PIP isn't fit for purpose

[Ljcrow]

I made this comment on another thread and thought I'd start a separate thread purely on this topic. This is all from my own personal experience rather than from reading/hearing anything, I'm only going off what I see day to day.
The people I know who claim PIP do not need it financially. One works full time and earns more than me (and I'm not at imminent risk of homelessness or starvation) and the young people I know literally tell me things like their PIP's come in so they're off to get a new tattoo, which they then do. They appear to have much more disposable income than me.
These are all people who can function in society by the way and as far as I can see, all PIP does is give them extra spending money, which I'm sure we'd all like.

I'm aware this won't be the case for everyone who recieves PIP but it is for the people I come into regular contact with. Which is why it needs reloooking at so it only goes to those who actually need the money for a specific purpose related to their disability.

We're not in a position as a society where we can afford to give people money who do not actually need it.
Things like this should be means tested, both in terms of whether people have enough income to live a decent life without additional benefits and in terms of what the money is actually going to be used for.
PIP is not fit for purpose and needs scrapping or totally changing.

It isn’t only me. Others on this thread have pointed out the difference between DLA and PIP. People who understand disability benefits do not think or use them interchangeably.

I think it’s just symptomatic of the fact that we have moved from being a society where people took only what they needed to one where people take everything they can get. There is so much entitlement and so many people focused on their own needs and to hell with everyone else. This is why the welfare state is not going to be viable for much longer.

Six hundred and fifty-odd posts and I'm yet to see a single source, or original thought for that matter.

And what have you added to the debate?

No because emotional support dogs aren’t assistance dogs in terms of PIP. The additional cost isn’t only food. For example, some have vet bills/insurance and not all assistance dogs are provided free.

They're likely to have many more costs then just their assistance dog. I've got a friend whose previous guide dog was sometimes ill before he had to be retired. Because of his disability it meant needing another person or using taxis when out

And if you genuinely need a carer to visit a venue most let the carer go free.

The costs of a disability are not as high as people on here claim, unless you need paid for carers. And even then poorer people get some of that cost subsidised.

How do you suggest we means test a benefit intended to contribute to the extra costs of living with a disability ? Disability is universal, that’s why PIP is universal. Where do you put the thresholds ? Because means tests thresholds are inevitably set very low, so how do you ensure that those who need the support don’t lose out for the sake of being a couple of quid over the threshold ? And currently PIP is the gateway benefit to other disability services. How do you address that - or the fact that means testing is not only a race to the bottom, but would add considerably to the benefits budget because it’s so expensive to administer ?

And where do you find the funds to support those who use their PIP in conjunction with carers allowance to support their own care through family and friends ? If they lose that support they end up in the social care system, which costs considerably more. The one thing that everyone forgets is that cutting the benefit doesn’t eliminate the need.

So your denying all the research that has been done by charities such as scope on the cost of disability?

Do you think it's fair for the carer to pay for petrol, parking and their own food?

Sure, in very specific circumstances. But someone said you have to pay for an assistance dog and that is not true. If you are visually impaired it is officially not your dog but the charities and all you pay for is dog food.

Ok so you’re happy to give up your CB and state pensions then. We’ve never ever received benefits our whole lives. The only person that has ever received them since benefits began is my daughter who has PIP. It enables her to get an education and eventually pay taxes. We’re just about to start paying £500 a month for therapy from it. Without it she won’t be continuing on her independence journey or getting very much needed qualifications. Some are so short sighted it’s ridiculous. Either you want the disabled paying taxes or you don’t.

Lol I fully understand them.

Thinking irrelevant or tiny differences are material, is your issue and yours alone.

While tickets to the venue might be free or reduced (with various eligibility criteria depending on the venue), there are other costs to having a carer. For example, if someone needs to go on public transport, not all methods of transport are free to the carer and for things like a free carer bus pass, the rules differ depending on the area and not all disabled people who need a carer are eligible for a carer bus pass in all areas.

If it's a paid carer obviously not. If it's a friend or family member helping out and getting a free ticket, then yes. Friends have went to see plays for free in return for helping me a little bit.

I think in most cases people only realise how much extra they spend because of the disability when they stop to think about it. You just become so used to the extra cost it becomes normal.

How do you know they weren't genuine?

They aren’t tiny or irrelevant. They are material differences to many claimants. It isn’t only me that thinks that. As I said, others on the thread have points out differences.

Yeah I dont know much about buses as I can't really use them and yet am not entitled to pip mobility.
I do have an issue though with the idea government should pay for everything

But they are not interchangeable and this does need to be pointed out.

Not all receive an assistance dog for free via charities.

Plus there are people other than those with VI who have assistance dogs.

Wonderful I'm glad they can claim it. I cant work full-time due to a chronic condition, but very few people who have my condition ever get PIP I haven't claimed as my husband has a good job. But I wouldn't be able to support myself if I was on my own. If I did get it I'd use it on alternative treatment that might help my condition.

They'd still have a lot of other costs on top that's related to being visually impaired

The costs of a disability are not as high as people on here claim

Can you back this statement up with evidence?

@roaringdragon okay you are talking about people who buy an ordinary dog and call it an assistance dog. Sure if you want to buy things and claim they are for your disability you don't get them for free. People who actually need them do get them free.