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.

I claim some disability benefits. I'd be willing to engage in discussion with someone who had genuine questions and was willing to listen to my experiences in a debate about government spending. (If I had the energy.)

If someone already made up their mind and just voiced an ignorant opinion about something they know nothing about then yes I can just dismiss them as abelist. You can't debate with a mind that's closed.

The telegraph understands lots of things are being considered.

I think this would be like vat on schools, where it wouldnt raise as much as they think as people would pick cheaper cars. Yes they'd pay vat on the cheaper car but if the sums assume everyone will just pick the same car it won't work out.

The Motability Scheme is a charity. Part funded by the mobility component of DLA/PIP.

Pp was reluctant to provide the full article but I managed to get hold of it thanks to a more helpful mumsnetter. Some of the usual dogwhistles.

Rachel Reeves is considering scrapping tax breaks for disability benefit claimants to raise £1.2bn a year, The Telegraph understands.

Around 800,000 claimants who qualify for a brand new car under the taxpayer-subsidised Motability scheme are currently exempt from VAT and insurance premium tax (IPT).

But the reliefs are set to be axed as the Government scrambles to fill a black hole in the public finances of as much as £50bn.
A senior Labour source told The Telegraph “lots of things” were being looked at ahead of the Budget on Nov 26.

The Motability scheme allows certain welfare recipients to trade their benefits for a new car. They must pay upfront for any cost that exceeds the value of their benefits.

Removing the tax breaks would mean more claimants would need to make an advance payment for their cars, which would boost tax receipts by an estimated £1.2bn. The scheme currently costs taxpayers £2.8bn a year.

The charity responsible for the scheme, the Motability Foundation, said that the average lease price would increase by £6,500 if VAT was passed on in its entirety.

More than 800,000 claimants have a Motability car and the number eligible for the scheme has risen by more than half a million since 2019.

Those who are eligible for the enhanced rates of personal independence payment (PIP) or the disability living allowance (DLA), alongside other benefits, can exchange all or part of their benefit for a brand new car. The benefit is then paid directly to Motability.

The scheme covers car insurance, breakdown cover and servicing, as well as vehicle excise duty (VED) from the monthly payments.

Cars worth up to £35,000 can be paid for solely from the eligible benefit. For cars worth more than the threshold, claimants are required to make an advance payment.

The Chancellor is said to also be considering removing some cars from the scheme. There are approximately 900 models available, some which retail for more than £50,000.

BMWs, Mercedes, and other luxury cars – currently provided to more than 40,000 claimants – could be removed, The Times reported.

For a £7,999 advance payment and their entire weekly PIP allowance, claimants can lease a £52,870 BMW i4 electric car. A Mercedes-Benz GLA can be leased for three years with an advance payment of £3,999.
In 2024, 170,000 new drivers signed up for Motability, with 220,000 renewing their leases.

Because Motability only provides new cars, this means 390,000 cars were bought and provided by the scheme.

Motability scheme users are also exempt from IPT, a tax paid by customers when they take out insurance policies. Drivers with a Motability car have their insurance covered by the scheme, but would otherwise pay a 12pc charge.

Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the Conservative Party, has previously pledged to restrict Motability to those with serious disabilities, adding: “Those cars are not for people with ADHD.” (🐕 whistle).

Elliot Keck, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance campaign group, said: “It’s right that the Government is reviewing tax exemptions on Motability vehicles. Support for those who genuinely need help to stay mobile must remain but it’s clear that this scheme has drifted beyond its original purpose.

“There’s a big difference between helping disabled people get around and giving tax breaks for expensive cars and add-ons to those gaming the system.”(🐕 whistle)

The Treasury declined to comment, with a spokesman saying: “We do not comment on Budget speculation.”

A spokesman from the Motability Foundation said: “The Motability Scheme provides a vital service to disabled people, helping them to overcome significant mobility barriers.”

In short: Telegraph using budget speculation to put the boot into disabled people.

It’s not just the Telegraph, I read exactly the same in the Times this morning,

It feels that any discussion of PIP or DLA automatically results in people assuming people are being abelist

all discussions - without exception - on the subject of disability result in a barrage of posts by people who have no experience of any disability, let alone the disabilities people attempting to demonstrate the extent of their condition might have and just how important DLA/PIP might be to them.

