Ok who wants to swap £2500 a month in benefits for my husbands MS and my epilepsy, narcolepsy and fibromyalgia.

[bluebirdblackbird]

Well according to a lot of people on here we are on a good thing.

the 20 seizures I have in a week, chronic pain and night terrors, losing my memory after a seizure, pissing myself, hallucinations. They are all great fun. Not to mention the amount of times I have been accused of being drunk after a seizure.

or there is my husband. Diagnosed with progressive MS. Cronic Pain, shaking, cronic pins and needles, weakness in limbs plus losing mobility. Had to give up his teaching job 4 months ago after gradually reducing hours.

Not to mention the judgement when we use a blue badge because we look ok in that moment. And apparently labour are going to find us both work. Yippee cant wait to meet the employer who is going to take us both on. I am sure pissing my chair on a reg basis won’t matter to them or the losing counciouness at least a couple of times a day.

i am just fed up of yet another they are on benefits and get money and it’s not fair stamp stamp stamp. The bastards have saved up for a holiday- it’s not fair. The bastards have a mobility car but they look fine, OMG- they have got new carpets or a new sofa.

since I am guessing they none of the moaners would actually swap places with us if they could then STFU.

oh and that pip that is easy to get- my husband gets lower rate for both and that is despite providing all the evidence and appealing so we are off to tribunal. He can’t even dress himself most days and he can’t hold a pan safely or manage his medication plus many other things. If he stays on the points he is on he will lose his pip completely under these new labour proposals.

but most people know someone who’s friends, aunts, nephews, stepdaughters, cousin twice removed who lied and got it. I was taking to a lady in a wheelchair who does not get any mobility component of pip at all.

I'm well aware of that. But most people can only get one if they receive pip

Bandwagon?!

I wasn't trying to portray the thresholds as a new and radical thing, just that previous governments have thought it not a wise idea to bring it in for PIP, and probably a step too far! I think the fear is that the level of poverty within the disabled community would then be extreme. It's very controversial.

I’m not sure what you mean here about jumping on a bandwagon. If/when you are recovered you would no longer qualify.

I know someone like that too, but she isn't a fibromyalgia sufferer. I am not exactly sure of her health condition (something involving lots of headaches/migraines), but she never looks after her young DD alone. Either her DH looks after her, or her parents. It's not quite so bad these days as the DD goes to nursery and other activities, but she never drops her off or collects her; that is left to others. She does, however, manage to go out quite a lot socially, and even holidays in the States. There is obviously way more going on there than meets the eye.

I got mine years ago on the basis of having hearing aids. Never had PIP or DLA. Lots of conditions qualify, probably because it's paid for.

Can someone explain why Tesco et al paying the real living wage, and thus reducing UC costs to the taxpayer, would trigger Armageddon when over 15,000 smaller, less profitable businesses manage it?

https://www.livingwage.org.uk/what-real-living-wage

Exactly.

I agree with this. I’m disabled and not claiming. I don’t need the money and the stress of claiming puts me off. This means that I’ve had to give up things that I used to love. For example, you can only buy accessible tickets on Ticketmaster if you’re on PIP or DLA, which means I can’t go to a lot of concerts now.

Also, David Cameron famously claimed DLA for his son while he was PM. I’m split on that. I’m sure he’d have managed without it, but his boy was seriously disabled and technically entitled to it. Though I’m sure a few hundred quid a month would have been pin money to the Camerons.

Means testing does add another layer of cost and admin to the claim process.

Few disabled people personally earn huge amounts. So in reality, you're going to be denying benefits to people who:

Live with parents who have a high income
Live with a partner/husband who has a high income

This opens disabled people up to more financial abuse, taking away financial independence.

Of those disabled people who work, a high proportion are self employed/freelance, with a variable income. Unless that means test is set very high, you're going to have people who qualify one month and not the next.. and that sort of system doesn't provide the reliable, dependable benefit disabled people really need. You only need to talk to people on UC to see how that works and it may well not reduce claimants (you can be a claimant but frequently not recieve any money) and does up the amount of admin/paperwork and thus slow things down, cost more to run.

