Taxes to rise to fund PIP

[Viviennemary]

I just read this, Don't agree with this at all. PIP needs to be reformed. But not by introducing this two tier system. Sick of Labour already. Might have know they would revert to type. With all the infighting and disagreement so nothing ever gets done except back peddling, increased taxes and prices rises.

They really aren’t. You’re hyperboling….

Don’t be ridiculous they really are.

SH, chronic depression, chronic anxiety, OCD, suicidal idealisation, eating disorders, trauma
and all the hideousness that involves… battling any of that with often buggar all support or treatment and still being here is the epitome of resilience .

Yes they are do you have any idea what it feels like after an attempt or what it feels like to be sectioned. Do you have any idea how hard some people have to fight just to stay alive. What it feels like to be pinned down and medicated. To not even be able to go to the toilet without somebody watching you. Or what it feels like to have a panic attack and you think your dying and have that happen several times a day. To have to take medication that turns you into a walking zombie just so that you stay calm and are easier to look after. Unless you understand this and have experienced this then your opinion is irrelevant

I think even a layman can say with some certainty that someone who is able to hold down a job which pays for example £100k per year is not going to need a lot of extra support, because if they’re capable of working at that level, their disabilities aren’t going to be so great that they need to pay for a lot of extra help. I mean, there’s a threshold for lots of benefit payments so you could question how or why other figures have been decided on. Ie, £16k savings threshold for UC; why not £17k, or £10k….?

F’kin hell! How bloody ignorant!

Yep.

My son sees a psychologist due to trauma and anxiety and he's the most resilient person I've ever met. I'm incredibly proud of him, many adults wouldn't be able to cope with what he's been through.

Yeah I am certain Steven Hawking had no help at all.

You’re talking about a small section of society who suffers with extremes of MH, ie schizophrenia, paranoia. The majority of people currently signed off work have social anxiety, or might be going through life changing social issues like divorce or bereavement. Not everyone with MH issues wants to take their life.

And he’s the exception rather than the norm. Most people with the physical restrictions he had would not be earning a six figure salary.

That sounds grim. But it's a total exaggeration of mental health conditions that qualify for pip. And you may say people who dont suffer that their opinion doesn't matter. Well the harsh reality is that their opinion will matter when the. general election comes round.

This refusal to address the out of control benefits bill will make people turn to Reform. Because nobody else is going to do anything about it.

The projected cost of early years entitlements is set to double by the end of this parliament, so over £8 billion. The core scheme is universal and open to all 3 and 4-year olds. There are no earnings or work requirements and you don't need to be claiming any benefits to get the free childcare. There is no way on God's earth that "people" (mainly women) are paying £8billion per year in taxes from what is often part-time earnings. We are constantly hearing demands on these boards for even more free childcare and constant complaints about parents having to "top up" extra hours and facilities etc. etc.

Since free childcare hours do not raise the taxes to even cover themselves, lets save a whole load of money and get rid of state funded childcare. You want kids, then you pay for them yourself. And if that means you live in poverty, tough - why should taxpayers pay?

Sound familiar?

Let's also scrap the winter fuel allowance again, and cut pensions. The unemployed are a drain on society - £312 million last year just on JSA - let's get rid of them too. No more NHS - if you want health, pay for it privately. No more, even inadequate, care homes - tyhey can rot at home or live on the streets. And lets not even start on the homeless - estimtaed to be £44 billion + per year if you include health, justice, and social services

I have an idea - anyone who isn't deemed to contribute their worth to society, lets set up labour camps for them....

Do you all genuinely not see where this line of argument goes, when you start saying that people have no worth or value to society? And that is what is being argued by many here.

Errr many many kids under CAMHs and and those waiting to get onto CAMHs do. Peads wards are full of suicidal teens recovering from EDs and ODs unable to get the correct treatment .My daughter has tried several times and has CPTSD from treatment. She doesn’t have schizophrenia or paranoia. Suicidal idealisation is very prevalent in ND young people. My dd has resilience in spades.

Divorce and bereavement isn’t going to get you PIP.

and? If we don’t the next generation of net contributors who the hell funds everything?
The point is funding childcare adequately pays for itself through the tax revenues raised by those able to work (who wouldn’t otherwise).

