To be sick of all the newspaper articles saying lies about DLA and PIP

[elliejjtiny]

To get any DLA or PIP you have to be significantly disabled. To get the higher rate of either part you have to be severely disabled.

A motability car is not free, it's rented. To get one you need to either be unable to walk 50 metres or have a severe learning disability, which is very difficult to get.

It's always happened but since the stuff in the news about changes to PIP it's got worse.

Articles in the newspapers claiming you can get a free car for bed wetting, which just doesn't happen. There will be children like my ds who get DLA because they have a number of problems including bedwetting but nobody gets high rate mobility for bed wetting on its own.

There are other articles about people claiming PIP and DLA for various minor sounding conditions and I am so fed up with it. I know from experience that the newspapers will have talked to people claiming PIP/DLA and twist everything they say to make them sound like a scrounger.

All these articles are giving off the message that anyone with any minor disability can claim loads of benefits.

Your post is all over the place. Government expenses have nothing to do with disability benefits. Such a red herring!

What? Who do you think is paying the disability benefits then, if not net taxpayers funding it via the Government?

The self-declared economic illiteracy displayed in all of its gloriousness.

You ask for 'real evidence and experience' not anecdotes. Recounting real experiences can absolutely be considered to be anecdotal in nature. It doesn't even make sense what will meet your burden of proof. Anything you don't like will be dismissed as anecdotal.

The poster’s point, I believe, was precisely that personal experiences are anecdotal in nature, and do not constitute evidence. Perhaps you should show a little more interest in economics or any other kind of actual research so that you understand the difference between anecdotes and statistically valid evidence that actually demonstrates anything that can be extrapolated.

For someone that loves evidence then you should absolutely know that this hasn't been fabricated by the Daily Mail.

Comedy comment of the day!!

It is a real and pressing issue that we need to get a grip of.

“We” do, do we? Are you going to start paying for some of it then? Or are you, yet again, dictating how other people should spend the money that they have earned either as net taxpayers (while expecting them to continue subsidising you, of course, which you think is fine, and meanwhile you can’t contain your rage about those of us who do pay the bill to support disabled people with our money doing so because we’re not giving you quite as much)?

I know! I have mentioned a million times on this thread that I know that the state pays the same either way and that this is all within current rules.

It makes a difference as it highlights what state money is being used for. To subsidise luxuries for people that aren't in poverty or even close to it. That is the reality of PIP! It isn't means tested so disabled people are entitled to it irrespective of what they earn or their household wealth. Inequality doesn't just exist between the disabled and able bodied, it exists between the rich and poor too. Essentially we are compounding other inequalities by giving already relatively wealthy people more state money towards luxury cars whilst other tax payers can't even afford a basic car.

You may well think that is morally and ethically ok. I disagree.

Good for them, that having the car, facilitates them being able to do those things.

It’s so tricky as something is clearly wrong with the assessment process. On one hand at work I see families who absolutely need financial support due to disabilities and are not getting nearly enough of it. They desperately need more money and resources.

On the other hand I know a couple of people well enough in my personal life to know they don’t meet the criteria for the pip they are getting. They spend the pip on holidays or put it into savings.

There needs to be a complete overhaul of the assessment system.

“Branded car”? All cars have a manufacturer and display their brand on the car.

I’ve addressed your point about this as well. Cars have different features built in which makes them suitable for people with different types of disabilities. More expensive cars within the Motability range of available cars require the disabled person to make a significant additional payment from private funds or family to do so on their behalf, as many posters on the thread have stated that they do so that their disabled family member can have a vehicle that meets their needs which they wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford - which it is the purpose of the mobility part of PIP to facilitate. What business is it of yours what disabled people or their families spend their own money on?

There are actually few vehicles at all available through Motability now that don’t require the disabled person or someone else to make a cash downpayment in addition to them relinquishing their PIP in order to lease a car from the scheme. It is, in many cases, more expensive than leasing the same car privately, hence Motability making a significant profit.

The cost to the taxpayer would be identical if the entire Motability scheme was scrapped tomorrow because the same money that is currently paid from people’s benefits towards leasing these cars would instead be paid to them in cash. So why are you so obsessed with it? Please do explain.

Your devotion to the Daily Mail and certainty of its accurate reporting is rather revealing. It appears that “reading” it (if it can be called that: apparently the articles are written to ensure they are accessible for those with a reading age of the average 9 year old child) may have somewhat impacted your ability to recognise the difference between facts and opinions or the randomness of personal experience, per your previous post where you claims that anecdotes are the same as valid evidence.

So all disabled people should be in poverty?

You really haven’t bothered to read any of the posts on the thread, have you?

You just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again when it’s been explained so many times in the simplest possible language why means testing PIP would cost more. Clearly you don’t care about this, and your concern isn’t about the taxpayers funding this (as you disingenuously claimed given you’re not a net contributor so you aren’t funding it anyway). You just don’t like the idea that other people might have something you can’t afford, even if the reason for this is that they are disabled. And you’re angry that those of us who are paying for PIP are paying for this for these people and yet - while we pay for lots of things for you - we won’t also pay for you to have a car you don’t need, and you don’t think it’s “fair”.

It’s like trying to speak to two year olds having a tantrum who are incapable of any rationality at all, totally self-centred and only concerned with what they want, no empathy at all.

The thing is that at the age of two this is a normal stage of development. As a grown adult, it isn’t.

No, but they should not be better off that working people not on benefits.

