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.

I await the government figures regarding the net cost of means testing child benefit. Not the workings behind your mad calculation.

Independent SS (SEMH or otherwise) aren’t named in EHCPs on the basis a child has had a lot of screen time.

Several graphs showing the effects of means testing various services/ benefits, precisely what recent universal credit reforms are aiming to remove in one specific case but many more remain, distorting economic activity and reducing economic activity and growth, lowering tax revenues and creating skills shortages

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/10/17/reform-income-tax-end-the-scandal-of-high-marginal-rates/

Several graphs showing the effects of means testing various services/ benefits, precisely what recent universal credit reforms are aiming to remove in one specific case but many more remain, distorting economic activity and reducing economic growth, lowering tax revenues and creating skills shortages

Graphs showing the counterproductive effect of cliff edges caused by means testing various services and benefits in the UK

I am now trying to post the above as a link instead since it keeps being blocked for reasons that are unfathomable to me.

Which have already been provided to you several times, with sources. You’ve been given the figures, and the sources of data. The Governments Accounts audited by the National Audit Office, the Office for National Statistics, etc. You have been provided with the web addresses where you can find these.

If you disagree please provide your own figures and data sources.

You’ve also now been given several links to economic studies as you requested, which show the economic effects which are causing lower overall tax revenue (so less money available to fund services), lower growth and productivity (making everyone in the UK progressively poorer and decreasing living standards, as well as increasing inflation because this gradually devalues our currency and we are reliant on imports for many essential goods such as fuel and food and already have a very large trade deficit.

So far, you’ve provided a sum total of zero evidence for your assertion that means testing is simple and cheap and would save taxpayers money, which all of the evidence I have provided demonstrates is not the case.

My assertions - which I’ve evidenced - were in response to yours because yours were false. I’ve evidenced mine.

Are you going to provide the evidence for yours now?

I think in some cases the wrong questions are asked. My neighbours don’t work, never have. Say they don’t want to. They get pip as she says she has problems and cannot walk, use some of it for a car. Fine…except they go on walks and bike rides most days. Their son is very behind at senior school so gets a taxi and a tutor. Surely the questions should be Do you have a car? Yes. Do you work? No. Then you can drive your son to school when you take your younger child to school as they are in the same place. PIP should be to help people who need it not to be abused

Apologies for the posts that appeared repeatedly. Initially Mumsnet blocked these posts because apparently links to economic studies must be checked before anybody’s allowed to see them so I tried to post it repeatedly having no idea why it wasn’t appearing, and now they have posted it onto the thread several times.

Strange to have such stringent controls over sharing economic data but not a care about repeated ableist bile.

@Kidsfortea eligibility for school transport is not based on the parent’s ability to drive. And for some DC, even if the parent can drive, isn’t appropriate for the parent to drive the DC to school.

How do you know so much about your neighbours?

@GivenUpOnSleep
None of these articles state that the government loses billions through means testing Child Benefit. I know you think I'm being pedantic but it's important that we stick to facts here. The HIBC raises money. This is why Labour didn't proceed with the Tory proposed changes stating:

The government will not proceed with the reform to base the HICBC on household incomes. This is because it would have come at a significant fiscal cost of £1.4 billion by 2029-30 if setting the threshold to £120,000-£160,000, where no families would lose out."

No exactly, that proves my point. You're a genuine claimant and the system might deny you.
If you were intent on making a fraudulent claim it would be less scary.

The new p.i.p. Green paper has not yet gone through parliament.This will not apply to permanent disability s on marking

Sorry it's full of typos and autocorrect issues.
My gist was that the system denies genuine claimants and is scary to them as they're not speaking the words that might score them points.

On the contrary, those who are intent on making a fake or exaggerated claim, of which there are many, are not daunted because they see it as a game. One they can practice for and win by following certain steps.

So we get genuine claimants saying "it's so hard to get PIP" when it's hard by design for those who speak truth.
It's not hard for those who lie.

Yes, it’s called people having the right to their opinion.

AI is being used to filter out job applications now. A lot of CVs are never read by a real person. People are told to use certain words and phrases to get past it. That is ok.

Applying for DLA/PIP is similar (but no AI for now). You have to use certain words and phrases. On here, being helped with that is seen a fraudulent.

I had a lot of help with applying for my benefits. If it was just down to me then it would have been a rambling mess and no one would have understood it.

Genuine claimants are worried as they know how hard it is to go through it all and get that award letter. People trying it on for financial gain wont be. They already know what to do. Yet we get told on here that if you are worried about the proposed changes then it must mean you are a faker.

That's really sad. If you are going to be losing points on reassessment, I would suggest that you find some help (I used Welfare Rights, but there are other organisations who could help) and be prepared to take your case all the way to Tribunal. I have had to do that in the past and would recommend it to everyone who gets turned down. It's really not as scary as it sounds and preserving your precious independence is worth a fight - if it has to come to that. If when the time comes, you're struggling to find the help, your MPs constituency office could be a source of advice.

This almost precisely matches to what I told you earlier in the thread would be the net cost from not clawing back tax revenue from means testing it: I said £1.5 billion. You are now posting to say that in fact the additional tax paid via the HICBC or people being completely inelligible is actually lower than I said, at £1.4 billion. Fine.

However, you’re ignoring the fact that it costs HMRC £1.5 billion per year to do the means testing. So the net impact on tax revenues is negative. All that is happening is money that would have been going to children is now being spent on additional HMRC staff instead.

