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 ?

The award letter makes it clear that it is to pay for your disabled child’s needs. Not for (for example) my non disabled child’s ballet classes, which is the sort of thing my salary paid for before I became a carer. That’s how it’s different to my earned income.

I think we need to have a sensible discussion as a society about care: who needs it, who is responsible for providing it and who funds it.

The idea that we as a society are able and willing to fund care in the way that OP suggests (the state presumably paying everyone a minimum wage when they are caring for a relative) is unrealistic. We don't have the money or appetite for this and the economy would be crippled by the astronomical amount of taxation that would be required to make this work. So what is the alternative? I think we need to be more honest with people. We are largely expected to take on the burden of care for our loved ones. The state can assist us in this but they cannot and will not alleviate this burden from everyone all of the time. If we acknowledge this then we are at a sensible starting place to look at how we share the resources and money we do have available more fairly. People will be forced to accept that we should be saving for care when we will probably need it (in old age) and accept that this is a cost of life that we should seek to cover ourselves wherever possible.

Looking vaguely ahead, the falling life expectancy means there will be a few people who will outlive the children that care for them.

Incidentally, for people who want a photoflash freeze frame of life in the land or carers and cared for, here's a thread to ponder and immerse yourself in imagining. Some (but not all, obviously) will need to wipe a tear.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5350054-my-husband-died-today

I think it’s an issue that will contribute to the ever decreasing birth rate (which will of course have a further impact on care… fewer children being born, fewer people to care for the elderly).
I adore my son, but if id have known that I would never be able to properly support myself again I don’t think I’d have had children. Seeing everything we go through caring for their disabled sibling, I don’t think my non disabled children will have children.

I disagree. To be entitled to it you have to be caring for the other person 35 hours a week. It’s a job. A bloody tough one at that. I’m pretty sure that it’s not just me that doesn’t ‘knock off’ at hour 35 to pop out to work part time. A 40 hr week is considered a full time job.

So am I right in thinking that you are saying that it’s a ‘top up’ on my potential earnings.. so another 5 hrs a week would net the grand sum of £60 ish quid or are you saying that we carers SHOULD expect to be doing a genuine part time job of say 20 hrs per week on top of caring ? Bringing my working week up to 55 hrs a week for the grand sum of £250 wages and £83 carers ? A total of £333.. which is still half of minimum wage. ?

I could of course refuse. Then he would need to be entirely funded by the state as our savings are below the threshold now I have had to give up full time well paid work. It would be a massive burden on the tax payer if we all did that .

I think Carers allowance needs to be completely re thought . It is currently paid at a single rate regardless of the ‘caring’ being done is someone who does life admin, calls a few times a week. Pops in to see how they are for a chat .. generally low level care .. and some of us who are picking people up off the floor, taking them to the loo, changing stoma bags, administering medication, changing bedding in the middle of the night and sorting out friends and neighbours to sit with while I go to my own appointments/ shopping etc .

I think that we should have a care assessment.. a bit like the PIP assessment but in person. At the home of the person being cared for say for example by the council and our ‘care allowance’ paid in one of 3 categories. Low (the low level supervision care as described above) . Medium ; Day care, hands on physical care for people who need help in the day but require little or only very occasional night care .. and High ; for those looking after people that require constant physical and emotional care day and night . With this paid at the rate of minimum wage for a 40 hr week. (The government still saves a packet compared to that person going into local authority care) not least because we work a darn sight more than 40hrs a week.

I have a disabled relative and completely agree. We all throw the dice when we have children and we all risk having a child that will need a lot of care for the rest of their lives. Lots of people assume it will never happen to them but it is absolutely something that should be considered when deciding to have children and I wouldn't blame anyone for deciding against having a child because they don't want to take the risk.

I think there are some people out there who think absolutely anyone can claim Carers Allowance. They can't. The person who you care for has to be in receipt of a qualifying disability benefit. I can't just say I'm a carer and get it. I have to prove to the DWP the person I'm caring for is eligible.

As I said if carers is all your getting it's a pittance I'm pointing out that for some ,and i have always said some not all carers will also be getting UC DLA etc .

I think there are some people out there who think absolutely anyone can claim Carers Allowance.

The same as there are also some people out there who think the world is flat.

But any Carers Allowance will be deducted from the amount of UC you receive.

The way our entire economy and way modern life works means it's becoming increasingly difficult to work for a living beyond "survival" and planning for care down the line is a pipe dream for most.

Anyone in a "family" situation can do their best to factor in all the variables, but when curve balls strike sometimes even the best mitigation is stymied by economic reality. It's all well and good expecting people to make responsible choices, but the fact of the matter is that if you're just about managing or poor to start with, it only takes one disaster to tip one into crisis, and that crisis isn't just financial it's emotional and psychological too.