What's always interesting about these claims is that they are valuing share holdings not money.

Most founders have no intention of losing control of their own business by selling shares no matter how much they are valued at, they need to keep ownership of the shares to keep their business going.

The logical outcome of these wealth claims is never explained in terms of what they want, do they want owners to be forced to sell to others with lots of money and lose the company they started ?

If yes, why?

This is what's happening to family businesses and farms with the inheritance tax changes, families will have to sell up to give a chunk to the state. What's the long term goal of that?

It's such strange short termism. No Bezos doesn't need all that money, funnily enough that's why he hasn't sold the shares, but he's still entitled to own his company. Or isn't he?

I don't understand where this goes and none of these "wealth" calculator articles never actually explain either.

If you asked them if selling all the state asset shares off piecemeal to anyone and everyone was a good idea they would tell you no, but they want this all sold off? They sound like confused Tories.

I just want them to pay more tax.

On what though?

Unsold shares?

Extreme examples do not contribute anything to the conversation.

If you are honestly getting your blood in a boil over the cost of disability benefits I would humbly suggest you are being had. Either that or you are a sociopath; take your pick. The idea that this country is being brought to it's knees by this issue is ludicrous. In case, you hadn't noticed, the richer have been getting richer at a truly staggering rate. Yes, they absolutely can pay more, and you are absolutely failing yourself, your children and all of their children if you let them convince you otherwise.

On what?! I’m talking about Billionaires. BS their wealth is all shares.

The press and government have really done a number on people. Conflating PIP and UC. Making the uninformed think that PIP means someone cant work.
You can tell on here who has fallen for the rhetoric and OP is one of them given this thread and their posts on all threads about benefits including ones in the Disabled MNetter board where members were worried about the cuts.

In 20 years as a disability outreach worker I’ve never come a cross a disabled person earning 100k a year. And there isn’t always a clear correlation between the jobs disabled people hold down and how much support they need to do that. If someone is severely disabled they are going to need in work support regardless of their earnings. Stephen Hawking was very severely disabled and he managed to hold down a job, but he had a huge amount of support to do so in the form of a team working with him to meet his needs. Most disabled people can’t hope to access that kind of support.

And how do you decide where to set the thresholds on a benefit designed to support the extra cost of disability, when disability is so varied ? For example if you set the threshold at 50k, someone earning at that level and therefore means tested, could have very high needs and additional costs, and end up worse off than someone earning just below that threshold and entitled to full support. It’s not as simple as saying if you earn more than a certain amount you lose support.

I know, that's my question? Do you think share holdings should be taxed?

So everyone that owns shares has to sell some every year as tax?

So I have a company I control with 51 percent shares and I have to sell 2 percent and someone else now has control of my company?

We just did sold the Royal Mail to a Czech billionaire! Is that the direction of travel?

Sell everything!
I don't think the UK has anything left to sell for state spending. It's all gone. So now we move onto private individuals and seize their assets!

If that were true this thread and many others would be empty. The entire premise of this thread is an extreme (and without any verifible evidence as well). Luckily you are not the thread police, and I do not see the kinds of appalling attitudes on here and elsewhere indicate it is extreme - people really need to think about what kind of society they want to live in, because we have plenty of examples of the where such attitudes lead.

I think disabled people that earn a lot wont bother with the hassle that comes with applying for PIP anyway.

Means testing PIP might be acceptable if it was the claimant that was being means tested only. But means testing tends to be done as a household so you could end up with vulnerable disabled women being 100% dependant on their spouse (if they earn too much or have to much in savings) and I think that is a dangerous path to go down.

I receive state pension, thanks to having contributed every week for 40+ years of work.

I also get 3500 pension annually from a job..

But our significant pension income comes from the rent received from a commercial property DH and I bought about 35 years ago, at our own risk and purely for retirement income. It has been a roller coaster ride, but right now, it is delivering about 12% pa on the original investment. Which is, unless my sums are way wrong, a lot more than most people are getting, plus in 30 years there's a capital gain element I am not calculating.

However, unless you are keen on admin (I do it all, and there's a huge amount of faffing for solid compliance reasons) I would not recommend it. There is a lot that can go wrong. Some of what can go wrong can rip a massive hole through many years of gentle profit.