Limiting what disability benefits can be spent on/how they can be spent say by making people report expenses and claim back each month or supplying vouchers is discriminatory. Taking the right to be independent and make our own choices away, where claimants of other benefits are permitted their own free will.

Thats a slippery slope to removing other basic human rights!

David Cameron's son was profoundly disabled and died in early childhood ,no I'm sure he probably didn't need the money but DLA can open doors to.other .services and it was his sons money not his .

Limiting what disability benefits can be spent on/how they can be spent say by making people report expenses and claim back each month or supplying vouchers is discriminatory. Taking the right to be independent and make our own choices away, where claimants of other benefits are permitted their own free will.
Thats a slippery slope to removing other basic human rights!

Quite. People would not be too happy if they had to justify what they spent their child benefit, etc on, would they?

If disabled people aren't allowed enough money to be able to go on holiday, which is bizarre by the way, then holiday companies would suffer, as that's a huge percentage of people. They would then have to raise prices for everyone else, meaning the poorer working people also can't afford to go.
Ditto all the other things disabled people spend disposable income on.

But these are the questions that the government needs to be asking. I don’t have the answers myself. I am just interested fundamentally on how a government allocates a finite resource of taxpayers money. It is easy to say, pay everyone what they need, don’t means test, allow money for holidays… and then the money runs out. It will never ever be an unlimited pot even if you tax the billionaires and the corps, there will always be a ceiling and the numbers claiming are getting bigger.

I don’t think that is viable argument if I’m honest. You are basically saying taxpayers are propping up holiday companies

Using the same logic, taxpayers are propping up supermarkets and utility companies too becasue that is where most of my money goes.

But like I said, if I am able to save a little then I can spend it (or continue to save it) how I want.

Also @MapCollector I don’t think it is bizarre that people question if the state should be giving out taxpayers money to be spent on holidays. As someone else pointed out earlier, should the government contribute to the holidays of working people?

I think it is is bizarre that you think people who claim benefits should not have any autonomy.

It is not that at all, it is more the case that should governments be funding luxuries in any situation given there is a very finite pot of money. It isn’t unlimited. Some people are missing out on any support as the government is being so harsh now. We can see the stories on here of people who applied and got rejected . Should the government be harsher where there is a surplus to requirements on basics in order that a greater number should be helped or should it give a greater amount to a smaller group and those that are on the fringes miss out?. The answer can’t be that we just pay out everything as if the government just borrow more, it is future generations who will have to pay. This is ultimately what the government is having to deal with.

Going on holiday can be more expensive when you are disabled, not to mention more difficult. Cheaper options such as camping are often inaccessible too.

To take my disabled son on holiday, we've had to book an accessible room that can fit his wheelchair with a wet room and commode so he can access the bathroom/shower and a bed and mattress suitable for his needs. Not to mention hiring a beach wheelchair so he can access the beach.

It's exactly what DLA is for. Helping my son access things he otherwise wouldn't be able to do due to his disability.

But again,( I am honestly just being provocative to get people’s views), but are you saying that everyone should be able to take a holiday as of right?

Not to mention the higher cost of travel insurance as well, if you are disabled.

Many of us don't have the option of a cheap holiday though. And why should children miss out because they have a disabled sibling or parent?

It isn't a right but at the same time, after everything he has been through for a 9 year old, I feel like it's the least he deserves to be honest.

Last summer he was stuck in hospital having chemotherapy, this summer is about making him smile.

DLA is about the extra costs that come with having a disabled child and yes, holidays aren't a necessity but they do come at a greater expense when your child is disabled.

I think the Cameron’s had a very comprehensive package of visiting carers for Ivan, though. That’s expensive - extremely expensive. If they were funding that themselves, I don’t see how anyone could begrudge them PIP, and if it was partially funded through social care, it might have been a requirement that they claim.