Millionaire on benefits- rare of course- but is it time for means testing disability benefits

[Flippityflops]

Close friend is a millionaire .
Has not worked since age 40 .
He now has a disability and on his account s advice , he claims non means tested benefits he says .

if this is indeed true- given that such benefits cater for additional expenses of living with a disability, and he absolutely does not need it .. isnt it time that this benefit is means tested in these different times to prioritise the financialy vulnerable.

He for example told me - unsure if its true - that he bought a beautiful 3k painting wirh the money.
it’s gorgeous ive seen it and it dows add value to daily living .

its a bit like the taxpayer is giving him a huge freebie and we cant afford it and those in his income bracket.

Suspect he is pulling the wool over your eyes.

As in, he's talking nonsense.

I could definitely not be friends with someone who has a million pounds yet takes money from the state when so so many are struggling daily.

Ew.

It costs more to means test benefits and make disabled people jump through hoops. It is hard enough for disabled people to get support. If some disabled people happen to have had an inheritance or have worked then become disabled, wealthy spouse or whatever, it’s hardly the majority. Also, if it is means tested, the government will inevitably set the threshold incorrectly or too low. See also - the winter fuel allowance, child benefit for example. It will become a reason to drive further disabled people into poverty.

We claim disability benefits in relation to my child. The money is useful, especially as her needs result in increased expenses and decreased earnings for us

But perhaps more crucially for us, they are a gateway to support, access arrangements etc. If I was a millionaire I'd still claim for that reason (but would donate the money to a relevant charity)

No, it is not time to means-test disability benefits (you mean PIP, btw) because one poster told a 'tall tale' on Mumsnet. HTH.

Nice try

How many more threads do we need on disability benefits? They’re more prevalent at the moment than the dogs in cafes ones.

He has expenses that non disabled people don't have; that is what the benefit is intended to cover. So presumably he actually bought the painting with money he would have otherwise spent on his disability needs. Which puts him in the same position as a millionaire without his disability, which is what PIP is supposed to do.

My understanding is that non means tested benefits are more cost effective because they have lower costs to administer and because more people who need them actually claim them (means testing puts more vulnerable applicants off applying).

Also, there are some non means tested benefits people are fine with: state pension, winter fuel allowance. It's only disability-related ones that seem to get people's backs up.

As PP above, I claim DLA that we could get along fine without, but it's a gateway to other services and flexible working for me. Also we do have costs that other families don't, and would be able to eg save more for the future, pay down mortgage quicker etc.

Didn’t David Cameron claim pip/dla for his child?

So yes you can be wealthy and still claim “benefits”

Yeah right 🙄

The problem is where do you draw the line? My friends own a house worth £650k outright and have around £500k in savings as in 60’s this is their retirement savings but much is in isas. She is profoundly disabled so receives a variety of benefits and he quit work to care for her. Why should they sacrifice their savings because she is incapacitated whereas if they had been irresponsible their whole lives they would get far more benefits than they currently get?

Even if it's true, meanstesting costs money.

You are unreasonable to start yet another thread on disability benefits, Op after op just making themselves look ignorant and stupid...

Just Google how much meanstesting costs.

I can see this from both angles. My parents/step parents are all retired. I did the application for both my Mum and FIL for attendance allowance. They qualify for different reasons but both were awarded the higher allowance that covers day and night. Both are wealthy and this money is disposable.

Now my Dad is very ill, not very mobile, blue badge, masses of things
to be honest. I know hands down that he would qualify for attendance allowance at the higher rate. However, he refuses to claim on the basis he doesn’t need the money, not even remotely.
When I tell him that’s irrelevant, he argues it’s not, and that it’s greedy and selfish to make a claim and get over £400 a month when it’s not needed. That money would make no difference to his quality of life as he can already afford to pay for anything he requires.

My Mum and FIL also don’t need the money, but were well up for claiming as they say, correctly, well why the hell not as it’s not means tested and I’m jolly well taking the money on offer.

I admire my Dad so much for his stance, while also thinking he should bloody well take the money anyway.

agree with @newshoestodaymeans tested systems are unfair as they base it on a very binary view of someone’s circumstances eg. do you work yes / no, do you earn more than 50k yes / no, do you have more than 30k in assets yes / no (not real figures or benefits just making it up), therefore someone will always be in ‘the grey area’ where they’re denied a benefit because on paper they’ve declared yes but in reality their circumstances are complex. There is not enough money and time to deploy people to physically review someone’s life.

The issue with your friend is that if he’s not telling you lies, his moral compass is way off and that I would not be happy with.

The trouble with humans is that some, unfortunately are born CFs and greed steps in.

Katie Price did as well for Harvey - I think that was transport related. For a school near me. I thought absolutely fine. He had a need, needed to go to that school for the right support, needed to be got to that school.

It is hard isn’t it. Your mum and fil are entitled to it and don’t need it, but they claim it because they can.

Your dad can get it but doesn’t need it and feels it’s morally wrong to take money he doesn’t need just because he can.

I admire his stance honestly and tbh do think more people who don’t need it shouldn’t take it just because they can.

or even if he took and then donated it rather than say it just sitting in a savings account or paying for another holiday or something.

Yes it shouldn’t be a case of no pip means no transport. You might not need the pip but need the specialist transport.

Ooh look. Another week, and another thread where someone can have a pop at disabled people. Maybe find a hobby? It’s a nice evening, perhaps you could go for a walk?

Being in receipt of PIP is used as a way to access other help though, such as a Blue Badge, or the Accessibility Platform at concerts. It's not just about extra income

Attendance Allowance and DLA isn't means tested. I know wealthy people who qualify for it.

Agree. I regularly help people to claim AA and we also offer a benefit check once it has been awarded. People frequently still ask for the benefit check and they have 200K + in their account. I guess that would soon go if they had to pay for care though. So many people who say to me " I've paid taxes all my life so I'm getting what I can back ". I guess they have a point , back in the days when these older people were bringing up their kids there was child benefit only for the first child and no other benefits for raising kids so they struggled.

doubt the story is true but if it was, so what. Mean testing disability benefits will be hugely expensive plus such people are really the exception. Disability is one of the single biggest risk factor in this country for being poverty. I couldn't worked up about some rich individuals getting PIP.

Some people have no shame. The benefits system is out of control if a millionaire is in receipt of benefits.

Yabu