Carers allowance breaches modern slavery laws surely

[Vatsallfolks]

This country has a minimum wage . It’s a fact . If you are over 21 years old it is £12.21 ph.

Therefore can somebody please explain why Carers Allowance is £83. 30 per week whilst stipulating that carers should be looking after their caree a minimum of 35 hours a week and then some .. which equates to £2.38 per hour .. and then .. we are ‘allowed’ to work another 18 hours.. (if we only could but we can’t as our cared for person actually doesn’t have a 36 hour cut off !!) just to equate to a minimum wage for 54 hour week ??
(when in fact many of us do a 189 hour week ? (24/7) which in reality is £2207 per week ..

so in essence e what I am saying is this . I could say NO .. I’m not doing it anymore.. and it will cost the govt a minimum of the minimum wage for him to be looked after .. but if don’t .. because I love him.. I had to give up my job to care for him .. which I have again because I love him .. but my God .. aren’t the Government taking the piss ?

I completely agree with you, it’s a disgrace. And what is even more insulting is that the carers allowance is LESS than job seekers allowance.

Agreed.

I'm in exactly the same situation. I gave up my job to be full time carer for dh. Without me, he'd have to go into some kind of residential home or have full time care provided by social services who only provide respite care at the moment. I just wonder what will happen if the changes to PIP go ahead and there will suddenly be a lot of carers who are no longer eligible for any carers allowance at all.

It's like child benefit. Child benefit isnt supposed to pay for full time child care, it is an added benefit to other household income be it salary, UC or whatever. Same with CA. It isn't a salary.

The person requiring care will be in receipt of PIP, ESA, UC. If you don't have savings and carers are required then they would be provided.

I know many people who would only work part time or not at all even without a relative requiring care so the extra £320 a month is actually a bonus.

The person requiring care will be in receipt of PIP, ESA, UC. If you don't have savings and carers are required then they would be provided.

And the person who gave up their job to care for them ?

I know 4 people on carers allowance, all who had to give up full time, very well paid jobs to care for their relative.

I’d agree with you and the reality is if the caring were properly assessed often it’d be a minimum of a two person job. People are often up in arms about the cost of residential placements but I totted up that if a person needed 2:1 care 24 hours a day then to cover you’d need 8 and a bit carers working 40 hour weeks ( 10 to account for holidays). At minimum wage this would cost about a quarter of a million pounds a year.

Despite saving the government masses of cash, family carers should slog their guts out literally doing the work of ten for a paltry £5k a year.

I do wonder if family carers were properly supported in terms of money and respite if they’d be able to keep going longer and actually save money in the long run.

And then sit on edge if the earn £1

My dh has been assessed as needing 24 hour care. He is in receipt of both PIP and ESA and we have well under the savings limit. Our local council have told us that they simply do not have enough funds to pay for 24 hour care for him and the best they can do is to provide respite care. This idea that he would get full time carers provided free of charge is an absolute load of rubbish.

It's a weird echo of childcare in a way. I know people who go to work which then is eaten up by carers. And people who can't go to work because of caring duties ...

Parents give up work to look after their dc, do you think the £80 a month child benefit compensates for lost salary? Of course it doesn't.
CA is a benefit, it isn't a salary.
Many people see the £320 a month as a part time salary top up.

You can claim up to 85% of your childcare costs.

Don't understand why you're comparing a short term choice to something that for most people isn't short term and certainly isn't a choice

I know people who can't work due to the cared for persons needs. The £320 per month is hardly a bonus. It's less than job seekers

But some people want to look after their own dc. Some give up work to do so.

The point is carers allowance isn't supposed to pay for full time care in the same way child benefit doesn't pay for childcare. They are benefits not salaries.

If you told them you were no longer providing care one day they wouldn’t just leave him though? He’d be found a place in a residential facility probably costing in excess of 100k a year. They are gambling thst many families will keep going with minimal support.

Parents choose to have children. Do you really think a person would want to give up their job to look after a relative for a pittance? The parents can plan and save for their child. How on earth do you do that for a disabled person?

I follow a lady on X who is a carer to her disabled child. She's talked a few times about having to give up a well paid job and now gets the pittance that is carers allowance

I'd like to know how I'm supposed to fit in a part time job while I'm caring for dh 24 hours a day. Perhaps during my respite time which is an hour a day if I'm lucky. Don't quite know how I'd find someone to employ me for that amount of time, logistics of it etc. Carers Allowance isn't a "top up" for us unfortunately, it's a main part of our income.

Well said Tigerag! I chose to have my kids, planned for it financially etc and knew those pre school years wouldn't last forever. I knew my kids would be grown up and independent one day, I could be faced with caring for my dh for another 30 years plus.

'My dh has been assessed as needing 24 hour care. He is in receipt of both PIP and ESA and we have well under the savings limit. Our local council have told us that they simply do not have enough funds to pay for 24 hour care'

Very, very few get 24hr care. A bed bound incontinent elderly person would get max 4 visits a day.

I agree it is a pittance but the point is it isn't a salary in the same way £400 a month PIP won't cover all a disabled person's costs or £400 a month esa isn't the same as a monthly salary. These benefits are just that, benefits not replacements for income lost.

These benefits are just that, benefits not replacements for income lost

Yes. But the point is that a huge amount of people are losing all of their income to care for relatives, usually through no choice of their own, and are saving the state a huge amount of money by doing so.

Agreed but unfortunately (and I don’t agree with this or think it’s okay) I guess he could have gone into a home and you could have kept working. Unfortunately if there is an alternative (no matter how distasteful) there is one (is how I guess true government would see it).

I’m grateful for it as it allows me to work part time I can earn up to £850 (as of this year) plus £360 per month in carers so roughly 1200 plus £415 dla and £96 child benefit totals approx £2100 which works out at roughly £13 per hour for a full time job equivalent.

But you can earn a full time salary and receive child benefit. You can only work 16 hours a week with carers allowance. Many people wouldn't be able to do that because of the needs of the disabled person

I'm sure you're also not saving the country billions by giving up work for a few years and looking after your own child

Absolutely agree with this. It was never meant to be a 'replacement salary'. I've had caring responsibilities for my son, who was born with a congenital condition, for the past 32 years. I had to put a hold on my career until he was living independently and receiving Direct Payments (35 hours pw, with additional informal hours from family members).

I don't understand how I haven't been discriminated against - if that double negative makes sense. I now have a well paying job. This shows I was always capable of having a well paying job. The only thing that stopped me having a well paying job was my caring responsibilities due to his disabilities. In other words, my son being disabled put me at a financial disadvantage.

His condition couldn't be detected before birth, can't form any part of a negligence / compensation case, and has been recognised in medical books for a few hundred years. It's just a 'glitch'.

Point being, the whole aim of human rights and equalities (dating from the 1940s) is that people shouldn't be discriminated against for something that's entirely beyond their control. So while Carers Allowance was never meant to be a replacement salary, there should be some sort of conversation around how the impact of being responsible for the care of a disabled person (in terms of it being a full time job) can't just be ascribed to 'Oh, unlucky, you'll just have to carry that can.'

The DLA isn’t income for you though, is it? It is to be spent on the (additional) needs of the disabled child. The award letter is quite clear about that.

Mothers.