@GivenUpOnSleep
Government expenses as in MP expense claims. For goodness sake read the comments in context before accussing people of economic illiteracy.

The poster asked for 'real experiences' not anecdotes. Again, read the post in context properly. My point was the experiences are anecdotal in nature. There isn't some definitive distinction between 'real experiences' that count and anecdotes that don't.

I know you're trying very very hard to sound like you know all about economics but it is bordering on comical now.

Finally and perhaps the thing that will blow your mind the most, I am a net tax payer. Do lecture me again though about facts, opinions and assumptions though.

Comparing working people that are not disabled with non-working disabled people is comparing apples and orange.
It is not the fault of disabled people if your wages are crap. Most people can change things and earn better. Disabled people who are not working don't have that luxury.

Or they can't work because they have a disabled child.

Give me work any day if it meant my child was no longer disabled.

Again, this comment shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Means testing is incredibly expensive.

The means testing of child benefit - which hilariously you used as an example - has been a net cost to the treasury of billions.

That was despite the means-testing mechanism being through the existing tax returns system, not having to implement a system from scratch. Means testing PIP would mean designing a new IT system (great Government record with that…), employing tens of thousands of additional staff to actually check the financial eligibility. All diverting money away from disabled people to employing more staff to process this, even though we know from research data that there are vanishingly few wealthy recipients of PIP.

This would cost the treasury billions, and save peanuts.

On top of this, I have explained to you the economic impact it would have, which would be - as well as an increase in processing costs that far outweighed the saving - reduced employment participation, and increase in the benefits bill, and lower tax receipts.

And apparently, in your own words, you think this is a good idea because you’re very concerned that there may be billionaires claiming PIP. 😆

I’m almost convinced that this must be some kind of ironic parody account that you have set up as a joke because the absurdity is really beyond belief.

PIP has nothing to do with whether people work. Lots of disabled people are only able to work because of PIP, otherwise the costs of doing so would be prohibitive. The whole point of it is that it is a personal independence payment that enables disabled people to participate in society to a greater extent, including for many facilitating them being able to go to work.

You haven't explained why means testing would cost more. You really haven't. I know you believe you have and it's annoying that I won't just back down but I simply disagree with you. Means testing could be done reasonably efficiently using existing mechanisms. Depending on the threshold, it wouldn't necessarily mean that lots of disabled people would suddenly be unable to work or get to hospital.

I am honestly equal parts amused and horrified about the final part of your post. The superiority laced in your posts is just terrible.

In the same way as people who have children can fully fund looking after them!

All of these articles are rolled out to suit the current political agenda.

If you know of someone lying to receive a fraudulent claim, report them!

My husband and I work hard. Really hard. We pay our taxes. I'm disabled but don't claim PIP. We claim DLA for our child though because, without it, we couldn't afford to live, despite us both working. There are no childcare clubs suitable out there for our child, so I have to work to a different schedule to cover school holidays, school runs, weekly medical appointments and spend an average of two hours a week on disability admin for our child.

I don't claim PIP because I currently wouldn't meet the threshold for claiming, even though I have multiple disabilities and it affects my life daily. It may get to the point when I become 'bad' enough. That shows that you do need to have quite a lot of difficulty to get it.

What is a "branded car"? Do they do supermarket own brand cars now? Look, as long as it gets me where I need to be, I'll have an Asda Smartprice car or a Tesco Value or whatever Aldi decide to call their cars. Bloody "branded" cars 🙄🤣

That's an over simplification of the mobility of many working who people not on benefits.

It is not the fault of disabled people if your wages are crap.

And there it is. This is exactly why the system needs reforming.

@GivenUpOnSleep I would genuinely be interested in the evidence that proves that means testing Child Benefit is costing the Treasury billions. This is absolutely not my understanding, especially as they haven't index linked the threshold.

Remember Kwik Save and their No Frills range? Just plain white packaging with black text and the logo. The crisps were grim from what I remember.

I think that it what some people would want. Maybe all Motability cars should be white only with big writing on so people know they are not luxury "branded" cars. When they honk the horn it plays a tinny little voice saying "thank you tax payer for my car".

I work in the dwp to means test p.i.p with an extra 7000 people to 8000 a person on this level would be on 40,000, £500, 000, 000. Plus cost of there pension the saving you would get would be close to 2million pounds so we spend half a billion pounds to to save 2million . It would make no sense ah and the staff of civil servants would need offices heating and computers that would take the cost to government to a billion pounds to claw back 2million makes a lot of sense l think don't you

No, your shit wage is nothing to do with benefits and the people claiming them at all.
You are pointing your finger at the wrong people.

Literally type into Google 'what brands are luxury cars' and it will return a list of car brands that are considered luxury. It isn't some bizarre notion that I have made up.

I am shocked you have never heard the term 'branded' before to mean something that is higher end than the average. It doesn't mean that other alternatives haven't been manufactured by other companies or that they haven't been emblazoned with a company name. There used to be Nicks and Nike trainers. Both with the company name evident. Only one would be considered 'branded trainers' in common parlance.

If PIP is means tested, then would it mean claimants are subject to regular reviews of their accounts like people on UC are?
That would cost a lot to administer too.
I really don't think a disabled person should lose a payment that enables them to be more independent because someone they live has a certain amount of savings. PIP is given to the individual after all and not the household.
No government has said they will means test PIP anyway so people can argue about it on here until they drop.