So, who is going to employ all these disabled people the government wants to wean of welfare

[Jimisnotmyname]

Really wondering. Not saying it is necessarily a bad thing to encourage those who can work, to work but as a carer for 2 disabled family members, I am hugely struggling to find another job as nobody is willing to give me any flexibility (which I need as a carer) and there are always candidates who do not need the same accomodations I do. I would imagine that many of those currently not in work because of disability or a health condition, will often need a similar level of flexibility. I just wonder who on the the government think will offer jobs galore on these circumstances??

Someone who says they can only cook food in a microwave, can't talk to other people without "social support" and need help managing money qualify for PIP.

I'm sorry...this is unbelievably ridiculous. I hadn't seen these figures before.

This is the eligibility criteria for PIP:

You can get Personal Independence Payment (PIP) if all of the following apply to you:

• you’re 16 or over
• you have a long-term physical or mental health condition or disability
• you have difficulty doing certain everyday tasks or getting around
• you expect the difficulties to last for at least 12 months from when they started

You have to fulfil certain criteria to get PIP, your disability makes it difficult to do everyday tasks or effects your mobility. You're assessed on things like being able to cook, wash and dress yourself.

You can wash yourself if you've got acne OP.

Yes the only qualifying condition

I was going to say.

My son is bowel incontinent and it costs a fortune. It's the main reason he gets the high rate care element of DLA.

*yes it would be expensive but it gets people working... which is the whole point.'

No, it isn't. The point is to save money, cut costs.

We had schemes that created jobs to get people working because thats broadly good for them and people like the sound of it because they can't stand the idea of supporting people who aren't productive in any tangible way... They were scrapped because they cost a lot to run, they did not generate profit, or even break even!

I don't make the awards. Someone does though. How a cleft lip (sole criteria for the award made to 44 people, mind) qualifies you for PIP boggles the mind of any sane reasonable tax payer.

What you’re doing is ignoring the issues that may lead to those things, and which also would affect your ability to work.

Bedwetting - just because they fancy it, or because they’re incontinent, for a reason. That reason could be a medical need, it could be a capacity issue. It’s unlikely they just like buying new bedding.

Social issues - what for. Autism? Mental health need?

Help managing money - sounds like a lack of capacity, some sort of delay, a function issue maybe.

None of these things are a choice, and they often come from other existing issues. It’s really not as black and white as you’re making out it is.

Sorry. It's unbelievably ridiculous and needs sorting out. Which surprisingly Labour are doing. Hopefully.

I have got no idea as I don't assess people but you're regularly assessed and their condition means they can't fulfil certain everyday tasks.

No other issues cited in these particular claims it would seem. So you are making assumptions about other conditions that aren't there. Obviously in some cases those other conditions exist. But not all.

Ridiculous paying for people who need pads to have them.

We get them issued from the council. They’re limited, rationed if you will, and like most people I can’t ration how much someone goes to the toilet. When we have to self fund, it’s £42 a pack. We’re fortunate we can afford that when we run out, before the next delivery. Others won’t be able to.

I can’t put a price on someone’s basic dignity, and if you can - we’re different tax payers.

Yes. What an absolutely rubbish system we have in this pitiful country at the moment. Handing out thousands to people with cleft lips (of whom I know a few who are brilliant and successful) and turning down genuine claimants.

Do you honestly believe that the “bedwetters” for example are just doing it, and there isn’t an underlying reason.

If so, you need help that I can’t offer you.

There’s a cost attached to incontinence, that’s what PIP is for.

Oh give over. This is getting silly now. Bed wetting is at night. Doesn't prevent you working to buy your own pads. Why should the tax payer have to fund you just because you have a condition?

Cleft lips can cause very serious eating issues, especially if not surgically corrected as soon as possible for whatever reason.

Again, it goes back to people having the same things but with different outcomes.

My son had an illness which is serious but doesn't usually leave you disabled but that is what happened to my son.

I'm sorry for your son. But why does the tax payer have to fund him?

More people now receive the maximum amount of PIP to help them cope with “generalised anxiety” than people who were born deaf.

What's the alternative?

Leave a child to starve because he got cancer?

Be careful. I never thought my child would get cancer either, no one does until it happens to them.

Firstly, it’s not me with the condition, it’s my autistic 8 year old stepson that the government provide pads for. He won’t be working, and both you and I will be paying for his pads.

If you go to the toilet 3 times a day, over a week - that would cost you upwards of £60 a week.

Some people don’t have that money, what are they meant to do, sit in their own excrement because you don’t like paying for it?

Who said that? Bit of a jump there. I was talking about a cleft palate. Why would that mean he would need PIP?

You're making an assumption based on little evidence. It's difficult to get PIP and you're regularly assessed. The only way to understand what the payment is for is to know the full details of the claiment.

Well it may come to that if things are tightened up. I presume genuine bed wetters who are out and about and not in bed (so probably come under another category) are allowed to have funding if they need. Who knows? We may be bankrupt soon.

We are all making assumptions based on no evidence. No one knows if anyone is telling the truth on mumsnet. It's just interesting though. Now I'm looking into it. I didn't realise how wide the scope is for making a claim for taxpayer funding.

It shouldn’t come to that, because people shouldn’t have an issue with paying to support people who need it.

No rational person would suggest that someone sits in their own mess because they can’t fund their own care.

I am genuinely baffled that someone could be so callous and “not my problem.”

It’s not a jump. You replied to a poster who said that her child was disabled (by something that did not always cause such disability, but did in his case). You replied that you were sorry but didn’t see why the tax oater should pay for her son’s needs.

I appreciate that you may have misread the post that you replied to, but your post definitely implied that the taxpayer should not have to pay for a child who becomes disabled.