Labour increase benefits bill. AIBU To think what’s the point in working?

[topicalaffair]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15520831/Labours-push-lift-two-child-benefits-cap-hand-25-000-windfalls-thousands-Britains-biggest-jobless-families.html#

‘Official estimates suggest the cost of scrapping the cap will total £13.6 billion over the next five years.

The Tories said families currently affected by the cap are in line to receive windfalls worth an average £25,000 each over that period.

But the biggest families will gain far more. Thousands of families with five children will receive around £10,900 a year while those with six children will get an extra £16,600 a year.
Almost half of the families involved have no one in work.‘

If PIP is anything like DLA, they don't consider anything from the GP to be sufficient evidence.

You read into that something that wasn't there.

Someone who is struggling, has just upended their life, is living in crappy conditions, is potentially in a country where they do not speak the language, may not have relevant qualifications or, if they do, are not accepted as equivalent to quals gained in the UK... If against all the odds they're a better candidate for a job than you...

A moot point however, as we do not let them work. Which means we lose out on tax and quality employees in many instances.

Has anyone considered that people living on solely benefits are also doing cash in hand jobs? That is how they can appear to be more comfortably off then you would expect them to be. Also the jobless families are teaching their children a terrible life lesson.

Well a lot of them know how to play the system, however they can’t keep on having kids and eventually when the youngest is old enough they will have to manage, but you can guarantee by then they will have some disabilities that cover the extra.
id rather work any day, but just seems like if you rent and have kids there is a very fine margin to you being better off for quite a while.
labour have made not working and throwing out kids, look like a
meal ticket to a lot of people.
we’ve been here before where they have been over generous with benefits it’s the same over again with them.
On the other hand you have “pays to work “ being told by uc - nope it actually probably doesn’t anymore when you have young kids, unless you both earn far more.

It actually teaches kids a pretty great life lesson.

I grew up on benefits, it made me absolutely adamant that I'd never live that way. I worked hard from when I was 12 years old.

Unfortunately a brain tumour had other ideas.

I suppose Labour have to pay people to keep them state dependent. It’s their MO. What’d be the point in the Labour Party otherwise.

Meanwhile I found the quote from Rachel Reeves about Student loans. She says :

“Around half of people go to university today, but half don't. And it is not right that people who don't go to university are having to bear all the cost for others to do so."

Astonishingly hypocritical. Although maybe not astonishing. Definitely hypocritical. That’s Labour’s MO too.

It’s not right that people who do go to work have to bear the cost of those who choose not to. Or is that one ok Rachel?

When?

I think we need a new Disability system based on costs.

I think if a system was based on costs someone with a child that needed a powered moulded wheelchair, a van that could accommodate said chair and overnight care to monitor child's airway etc could need many more £££ like 100k+ and actually get the care they need.

But the flip side to cover that cost would be conditions that do not cost particularly not getting money directly. So you may be agoraphobic/anxious and unable to work and that being not in dispute but if you don't have associated costs then ordinary out of work benefits should be sufficient. I do think he level of ordinary out of work benefits for people without kids need to be looked at though as at around £400 a month they really are dire.

In one discussion on here someone told me that their need (why they got disability benefits) included that their mum or boyfriend prompt them to get up. That is a need but it is not a cost. Their disability had no cost and they kept the money for ordinary spending. They said that if their mum or boyfriend didn't prompt them they would have to pay someone to do it. Perhaps but we don't give people who live with their parents for free housing benefit because if they lived elsewhere that charged rent they would have to pay rent. In such difficult financial times I don't think we should be giving people money for things that don't cost anything.

The government could in the short term pledge to make the change cost neutral so that people who say they need councilling/physio etc that money could be redirected to the services needed which hopefully won't be needed lifelong.

I agree.

“Never leaving the house” is a popular point scorer on PIP. Since when did never leaving the house mean you need more money?

What’s the workforce like in about twenty years given AI?

It actually not nearly as straight-forward as you imagine. Part of my job is writing support letters for DWP and I often look at rejection letters that come up. And they will use any excuse to refuse claim. One person comes to mind whose claim was refused on the basis of them having been able to hold down a job before being diagnosed with a chronic and debilitating health condition. Another thing I commonly see is people disqualified because they can drive because driving is "a complex activity" (which it is) and, therefore, assumptions are made that all other activities should also then be manageable.
Many applications are refused on a basic of the fact that a person was able to remain coherent during the interview. Some are refused because the person is not under specialist services for a specific condition.
Basically, they use all the tricks in the book to refuse because this is their briefing. And I know that because my friend used to work for DWP as an assessor and even if he thought the claim was legitimate, there will often be people up top who refused to countersign so as not to spoil their targets.