What is the point of life if we cannot follow our evolutionary coding, which for most is to partner up, have children, and have some enjoyment and security in that? The current system divides us up and makes us face impossible choices - vmcare for your loved one or work and have to partner up with, or relinquish control to strangers?

The carers allowance issue is one that highlights a nightmare of our own economic making where constant economic expansion demands we pander to it but rewards aren't fairly distributed. Then the state steps in, mainly from the bread and circuses perspective, and people get stuck in purgatory. Our modern world tries to over-ride humanity itself. And we'll see yet more chaos with technology and AI being used with all it's lack of nuance and tendency to "hallucinate". Which is a different argument I suppose, but the more it's used in areas like social work and justice, the more problems will be caused, not least with accountability.

Carers Allowance and the pittance they pay, has been a long standing scandal.

If all relatives refused to care for their disabled relatives, it would practically bankrupt the country, with professional care costs. 🤷‍♀️

You're absolutely right, and they rely on people actually giving a shit about their loved ones to keep them over a barrel. If everyone did refuse, I hate to think what the "solution" would actually be.

The people saying ‘they can’t afford to increase carers allowance’ need to understand that they definitely can’t afford for carers to start saying that they can no longer provide the care to their disabled relatives.

i can't believe people actually comparing having children and cb to being a carer.

@MistressoftheDarkSide I actually disagree fundamentally with you because you seem to assume that the default setting for humans is that we are able to have children and age with enjoyment and security. This is absolutely not the norm for humans and not how we are evolutionary coded at all. We are meant to struggle to survive and the vulnerable and old wouldn't survive for long for the majority of our existence. It is literally only in the past one hundred years or so that we have begun to fundamentally reshape this with the introduction of the welfare state etc. Even then, the model was built on there being relatively few people needing care and there being a large population of young and working people to shoulder the burden. We are entering unprecedented times with the shift in demographics and an increase in demand on the system and we don't know how this will work out. It's wrong though to suggest that carers would have historically been looked after and supported by society as this isn't really the case for the vast majority of our existence.

It's 'wimmin's work', so they should be doing it for free. I think that's basically how governments view it.

It's 'wimmin's work', so they should be doing it for free. I think that's basically how governments view it.

In a civilised society with technological advances we should be able to make it work. You’re right in that historically the weak and vulnerable wouldn’t survive long but thankfully we don’t view the world in such a medieval way now.

If it wasn’t for the advancement of modern medicine then any one of us would only be an infection away from dying, but luckily we have antibiotics.

Such is the advancement of modern medicine that they’re constantly coming up with innovative ways to keep people alive longer, yet in the next breath they’re saying we can’t afford to look after the people that we’re keeping alive as long as possible - The sad irony is that some
people genuinely want to end their life, due to suffering and pain, yet they law says no, keep them alive, pump them with drugs but we can’t look after them.

The whole system needs an overhaul. The rich get richer, whilst the poor get poorer as per.

I’d agree I think for a lot of history the old, the disabled, the ill would be left behind to die. The workhouse, the poorhouse, the mercy of the church a psalm for supper anyone?

The welfare state is a very modern phenomenon. Its. It’s very limited to just a few countries. Is there anywhere in the world that family carers are given reasonable remuneration for services rendered?

. It is literally only in the past one hundred years or so that we have begun to fundamentally reshape this with the introduction of the welfare state etc.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Archaeologists have found human remains displaying indisputable evidence that well over 3,000 years ago our ancestors were nursing and caring for individuals who would otherwise have died.

Compassion wasn't invented 100 years ago. Even if it is a luxury we can't afford.

This! They are your relatives you are looking after. I am glad people don't have to suffer alone anymore and that some help is given. However it is that - some help - not a God given right.

Are you a carer?

Of course our ancestors cared for their relatives and close friends. I never suggested otherwise. Did the state or wider society pay them for this though? No. That's my point. The idea that care is somehow a burden that we should all share by financially funding people to care for their loved ones is what is different and a relatively new concept. How far the concept goes is what is being tested. Some on this thread have suggested that they could just give up caring and leave the care of their loved ones to the state. We obviously wouldn't be able to afford this as a country but neither can we realistically afford to compensate people for the care they provide their loved ones in the way that many would like. It will fundamentally go back to the question of who is responsible for care. The state and wider society or you as an individual and your family/personal support network. The latter is unpalatable to many but the former may be unaffordable.

The idea that care is somehow a burden that we should all share by financially funding people to care for their loved ones is what is different and a relatively new concept.

I respectfully disagree - all religions preach this. If you don't (yet) have a state, you still have a community. Feel free to criticise the suggestion nation->state->community->tribe->family

I find the idea that it's a recent invention not only an insult to history, but as serving a slightly negative agenda. "We shouldn't be doing that, after all we never used to" which is peddled by the right wing fans in the UK.