I agree with the benefit cuts for promoting

[Canaryhead]

I am on disability and universal credit and I don’t work (which will change when I get the support to some part time work, and I have been in contact with a disability charity). I get points for a physical disability and a cognitive disability. I do have severe mental health issues which I am working on but I don’t claim for it.
So I can see that currently you can score 2 points across a number of categories for needing prompting. And I can see how that relates to mental health, and if you score enough you would then get the full amount of the care component, with the full mobility component if you say you need to have someone with you for your mental health condition (I agree they need someone with them but they shouldn’t be able to use that money to pay for a mobility car in my opinion if they aren’t physically or cognitively disabled) For neurodivergence you would get more than two points as it comes with executive functioning difficulties that have an impact for the majority of the time, harm to yourself and others, so you could argue you're needing supervision and things take longer like for example in processing and tiredness.
if a family and their children are claiming full pip and DLA and associated benefits because they need prompting to do tasks (sorry if I’ve got this wrong and it’s not possible) and are getting thousands for it all combined then I agree that’s so wrong and needs to stop. And I could also see how that allows the family to spend that money on lots of nice things.
people with more expensive disabilities are getting the same rates with more significant costs. I have had to make do with two pairs of leggings from the factory shop that have split apart at the seams and can’t be repaired because of the quality, and I have just been gifted money to buy better quality leggings.
If I am wrong about how I feel towards those that are on full pip for needing prompting, I wouldn’t mind being corrected

Maybe your DH should make an account

How is it nasty to point out the disparity between what you said and what it says on the government website?

If you think my post is nasty, report it.

He would be a lot less polite than me, I can assure you.

I highly doubt it reaches the threshold for MNHQ to give a damn about persistent unkind behaviour towards autistic posters. The threshold for that is very high. Someone once said that I was the worst thing on the internet (by clear implication worse than eg CSAM) and MNHQ allowed that to stay up and claimed it didn’t break TG. So I don’t have great confidence in them! It’s the price of participating. If I want to share a view, I have to put up with being attacked. I’m disappointed that you would stoop to this repeatedly, though.

I’m not referring to “the government website”, also. I’m referring to your refusal to engage in reasonably good faith with the question I asked you, when my first post to you was perfectly civil and friendly.

I would love to know his position directly. If he was all that rude, presumably he’d eventually get banned, lol

But not psychosis for example? Random. I think you think you are very factual and reasonable but in fact your thinking is not black and white and logical at all.

I am not being unkind or attacking you. I am disagreeing with you and explaining why.

I am aware that you say you claim PIP. I also know the rates of work amongst people with disabilities. But I quoted you and it was what you said - you continued to insist that "taxpayers" are some homogenous group that they aren't. It's like saying that all people with disabilities are the same and have the same views. It must by now be patently clear to you that an awful lot of disabled people don't agree with your views.And nobody has said that anyone is or would be spending £75 on socialising - you are being deliberately goady and going out of your way to accuse everyone else of being stupid and insulting you when you have consistently been insulting and offensive. Being acquainted with the PIP process does not make you an expert or right.

And most taxpayers are not claiming PIP
That is true, and I didn't say they were. However you have not commented on my actual point, which is that increasing benefits for those able to work and not working, who are actually the majority of claimants, will more than wipe out the savings from taking money from those who cannot work due to disability. Why aren't "the taxpayers" dealing with the "undeserving able-bodied"???

Best to stop now. MNHQ doesn't like bun fights.

Who gives a stuff if a disabled person spends their 75 quid a week on socialising? That night be lunch out with a friend plus taxis, and taxi plus entry to a hobby class. Two things that might make their life more bearable. Even if it was 75 quid on jaegarbombs at the local club every week - who cares? If that's what they need to help them deal with their disability let them get on with it. Disabled people deserve freedom of choice as much as anyone else does.

I really don't understand why some disabled people are SO upset about other disabled people having things. You don't want to socialise, that's ok but you don't get to say other people shouldn't have that choice.

Nobody has been unkind or attacked you. They're simply disagreeing with you. As an autistic person, when i find myself feeling attacked, i put Mumsnet down and do something more productive with my time. 9 times out of 10, i come back and see i was overreacting.

@Nessastats You are misunderstanding my point. I’m not personally even against people using their PIP to pay for socialising. In reality, one could even argue that’s what I do (I actually socialise barely at all because of the severity of my disability, but the tiny amount that I do socialise, it’s fair to say any money I contribute to that as opposed to my spouse covering it, comes from PIP as it’s my only income). This is why I think it’s silly for multiple posters to immediately gang up on me and attack me. It’s obvious I’m not attacking disabled people or saying we shouldn’t socialise. Claiming that I am is a straw man and it’s being used to justify multiple nasty posts directed at me, which posters are attempting to keep under the deletion threshold while still being as unpleasant as possible. I agree, sometimes autism can make someone overreact, but it also makes us easy pickings for bullying and most autistic women have been victims of bullying. I was bullied at school multiple times as a child and I recognise the behaviour. All I am trying to do is discuss the topic politely and in good faith, and anyone ho objectively and honestly assesses the responses I’ve had can see how unpleasant they’ve been.

I am asking whether you think it is at all reasonable to imagine that taxpayers would be okay with £75 per week being spent on socialising?

So what does this mean?

They're paid money by the government; £75/week for having seriously compromised mobility.

It's none of the government's damn business, still less that of the busybody taxpayer, how they spend it.

Do those pounds have some sort of a watermark on them so the bar staff can tut at you?

You’d love me I spend £50 per week on my lovely dog walker for my Wonderful Westie to have his daily run… He enriches my life beyond measure. I receive enhanced rates on both components which is a lot more than £75

yes I don't understand the argument you are making either. Not a personal attack on you but it implies you think there is something wrong with disabled people spending money socialising.

That is lovely. I am so glad you can do this. Pets are an absolute godsend and bring so much joy.

I have a wonderful service dog, and part of mine (£100 a month), pays for an all-terrain mobility scooter lease so that we can go on "runs" together. We also go in trips in our mobility car. I'm obviously a needlessly profligate spender. Good thing I still pay taxes and will until the day I die.

It doesn’t imply that at all.

So do I. Why are you making such a strange assumption? I’m not talking about my own feelings here at all.

The fact that you could not answer their questions about their lives, actually shows that you do not know as much as you think you do about them. Unless you live with them, or spend an extraordinary amount of time with them, you have no idea of the struggles that they may have.

I do know she was working cash in hand.
the info they asked for was NI number.
do you know that info for other people!

You do know that there is nothing illegal about working cash in hand? What you are accusing her of is not declaring her income? How do you know that?

this person claimed she couldn’t work!