To think benefits need to be cut to fund increased spending on defence

[Viviennemary]

This is absolutely necessary. Keir Starmer shouldnt have backed down the last time. But now with the current situation with Russia drastic steps need to be taken. We simply can't afford to sustain the current benefits bill with the armed forces so depleted. The money is needed to increase defence.

Carers save the country millions of pounds, carers who do care for someone for the minimum hours or more should be better financially rewarded.

It's an interesting view though - it assumes that country (taxpayer) owns care to people who need it, not their families.
What about families having prime responsibility for their disabled members and state stepping in to offer some help?
I'm saying this as someone who was in FT employment for over 30 years and provided care for at least five years during this time.

There’s a zero tolerance policy on MN for correcting grammar and spelling, no matter how polite you are. The site is populated by people of all abilities and it’s considered unreasonable to point out these kinds of mistakes because you could be targeting someone with a learning disability. I didn’t see your comment but even if it wasn’t reported, MN would have deleted it if they’d found it.

Where families had full responsibility for their disabled members in the past, it disproportionally affected women - they were automatically expected to be the carers.

The state does only offer some help. It may pay disability benefits to those who qualify but care provided at the expense of the tax payer is means tested, and the majority have to make some kind of contribution, based on their resources - savings and disability benefits are all subject to that assessment.

As an example, my own mum had home care. She had a small state pension topped up by pension credit and the lower rate of attendance allowance. They were her only sources of income, but because she lived with myself and DH she was deemed as having no living expenses and had to contribute around £150 a week for care visits of 15 minutes three times a day.

Residential care is not free. If you have the means you have to pay - and that includes all assets including your home if no other dependents are living in it. When mum had to move into residential care, social services put us through hell with their investigations as to whether she owned any part of our home (she didn’t - she moved in with us from local authority housing) or had savings we weren’t declaring. They went back years and the whole experience was intimidating.

And some conditions make it impossible for families to care for their loved ones - the support system for those people is already broken. Why make it more difficult ?

I do think that carers allowance being deducted from UC is an area that could (and should) be reconsidered.

If you’re in receipt of CA your potential to earn is significantly limited, you can’t feasibly work 20hrs per week before you lose entitlement, and I don’t see how it’s workable to class £2.45 per hour (86 / 35hrs care) as an “income.” For most, it’s impossible to even work those 20hrs. Not acknowledging that and providing such low carer benefit forces families of already vulnerable people into poverty.

The respite and support system needs a complete overhaul. Saying that families are responsible for their own disabled family members is absolutely fair enough, but where the government fails is in its ability to step in and support them.

So where we arrive is exhausted parents/families, spending every penny they have on their family member, and either receiving nothing if they are managing to work or a pittance if they’re not.

It’s not even close to good enough.

Thanks for the info.
I only do it if I think people are being unreasonable in other ways eg in this case being harsh to benefit claimants. But I accept the rules are of course black and white.

Interesting as this was exactly the same with us. Bizarre!

During my working life, I came across a number of parents working full time and claiming carers allowance for their children. It’s only actual take home pay that is assessed for carers allowance. Tax and NI contributions and half of any private pension contributions, are deducted as well as defined work related costs, including travel expenses between different workplaces not covered by employers. If you have high work related costs it’s perfectly possible to work full time and still claim CA. In addition, some of those on my caseload claimed carers allowance and used it to partially fund care for their loved ones while they continued to work full time. Up to half of their take home pay was allowable under these circumstances. All perfectly legal.

Whataboutery 101!

Do you really think you're the only person who understands the scale of the issue? Context matters.

You may not value the contribution made by taxpayers, but that doesn't mean their money should be wasted. The existence higher fraud, error or other tax losses elsewhere does not make smaller losses acceptable. Because even at relatively low level that small fraud can still amount to hundreds of millions of pounds. In real-world terms, that could fund thousands of nurses and teachers, train more doctors, or help deliver more social housing.

So what if there are bigger problems elsewhere. It doesn't make those smaller losses irrelevant. Every £ lost to fraud, or error is a pound that can't be spent on the services and support it was intended to fund. Taxpayers are entitled to expect that public money is spent properly and reaches those it is intended to support.

Agree.

Ok so in that case I expect a mahooosive campaign and shaming to pick up the widespread tax dodging from those selling on Vinted, the self employed in all sectors to tradesmen and larger companies.

Where is it? We’re all entitled to it.

That makes sense.

In truth, my ex husband and I looked into it for my then father in law, and the drop in income would have been absolutely undoable. So instead we continued providing 7hrs a day of care and working full time.

My partner and I also couldn’t claim it for my son, for the same reason.

But I am saying that from the perspective of being fortunate enough to be far, far over the threshold.

My assumption is that as NMW has increased, the ability to work and earn reasonably and claim carers allowance has been similarly impacted.