Define costs ?
On yet another disabillity thread a poster was asking why somone with autism would need DLA/PIP etc when they themselves had a diagnosis and their bills dont cost them anymore
This is why it goes off need not diagnosis
My son for example is extremely destructive ,hes obsessed with running water and has caused the Bathroom/ Kitchen to flood on numerous occasions, he destroys his clothes ,would pour every bit of shower gel ,toothpaste washing up liquid etc etc,down the sink given half a chance, he also has a diagnosis of autism, and costs us a fortune.

I do understand this idea is attractive and maybe with AI managing it wouldnt be incredibly costly ti administer.

But I do think there would be so much angst about what is a legitimate cost.

Take something simple like heating. A lot of disabled people need more heating due to circulation issues or being home more. But people without disability need some heating too. So maybe a disability expense is a standard home is 17 degrees but you are allowed two degrees extra heating if you have thatvtyoe of disability, but then everyone has different homes and different fuels and that 2 degrees might cost twice as much for person A as B. Will a committee decide that heating costs can only relate to an average home not the persons actual home. Imagine this kind of quibble across hundreds of individual expenses.

Increased gas/electricity costs springs to mind, also home deliveries.

None of the PIP descriptors are about needing money anyway. You don't have to justify any spending or lack of it.

I was going to say something similar.

My son is incontinent which means I'm always washing things and one of the first things I did when we got his DLA back paid was to buy a dryer which is incredibly helpful but obviously also costs to run. My bills are definitely higher due to his disability.

Power wheelchairs etc are very obvious expenses but there are so many less obvious ones too and it varies so much even with the same or similar disabilities which is why even though it is a nice idea, I just don't see it working.

And decreased costs in other areas.

No you don't have to justify any spending at present. You don't have to have any increased costs at all over and above someone without your disability - in which case it really is just extra discretionary spending. And that is contributing to the Disability benefits bill being out of control.

And then our "never leaving the house person" despite getting £££ extra every month for no costs wants the NHS to pay for their councilling and has a long wait as there isn't the funding.

Well yes, but then again there is to travel costs if you never leave the house, less spend on shoes and clothes, no need for coffee and something to eat because you're not out working all day long.

Also, home deliveries are not more expensive, there are always deals.

The thing about making it expenses based is that some of my PIP goes towards the rent, covering the amount over the UC housing allowance. Some of it goes towards the council tax and the utility bills.

It isn't necessarily that our expenses are higher because of my disabilities; it's that our earning power is significantly reduced.

You do know not everyone on benefits is able to work dont you? Maybe its drag your disabled relative (child, spouse, parent, self) to work day?

Don't you get a council tax reduction?

Why is someone on benefits that has a job always assumed to be working cash in hand? Many people on UC have a work allowance, and are allowed to earn so much before their money starts to reduce. Even people in the Limited Capability groups are allowed to work as long as their employment does not contradict the reasons they are in the LC group.

Also, Child Maintenance payments are disregarded for UC. A single mum could be getting £1000pm from her child's father, and it would not affect her benefits (unless her capital was pushed over £6k though, at which point it tapers off).

Have you been housebound?
As in, remember the lockdowns and imagine being in a lockdown for months/years, do you think
1- there is no cost associated to that
2- the coat isn’t in the ‘can’t leave tge house’ but in reasons why someone can’t leave their house.

So they have issues with mobility -> adapted house, equipment, stair lift, all sorts of gadgets to help opening jars, cooking etc…
Theyre inside, usually not moving much -> higher cost of heating
They have MH issues -> cost fur counselling
being unable to get out of the house -> depression (I’m sure all of those you thought lockdowns were ever do awful will agree) -> counselling

The naivety on this site sometimes leaves me 😳😳😵‍💫😵‍💫

You really have no idea what it means to be disabled/chronically ill.

Honestly, you want to have a go at people who get too much? Look up. Look at the banks, the richest who get tax reductions, those who ‘forget’ to pay their taxes and after negotiation, it’s simply halfed. Look at water companies, railways etc.. who are repeatidly bailed out by the government. Look at the likes of Moone who cheated tge system during covid and still hasn’t repaid a penny. Get angry, ask for new ways od dealing with that waste of money.

But Don’t trample on disabled people because ‘they stuff for free it’s unfair’ boohoo.
Because you’ll be next.
it will be pensioners, working people who will have to pay for schools, healthcare etc..
All because it’s fair and why paying for things extra for anyone, right?

I have know people with agoraphobia that I met in support groups. Not many are 100% house bound. They often have their safe places that they worked up to visiting. This can be a local shop, or even a cafe. Increased travel costs if they need to get a taxi to appointments.

And being house bound does not mean you need less clothing. Why are you assuming anyone with agoraphobia is slobbing about in the same clothing for weeks on end?

Some months we get a slight reduction, most months we don't. It's never less than £175 a month.

For the 2000th time:

It is not the role of the state to pay you to be unproductive at home.

What continually amazes me is that you turn yourself into a veritable pretzel trying to justify the cash transfers while completely ignoring what is actually happening in the wider UK economy.

Newsflash: the UK is not productive enough to keep funding them to stay at home not working.