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

And a mere 3 hours of week, caring for your own child, is not worthy of payment. It’s claims like this strangling the system. Don’t come crying on here when payments are cut because of stuff like this

You really think family would provide care if benefits were removed? But how if they're working full time?

I don't believe you.

The DWP's own estimate of PIP fraud is close to 0%.

Re read my post, slowly; and the part where I said ‘if it doesn’t affect their ability to earn money’. 3 hours a week does not. Most people spend that as a minimum watching Netflix.

Did I say fraud?

But you were talking about saving public money.

If the amount of benefits paid to the disabled person is the same, regardless of whether they have to pay family or the family do it for free, there's no money saving to the state. It would render all the claims you made about affordability completely irrelevant.

Yes I read about this man with real irritation to be honest. I'm seriously, progressively ill and I still work. What on earth is stopping him? Am I supposed to fund his decision not to work? My PIP funds specialist therapies, medical equipment, dietary supplements and a cleaner, all of which keep me working and paying taxes.

Mental health problems need early intervention and very time-limited help to allow people to recover (except in exceptionally serious conditions). Meanwhile my incurable, progressive condition apparently needs constant review - even though it only progresses. What a total waste of time and resources. The system is quite honestly barking.

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,

What are you going to do, force family members to care through court orders? Imprisonment if the family member refuses to be a carer? Mandate that people who've "got on their bikes" and moved away for work quit their jobs in London and move back to Shitsville-in-the-North to become carers? Issue extradition proceedings against people who've moved overseas? Force victims of parent-committed child abuse to care for their abusers? Force incest victims to care for their molester cousins or siblings?

And what quality of care do you think that coerced unpaid carers will give?

What you have suggested is impracticable, unenforceable, and utterly clueless.

then you don’t believe in society and may as well be Thatcher

Tell me that you never read that Women's Own interview in full without telling me that you never read that interview in full.

In context: I think we have been through a period when too many people have been given to understand that when they have a problem it is government’s job to cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant. I’m homeless, the government must house me.’ They are casting their problems on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no governments can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours.

It's you who is parroting Thatcher here, with your insistance that disabled people with families mustn't be allowed State support.

If they’re using it to pay their own mum to help out for the same amount of time per week as she watches Eastenders then she doesn’t need the money at all and it shouldn’t be paid to her.

I read this all the time, about how it’s really hard to get, but my neighbour gets it, and I’ll be honest, he seems absolutely fine. He goes for long walks with his dog, spends loads of time doing his garden, seems very sociable - chatting/very neighbourly. Goes on quite a few trips. Only reason I know is because my dh has arthritic knees, and was chatting to him over the garden fence about how bad it’s been lately, and the guy said he was receiving PIP and had for some time. Not sure why, and obviously none of my business. But just makes me wonder is it really that hard to get?

That's life for a lot of people working full-time. Second hand clothes, cheap food, not being able to afford birthday gifts, never going to the hairdresser etc.

Some benefit claimants are financially better off than full-time workers.

That's what people find difficult.

Yes the system does need looking at, and hopefully a Labour Government will have the wherewithal to overhaul the system, and remove the need for people with progressive conditions, life long conditions, to be subject to constant, needless reviews.

"he seems fine" do you really think he'd share his medical history with you? I mean no one's really going talk about being incontinent are they? Or other embarrassing medical conditions

What does that have to do with saving public money? You wrote:

'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.'

If you're saying that you'd still pay the same amount of benefit to the disabled person, whether they spend it on paying relatives or something else, how do these situations mean the people you list here will miss out?

Oh dear God the lack of comprehension on here is woeful.

I am not paid to care for my children. However if I didn’t care for them the foster carer would be rightly paid.

People should not be paid to care for first degree family members for a few hours a week. However if they didn’t care for them, whoever was employed to do so would rightly be paid

No court orders or legal obligations to care for relatives have been mentioned by me

Either you’re deliberately misunderstanding or on a wind up

Someone giving three hours per week care doesn't count as a carer for Carer's Allowance purposes. They have to care for 35 (or is it 37? It's a full-time job equivalent) hours per week to get Carer's Allowance, which is the same as JSA and works out as less than a third of National Living Wage.

Please research the benefits system that you are commenting on. It's painfully clear that you haven't and you are spreading misinformation.

PP said they were giving their mum their PIP for helping her out 3 hours a week. Read the thread before embarrassing yourself!

How else was I supposed to interpret "Family and friends should care for each other without financial compensation to a degree". You didn't say "can care if they feel like it, but they shouldn't expect to be paid".

Is your husband not in receipt of PIP? If not why does he not apply, and see how easy it is to get! You have no idea why your "neighbour" gets it anyway, so how would you know what is wrong with him, and the struggle he may have had to obtain PIP?

That's their right to do that. They are employing their mum as a carer instead of employing a third party.

Who do you think you are, to police who a disabled person chooses to employ as a carer?

Ahhhh my bad that you read ‘should’ as ‘legally obligated to’. You’ll no doubt be panicking next time somebody says you should see the next Star Wars film.

When we are talking about State benefits, "legally obligated to" is the correct way to interpret "should".

When we talk about family care, we're almost always, talking about women's unpaid care. It does cost them. It costs them in time, lost opportunities, reduced ability to work additional hours, stress, petrol, their own health and wellbeing.

Anyone who's ever had to negotiate with the system for care of elderly parents know their female children are expected to do this, for free, for years, regardless of their work status.

We get DLA for DD. It all goes on OT and SLT. Which she should be getting through the school and health system, but guess what? Maybe you've heard about how that's not working out. But if we spent it on food shopping, or a cleaner, or to give her sister some respite at holiday clubs it's frankly no one's business but ours.

Absofuckinglutely this. What @MaryMaryVeryContrary is advocating takes money out of women's pockets and devalues women's labour.

Especially when replying to a person who's cited the need to cut state benefits, when defending their views. She's either backtracking or expressed her argument very incoherently.