Then we have, on top of the fact that it saves nothing (or based on your own figure, actually costs the Government £100,000,000 per year more to means test it than it saves), there is a significant economic cost many times this size as a result of the cliff edge created by doing so, per the studies provided.

Means testing PIP would be even more complex and expensive and introduce yet another cliff edge when the economic data is very clear that what we need to do is to remove them. Frankly, it’s an idiotic idea motivated entirely by spite.

The reason the Government don’t wish to take this very clearly evidenced and obvious step of removing the cliff edges in the tax and benefits system to improve UK productivity, increase tax revenue and improve growth are because of political optics. Because they know that in the case of removing the means testing of child benefit, the withdrawal or the personal allowance/ childcare funding they would be accused by people like you of “giving a tax cut to the rich”. And the reason that they don’t want to remove similar disincentives that are just as damaging at the lower end by reducing the universal credit taper rate to a sensible level etc (even though they know the high marginal rates at this level increase the welfare bill, lower tax revenue, reduce employment participation and create skills shortages in areas like care work) are again, because people like you would then accuse them of paying too much out to people in benefits. Because people like you absolutely hate anybody who either earns more than they do, or is more unfortunate than you so requires a larger amount of state support and you’re furious they receive something you don’t.

Instead, we continue with our spineless Governments - of any colour - mismanaging the economy to keep an economically illiterate electorate happy because they can’t possibly challenge the ignorant prejudices of people who haven’t the faintest clue that their spiteful attitude towards everyone else in society is one of the main reasons that their own living standards are declining year on year and will continue to do so.

I’m not sure how much more simply it can be explained, even to someone who has declared that they don’t like numbers/ maths/ economics etc and states - as your have - that they see no need for them to learn about understand it. I really have tried to be as clear as I possibly can.

At this point, I’m done answering any more questions on my own clearly evidenced statements about this for which I have provided data and sources.

We are all still waiting for the evidence for your own assertions that you could implement a system to cheaply and simply means test PIP and that this would save taxpayers more than it costs and wouldn’t harm growth or living standards further, contrary to all economic studies.

All of my comments on this matter have been to refute your original, ridiculous claims that the above is possible. I’ve provided plenty of data and evidence for my assertions that you’re wrong, yet you’ve still provided absolutely no data or evidence for your assertions - that began the conversation - at all. Are you going to do so, finally? If not, it’s the height of hypocrisy.

You’ve insulted me, questioned my professional competence, demanded I provide links to data because you can’t be bothered to look it up yourself and I’ve done so.

Where is your data to support your claims?

No they wouldn’t.

If that were true half our public services as a minimum would not exist because everything is on a shoe string.

Expecting somebody likely on 30k to forsake their wage and pension for you is the height of arrogance.

But then nobody seems to understand work here so I’m not surprised.

Arrogance? Given the closing sentence of this post you might want to check the mirror. Who do you think you are?

Arrogance? To expect somebody to comply with the law and regulations setting out the minimum legal standards for their profession???

Keep going. Your posts are proving everything I have said to be accurate.

And I thought we’d already been through the conversation before where you accused me of being “unemployed and entitled” and “only interested in what I can get” and how - allegedly - I was expecting you to pay for me. And we then established that in fact you are not a net taxpayer and despite your rage about those of us who are (like me) providing more money to people so disabled that they can’t work or leave the house without a car, you really don’t have a leg to stand on given that were are also subsidising you, just to a lesser extent because your needs are lower than theirs, so your apopleptic rage that has led you to post some extremely unpleasant and upsetting comments on the thread - and your determination to continue to do so even when some brave posters told you how upsetting your comments were - is clearly misplaced and I’m afraid you won’t get away with the pretence that it’s about “value for money to taxpayers” given you’re not a net taxpayer yourself and YOU are being subsidised as well.

It’s just sheer spite, and you’ve displayed your true colours here for all to see, hoisted yourself by your own petard, so to speak. Advocating for criminal behaviour and admitting that you endorse this and think it is acceptable.

I think perhaps you should go away, read some Rawls, get some therapy, spend some time in self-reflection and really think about the impact of your behaviour on others. This isn’t a debating society and some kind of conceptual issue. There are real people reading every single thing you have posted, and in fact, in the end, you have exemplified everything that is wrong with the system as it stands and inadvertantly people like you will be hastening its decline and, I hope, a day of reckoning will come, as it usually does for people who behave in such an immoral (and indeed, illegal) manner, no matter how they attempt to justify it to themselves.

It’s amazing what humans can try to justify to themselves, surrounded by others who are prepared to reinforce it and goad them on. Clearly few lessons from history have been learned. I’ll add to the list I posted earlier in the thread - and think perhaps you should prioritise above all of the others I suggested - reading some history books.

The arrogance and unpleasantness on this thread has come primarily from a single poster, and it’s certainly not me.

It has, however, I think been rather useful in terms of anybody reading it in the future, so in a way it may be good that your appalling comments have been left to stand and will be searchable in perpetuity. Accidentally, clearly, you have proved all posters who opposed you to be absolutely correct. Perhaps, in time, you may come to regret it, as you grow older and a little less enraged and a little more wise, although clearly for some people sadly even time cannot achieve this.

You have forgotten your claims. You claimed that it cost the government billions to means test Child Benefit. Now you are completely backtracking and suggesting (based on data used in bizarre ways) that it is costs £1.5 billion to means test Child Benefit and therefore is effectively cost neutral. We all know this is rubbish! HICBC is a money maker. The fact that you think that successive governments (both Labour and Tory) maintain it as a policy for political reasons alone when they have completely different ideologies is as bonkers as the rest of the stuff you post. You just can't accept you're wrong.