To think Carer's Allowance is a fucking disgrace?

[BoobsOnTheMoon]

Not only is it an absolute pittance of £76 a week considering you need to be providing care to a disabled person for at least 35 hours a week to claim it in the first place.

BUT you also can't claim if you earn more than £139 a week.

AND if you claim low income benefits (ie UC), the Carer's Allowance is counted as income and taken off your entitlement £ for £.

It's just so insulting. People giving up their lives and careers to care for a disabled family member deserve better than this.

(Just feeling a bit down about the fact I will probably be poor until I die, even if my disabled child manages to leave home one day I'll be at least 50 by then with no prospects for earning decent money or building any sort of security for my own old age)

I work every minute my child is at school so sadly don’t qualify the hours we give over night and on weekends of 1:1 care add up but we are not entitled it’s a benefit that needs reviewing.

No one should be forced to care out of a sense of moral duty. That can create a very difficult situation and risks to the cared for person.

I am a carer and I have no qualms about claiming Carer's Allowance. It is bloody hard work and there is no way I could combine it with a job, I am on my knees at times as it is. I don't claim anything else from the state and we don't have carers in, although we may need to further down the line.

Ireferenced a poster up thread stating a she knew a man who claimed CA for his Aunt who lived 200 miles away. I don't know this person but it is clearly happening

Yes, third hand information about benefit "scammers" is always SO reliable.

@IClaudine, so no scamming of benefits ever occurs in your world then?

Sigh. Did I say that? I said that third hand information on an anonymous talk board is not very reliable.

YANBU. It should be illegal to pay out such an insult of a pittence. Why is there no feet stamping and fist banging over this.
It should be paid the same as the NMW (I think the NLW is being far too hopeful) It is after all a full time job.

@Poppies26 yes I do, sorry! I meant to direct my comment to @Turquoisflutterby

It’s shit. I agree.

It needs a overhaul.

Over the past 14 years the right wing media and the government have done a good job of demonising disabled people who claim disability benefits and their carersas demonstrated on this thread. I think that's why there is apathy.

If Carer's Allowance was increased to NMW level the Daily Mail readers would do some stamping of feet and banging of fists, I bet.

13 years.

Recent example:

www.disabilitynewsservice.com/watchdog-receives-hundreds-of-complaints-over-telegraphs-toxic-benefits-article/

Moral duty is what governs a lot of individual and collective behaviour in society so making a sweeping statement that you have done is just ill-informed.

How is it ill informed? I am a carer. I know how hard it is. It is not something anyone should be forced to do if they don't feel able to. Doing so puts everyone involved at risk of harm.

From the Domestic Homicide Project:

Between 1st April 2020 and 31st March 2022, the Project recorded a total of 470 domestic-abuse related deaths. Of
these, 79 victims (17%, over one in six) were either cared-for by the suspect or were the carer of the suspect.

^www.vkpp.org.uk/publications/publications-and-reports/^

As I said, forcing people into caring roles who are not suited to them puts everyone at risk.

The miserly amount probably means that the application process for Carer's Allowance is easy (when compared to PIP, DLA etc) as there are no assessments and nobody checks up once you are receiving it. I would think that if it was twice as much you would have to jump through more hoops to get it and would need to re-apply frequently.

The ONLY good thing about the Carer's Allowance is that the Carer gets full NI credit for the time they are receiving it.

Its not intended to be a full replacement for a working income.

Someone who ends up not able to work due to caring can often access a whole host of other income support eg housing benefit, low income universal credit etc.

I think the main issue is carers are comparing it to being paid in terms of an hourly rate of pay for care work.

The reality is, this is not what it is.

There's a social expectation that people will provide care to their loved ones without payment. To be clear I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this but it is arguably the case.

Carer's allowance is just an allowance reflecting that caring a) can cost you b) can reduce your earning capacity and leave you with a low income.

There's a social expectation that people will provide care to their loved ones without payment. To be clear I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this but it is arguably the case

Hmm. I would argue that it is more about the lack of financial worth attached to work that has traditionally carried out by women, tbh. Even now, there are still more female unpaid carers than male.

People requiring care are, of course, vulnerable to abuse. Your argument that being their official carer somehow makes that less likely is illogical. In fact, if there was more ofa moral duty for all family members involved they would actually be likely better protected.

Either way you are conflating two separate points. 1. That people needing care are vulnerable (true) and 2. That if society felt a moral duty to care for their relatives then they would somehow be more likely to be abused (no evidence at all)

I was parenting 30 years ago and I knew almost no-one who had young children who worked more than part-time, if at all.

It seems a very odd system. Surely a disabled person (child or adult) receives disability benefits to pay for care if they need it? So PIP, DLA etc. If you're working elsewhere, it would be hard to put in 35 hours a week surely. I don't think carers allowance should exist. The payment should go to the disabled person so ghey can employ carers.

Your argument that being their official carer somehow makes that less likely is illogical

That if society felt a moral duty to care for their relatives then they would somehow be more likely to be abused (no evidence at all)

Can you quote me the part of my posts where I made those arguments? Because I didn't.

My point was that putting moral pressure on people to become unpaid carers for relatives when they may not want to or feel able to does no one any favours and may even result in harm.

Preventing abuse of the vulnerable by paid carers is a whole other issue.

That is a reasonable point, but the disabled person would need to be paid a lot more than the current level of Carer's Allowance to buy 35 hours of care a week!

But many disabled people would be unable to manage this- children for example can’t be employers and organise paying tax etc for their careers- they would need someone to do this work for them, as would many people with learning disabilities and various other types of disability.

People who are able/eligible for this type of funding already get it- carers allowance exists separately as a token remuneration for unpaid carers.

DLA/PIP is to help with the extra costs associated with disability. Claimants can, of course, use it to pay for care if they wish, but there are many other things it could also be needed for e.g. increased energy and water bills, increased food cost, specialist equipment/therapies not covered by other services, increased clothes/footwear cost, additional parking costs and fuel costs…

For many, DLA/PIP doesn’t cover the additional costs as it is without them needing to pay at least the equivalent of CA to the person who is currently receiving carer’s allowance. And if someone only receives the standard rate daily living component that is less than CA, so it would leave absolutely nothing for anything else.