very supportive extended family or I would be totally stuffed like many are

Non-disabled people aren't expected to justify how they spend money.

Their banks and mortgage lenders would disagree.

But also...shouldn't people have to evidence that's what the money is being spent on, or that they're making attempts to access help and recover when they have changeable conditions?

Mental health focus of PIP disability benefit overhaul - BBC News

Just thinking about this bloke. Looks like he's in his 30s, hasn't worked since 2016 due to anxiety and depression.

8 years!! I don't think it's unreasonable he, and people like him should be able to evidence how they've spent their PIP with an aim to recovery rather than getting cash payments that could go on bills or whatever.

Has he been spending PIP on therapy, as that's an additional cost it should go towards?

Or has he accessed or attempted to access NHS services? There is nowhere in the UK that i'm aware of where there is a waiting list of 8 years..

What's his plan? he never works again? Getting back into work after 8 years will be hard mentally and practically and only get worse year on year.

He's the kind of person that should be looked at and addressed but unfortunately, regime changes will address everyone and I don't think that that's fair but he's the kind of person that has massively inflated the numbers of claimants.

Agree completely.

Asking you to explain what you'd do in a situation where your moral take doesn't work isn't a gotcha. It's an incredibly important point. If you want to remove or alter disability benefits on the basis that family members should provide unpaid care, you need a plan for what happens when they refuse. You've conspicuously failed to provide one.

Nothing you have said suggests that this self-indulgent, impractical, ideology driven policy change you want would save money either. You're going to have to do much better at costing before you decide that people with paraplegia will miss out if we don't do whatever you've pulled out of your arse.

I pointed out it does affect her working hours - I've lost count of the amount of times mums said she'll have to see if someone can swap with her. Mum said she'll be late to work on Tuesday because of my appointment.

I had to have an emergency operation a few years ago. My dad had to phone his boss to get the time off work to come with me. He also had to pay for parking.

The travelling costs money too.

Or do you think it's better for me to get a paid carer and cost the state more?

You don’t get it do you? I didn’t say I would remove benefits so family provide care, I said where they already do there should be no payment unless it affects their ability to earn money. Do you genuinely not understand that??

@Miley1967 exactly, yes that's another thing, constant gigs and stay overs, festivals etc. So many on minimum wage can't afford treats like that once nevermind repeatedly.
I know one person who spends it all on fancy meals out and expensive realistic dolls. She doesn't need the money for getting around or adjustments, free bus pass sorts that out. Got loads in the bank. End up being able to save money when many of us working are living week to week.
Not blaming people with disabilities at all, they are given the money and can do what they want with it.