Lots of people with zero experience of disability have empathy and understanding in abundance. Too many more have no clue, clearly demonstrate no clue but shout loudly about their money being wasted yet again on someone who caused their own disability/could be working because their second cousin twice removed mum’s partner that they see every three years manages to work/could just eat more veg with cinnamon to cure themselves…..etc etc etc.

if you don’t want to be accused of ableism, recognise the individual impact the same conditions can have on a person and the fabulous job done by carers which would cost the state a small fortune. Oh, and employ someone with a disability if you are in a position to make the appointment - bet you won’t.

Nah, I don’t see the DT ‘putting the boot in’, as you so eloquently phrased it.

The discussion is part of the wider debate surrounding the forthcoming budget. Of course there is speculation - given this governments lies, scandals, and u-turns to date, that’s hardly surprising, is it?

Yep, the possible changes are being mentioned in other news outlets, but without the dog whistling the Telegraph is indulging in.

I will wait for the actual budget. It will be interesting as any changes will need to be weighed against the contribution the scheme makes to the motor industry and the wider economy. Plus the scheme is a charity, so the government can make changes to tax concessions, but possibly not the operation of the scheme itself, I would imagine. But we will see.

Too many more have no clue, clearly demonstrate no clue but shout loudly about their money being wasted yet again on someone who caused their own disability/could be working because their second cousin twice removed mum’s partner that they see every three years manages to work/could just eat more veg with cinnamon to cure themselves…..etc etc etc

This in spades @Pickledpoppetpickle

Same here. My son was awarded DLA this year for autism but on MN it’s equivalent to anxiety or bad parenting.

Edit: natural anxiety, not disabling anxiety.

I disagree profoundly. Of course if you are coming from a Telegraph reader perspective - which, given your description of this government you clearly are - then of course you won't notice the deliberate stings of stigmatising language in the article, but they're there. Repeated use of the words 'brand new' and 'luxury' are clear sneers at people the DT think are undeserving. The posting of the numbers of how many people get these top end cars but without context on the % of the total that these numbers represent. The agenda is clear to see if you know how to read between the lines.

Exactly, pointythings.

We have been over this, on numerous occasions. You will not succeed in shutting down debate by constantly accusing people of ableism etc. Many of us are being asked to bear the fiscal burden of possibly the worst government in recent times - we are therefore entitled, yes entitled, to ask where our money is going.

Let me remind you that, with Labour, evidently nobody is immune.

That’s the agenda.

I'm not shutting down the debate. I am merely pointing out that the press in the UK is highly partisan. Pretending the DT doesn't have an agenda is ludicrous.

As it happens, I would love to see life improve for disabled people in terms of opportunities and support to work and pay taxes. Work is good for people. But that isn't what DT readers want - they are only interest in cuts that will make disabled people poorer and less independent. Getting disabled people into work will require an initial investment and some serious long term thinking - the UK is notoriously bad at that.

The DT has an agenda in the same way the Guardian does.

I otherwise disagree that the majority of DT readers ‘want disabled people to be poorer and less independent’.

What people want is simply to stop getting taxed to death by this wretched government. In the nicest possible way, the disabled are ‘collateral’ - caught in the crossfire, in the same way as farmers and OAP’s et al.

Please reserve your anger for this government - they are truly deserving of it.

No thank you, I will reserve my anger for the previous government whose austerity strangled growth and targeted the most vulnerable. The current lot aren't great, but they are nowhere near the level of the previous shitshow.

And yes, of course all news sources have an agenda.

Yes, because Labour have been a stunning success during the past 15 months.

In any event, you might change your tune at the end of November - the backbenches will not be able to hold back the tide indefinitely.

Rachel Reeves has said she “can’t leave welfare untouched” this parliament, with the Treasury understood to be considering axing up to £1bn in tax breaks for a scheme providing cars for disabled people.
GUARDIAN

They've only had 15 months. The last lot had 14 years. I'm prepared to give them the length of a Parliament because I understand there's no such thing as quick fixes.

And yes, let's see what the budget brings. I do wish Labour had been braver upfront and had said they would start by reversing the last unfunded NI cut - the UK couldn't afford it and it was a blatant electoral bribe that didn't even work. But we are where we are.

I agree with welfare not being exempt. Let's take out the triple lock.