I am coming from the perspective of it likely never making financial sense for our family, but even from that perspective, I struggle to see how carers allowance can ever be seen as reasonable.

£86p/w is little more than a token payment in the scheme of things, and the impact it has on UC is so significant.

And taxpayers are also entitled to expect that the tax system is applied fairly across all levels. A one percent fraud level in disability benefits represents around £660m. That’s a substantial sum. But if we’re going to crack down on benefit claimants and claw back those sums on the basis that the country is on the bones of it’s arse and we need the money elsewhere, then simply ignoring the nearly £47bn in uncollected taxes smacks of victimisation of the lowest hanging fruit.

It’s less than £3 per hour and fully deductible from UC - replaced with a carers element of around £52 per week, taking the hourly rate down to less than £1.50. It simply hasn’t kept pace with minimum wage, and many families, such as yourself have no choice but to work full time in addition to caring duties because CA simply doesn’t bridge the gap. It gives you an insight into the contempt with which government (and some posters here on this thread) hold the carers who are saving the tax payer a significant sum in significantly more expensive state care costs.

Agreed.

We’re very fortunate to be in positions that pay well and offer the flexibility we need, but still really struggle with energy, time and burnout.

But it seems the options for families like ours are exhaustion from working full time around providing care, or deprivation.

It gets my back up absolutely no end when people talk about cutting benefits, like anyone is living a life of luxury on their £1.50 an hour.

I see that and I get what you're saying. For some people though who are incredibly vulnerable or significantly disabled the state does have a responsibility to support them. I'm thinking about people who lack capacity without LPA or deputyship in place in particular.

If family members or loved ones step away which they can do the state does have to step in and support them in some form or another. I've seen families pushed to saying they can't care anymore in order to get social care to help.

There are people who recieve needs assessments and once this has happened the LA cannot absolve itself of responsibility to meet those needs until another needs assessment has been completed and a new care plan put into place. There is case law around this from an LGO case.

LA's can and do take a contribution for care given out of the persons benefits (not CHC) and if the person has savings etc over a certain amount they can be used (disabled persons trust is worth looking into for anyone reading). Day care centre's, PA's and such with families caring at home work out miles cheaper than say supported living placements or hospitalisation/ATU's. Obviously not all disabled people need that kind of substantial care.

I do think things will change and less support will be given to both the disabled and carers. I worry about things such as coming out of ECHR and getting rid of the equalities act and other legislation which some political parties are floating the idea of but I also believe that not everyone who claims carers allowance cares for the person the number of hours that they claim to. I wouldn't be surprised of institutions are brought back too (just to be clear- i'm not saying they should but I think it is a possibility).

and @Fkj23jdfj

Who said uncollected taxes should be ignored?

The whole system needs an overhaul, from the money coming in to the money going out and everything in between.

That means a fair and reasonable tax system, better tax collection, lower levels of fraud and waste, improved productivity, and making sure public money is being spent effectively. Focusing on one problem doesn't mean we should ignore the others. They all matter.

But going back to the actual point being challenged: dismissing 1% as irrelevant is wrong. A small percentage of a very large budget can still amount to hundreds of millions of pounds. That's real money that has already been collected, with very real consequences, and it's perfectly reasonable to ask whether it could be put to better use.

Alternatively we could cancel Ed Miliband’s net zero policies and use the money to boost defence spending!

Who said uncollected taxes should be ignored?

You did:

So what if there are bigger problems elsewhere. It doesn't make those smaller losses irrelevant.

I agree with this and put the same earlier in the thread.

Yep. Net zero. The biggest con in history.

I don't see why "overhauling the system" will reduce fraud. They can just focus on preventing fraudulent applications rather than reducing benefits for genuine people.

I agree with you.

My point is about being clear about who is responsible for care - state or family. And being careful about using words like "carers save the state a lot of money".
Because if it's state's responsibility, then families have no influence over decisions, and if it's more efficient for the state to bring in institutions, then they will be brought in and families have no say over this. Just be careful what you wish for.

Unfortunately it doesn’t work like that. All systems are open to fraud - it’s inevitable and successive governments have taken the view that tightening eligibility is the way to tackle it. The problem with that, is that as you tighten eligibility, fraudsters will find away around it, until you reach a point where eligibility rules have become so narrow that it excludes many people who are genuinely disabled but can’t meet the thresholds for benefit. This is always going to be the case while disabled people are regarded as fraudsters and liars until proven otherwise.

The main reason that disability benefits were introduced was because institutionalised care was proving too expensive, so ‘care in the community’ became the goal for those who could live independently with the financial support provided by these benefits.

Families do have influence over decisions and unless the system of lasting power of attorney is abolished that will continue to be the case. The state’s responsibility is tempered by the rights of the individual and those advocating for them.

You can dream !! Naming and shaming is reserved for benefit claimants - fraud in the benefits system. For the very rich, defrauding the tax system is a ‘mistake’.