To think people should be able to discuss and debate how public money is used for disability and otuher benefits

[Eatinghurts]

there are for our country a number of competing things happening
desire to have a functioning society which supports everyone
rising goverment spending in part brought about by rises in diagnosids of conditions and an elderly and sick poppulation
shifts in disabilituy expenditure with tech AI etc.

debatoing this leads many to argue posters are ignorant of disability and othering on the othrside assuming disabled people and their families do not pay tax.
I would hope as adults we could maturrely explore this.

Oh I agree, vouchers would not work, but lots of people on the other thread were suggesting them as an alternative and I was interested to see how they thought practically they could replace cash. My view is that it belies a lack of understanding of the hidden costs of disability.

Yes there will be chancers but they are in the minority, Immigrants has been done to death along with flags so it's back to the disabled.
YAWN.. DONE TO DEATH!!🤯

OP, the very fact that you mention using disability payments for treats as a negative/inappropriate shows that you just don't get it. I would honestly like everyone who is even thinking of posting on threads like these to spend a week shadowing a disabled person before posting anything. Maybe that will help.

If accounting for every expense was cost effective, we'd already be doing that.

It isn't. It would be an absolute nightmare to run. We have that system for Access to Work because its a much more limited scope of things to pay out for, we also have the personal budget scheme for PA's, where you are assessed for how many hours per week of PA time you need - and you only get that sum of money, its up to you to hire your PA and pay them as an employee - so that is pretty closely managed to.

But to run a system where for 1 person, food and clothing costs would be an acceptable expense but for the next person, iPads and physio would be and clothes and food would not... is a logistical impossibility. You'd spend billions trying to run that, mistakes would be made all over the place, then people would be asked to repay money they spent on something they thought they were allowed and then were told they weren't... whilst others were going without things they need but think wouldn't qualify...

The current system of 'heres what we think the extra cost of being disabled is, its up to you what you do with it but you aren't getting any more if you spend it on cake' is the simplest and most cost effective way of doing it.

Yes, that does open it up to both parental and spousal abuse. But that is a seperate matter with different channels for dealing with it.

Bottom line - either you agree that disabled people need a bit extra, or you don't. I am curious to what those people who do not think disabled people need financial support think we should do?

I think we should be striving to reduce how many people are long term chronic illness sufferers, via better, prompter, more put together health care, and make sure disabled people of all types have the adaptations, housing etc that they need to be as independent as they can.

For example - a national standard that all new build properties have 36inch wide doors, flat access to the ground floor and a downstairs toilet.

That would make it much easier for people to find accessible homes, and stay put in them into older age.

Go further - make all these properties have space for a through floor lift and/or stair lift, and a full downstairs wet room.

I don't know when this trend for conflating disagreement with hate started, but it's extremely unhelpful and I wish it would stop.

What’s the debate OP?

fully agree with posters saying to transfer disability costs in other ways eg 36 inch doors, bathrooms would also say manufacturers should have to make accessible white goods and tjhe sane for apps XCity cdentres often with unintended consequences of excluding disabled people eg parking restrictions lack of help points. TFL provides a wonderful assistence service when not under cuts but more and more stations now unmanned.

That sounds like a serious and dangerous issue. I dont have any knowledge of that.

I was more meaning safeguards against fraudulent claims as a lot of the debate focuses on 'people i know who are fraudulently claiming'

i wasnt thinking about safeguarding individuals against harm.

It probably wasnt the correct word.

@NeedAnyHelpWithThatPaperBag agree on this societies progress through disagreeing listening and learning.

posters assume people suggesting those concerned about disabilities cant have experience are making huge assumptions. Having a complex imparement myself, unpaid carer experience working and volenteering in the field plus having friends means i see where benefits transformational, where it is not meeting basic extra.costs and where people are saving for the future

@Curlewcurfew thanks for clarifying. Agree we do what we can to prevent fraud and requirse medical info. Its obviously hard as.charities publishing guides on what to say makes it easier for people to exagerate but so many genuine people do not realise what impact their imparement has as they are used to making the best of it.

i feel we need to move away from that it covers extra costs to actually propperly giving examples.

i think disability charities could be useful hear eg costs of sensory clothing vs supermarket and replacements due to dammagre. I think it would show some of the haters what the extra costs are while making it easier for disabled people to.challenge when appointies missuse.

When someone applies for a job, they look up how to word things to best demonstrate their strengths etc.
It is no different to people applying for PIP and finding out how to word things to demonstrate their care needs.

Many people applying for PIP would not get it if they just rambled on and used their own language to describe things. When applying for DLA/PIP, you have to be precise and repeat yourself a hundred times at least.

I know people who have applied for the forms for DLA for their child and not been able to fill them in... as they try and see the best in their kid, and the forms are forcing them to do the opposite.

The websites advising people on how to word things are not doing anything wrong.

Its a bad but understandable systen that we need these this. A betterceducated or connected person is likely to get more.

What on earth gave you the idea we couldn't? Barely an hour goes by without a new thread inviting the world and its dog to opine on the matter. The fact that people who actually know what they're talking about get irritated by the ill informed, the exaggerations and misrepresentations and say so, has never stopped people from banging on about it yet, so I'm not sure why you think their right to do so is threatened by those seeking to correct them.
However, do I think its a useful thing to do, that achieves any purpose other than to upset people? No. We get one chance to have any influence over how public money is spent, and thats on election day. Moaning on MN that you think disabled people are treated too generously won't change a thing. And if you've already made your mind up, you're not going to be persuaded otherwise. So what's the point of 'the debate'?

Everyone a debate it. But the reality is that only one group gets to decide whether the recipients continue to get the unsustainable levels of sky high welfare. And the group is the net contributing taxpayer. The law of diminishing returns has already kicked in and net contributors and high tax paying individuals are leaving the country in big numbers. The system is unsustainable, we simply cannot afford to pay so many people benefits.

Less than half the population is now net contributors. So debate away, but when there ain’t no money left, all that will be left is debate.

If you are a net contributor, you can try and rant and have a say in what happens to your tax money, but once it has gone through the Gov coffers and is redistributed elsewhere, you have zero say in what happens to it or how it is spent. You have fuck all say in how someone on UC spends their money.

You sound like someone who would poke a nurse in the chest and say "I pay your wages". Because that is the same in a way.

BTW, a lot of the people who are not net contributors but do work, do the most vital jobs. They are the cogs in the machine. Nurses are not net contributors and neither are teachers, same as bin men, carers, cleaners... this list goes on.

Not really - a lot of it is about luck too. For people who are not brilliant with words, there are support organisations who can help. And that is perfectly legitimate. For the rest it isn't about connections - it's about 1) medical evidence, and 2) the assessor you get on the day. My DS gets PIP - higher rate for both aspects at first time of asking. He had a stack of medical evidence that took him 4 hours to upload, and on the day he had an assessor who was a specialist physiotherapist by profession - one who knew all about his health conditions and just got it. Both of those things weight far more than being able to write well - and that last can be addressed by providing support.

democracies give other opportunities to contribute other than election days eg writing to mps protesting lobbying.

i think the questions that should be debated is do disability benefits.need reform? If so how.

@pointythings glad your son had a possitive assessment. Key hear seems to be an assessor who understood. For epilepcy for example I so often se assessors disputing special aids and equipment not appreciating risks of cooking and showering need to be mannaged daily regardless of TC frequency.

How do you reform benefits without hurting the people who claim them?

People like to think that they are nice. That they can have a sensible discussion about disability benefits. When in reality, they have a real bias about what they classify as truly deserving of these payments. And for the most part that means people who really look disabled. Like it's obvious from a mile away. Anything less, they deem as undeserving. At the very least there should be a vote on what these payments should be spent on. And it definitely shouldn't be anything to ease the burden on the family of the disabled person. It's a waste of time debating with these people. It's like banging your head against a brick wall.

Bearing in mind that my local big Sainsbury's is manually processing vouchers because the fraud rate has shot up, so they're having to check them carefully, it would probably cost far more than it saved. These changes are always ideological rather than genuinely cost saving.

The only one ranting (and swearing) is you.

The rest of what you wrote is just some blah blah which misses the point spectacularly. But do carry on….

No, am just fed up with people who claim to have some moral high ground for earning over a certain amount, and stating how they think the people below them should be able to spend money.... to the point they state that it should not be spent on a "luxury" like a fridge (from a recent thread).
It is none of their business. If I blow all my UC on drugs, it does not affect you at all (not that I do).

How you feel is how you feel.

But feelings and facts don’t always run parallel. Ultimately the numbers have to add up and someone has to pay.

If everyone gets something for free, eventually no one gets it for free. And with the benefits bill so high and the number of people paying for it reducing, eventually the money will run out. The benefits bill has to reduce or there will be no welfare state left.

And what happens to the people on benefits who find they can no longer eat or pay their bills?