One in six PIP claimants have no extra costs linked to their disability

[Allseeingallknowing]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/40693771/pip-claimants-disability-benefit/
So, can money be saved here?

Remember where this is coming from: petrol costs for a family member in the scenario of them choosing that over a paid for taxi.

If they can’t afford the petrol money, opt for the paid for taxi!

It’s not complicated.

Agree. This worries me a lot too.

It is what it is and is part of the considerations people make when having a family.

EG we had to think long and hard about having a second as, as slightly older parents, were aware of the increased likelihood of them being born with additional needs and had to decide if that were to happen, could we make it work financially, logistically etc which is particularly challenging for us as we don’t live near family and recognising we know it wouldn’t just be until they’re 18.

That’s presumably what people do right? Not take gambles they can’t afford to lose or am I missing something?

Your statement is completely disingenuous to those that were actual slaves and completely negates the horrors of their treatment. You should be ashamed.

It really isn’t that simple, though. Your lack of understanding and experience of disability shines though. There are plenty of reasons why someone would use family/friends over a taxi. For example, it isn’t always possible to get a taxi when you need one, particularly in some areas &/or at some times of the day. Another example, taxis aren’t suitable for all disabilities.

I don’t think you really can imagine. If you could, you wouldn’t be posting the nonsense you are.

Yep.

pp has clearly never had to order an accessible taxi before.

Well I think what many in this forum have described as what they have to do to care for disabled children / elderly parents satisfies the definition of “burden”:

Burden: a heavy physical load, a difficult responsibility, or an unpleasant worry that is hard to bear.

Pretty accurate to me no? Or don’t you think it’s such things?

Nope. Never. Neither that nor any other form of voluntary killing.

your statement is both hyperbole and offensive.

I have never seen anyone who is a carer, be it for their disabled child or elderly parent, call them a burden.
That word came from you.

It did, and I’m defending its use per its dictionary definition. You seem to be trying to be offended by someone using a word per its correct dictionary meaning which is a new one.

What if a person needs 2 hours of physio and 1/2 a kilo of veg? What if the only place they can get that physio is two hours round trip and they have no taxi voucher left? What if they live rurally and the taxi company doesn’t accept vouchers? What if the vouchers can only be spent in the big supermarkets but they get all their veg from the local store?

Who is going to manage this voucher scheme and what will it cost? Remember the childcare voucher scheme, managed by companies like Sodexo? Apart from the fact they took 700 quid of my money in vouchers I couldn’t use due to covid, the admin it required from me and the restrictions on using the vouchers made it really difficult. Many disabled people who don’t need care, but are perhaps unable to navigate government systems which can be quite complex will find it hard to manage. It is unnecessary and there is absolutely no benefit to the tax payer, nor to disabled people. The only reason vouchers are ever used in these types of schemes is when someone decides the people who are claiming a benefit, can’t be trusted to spend their money wisely.

Do you think we should introduce a similar scheme rather than giving out pension money? How do we know pensioners are spending our money wisely? Why am I as a tax payer, paying for my pensioner neighbours to swan off on yet another holiday?

@XenoBitchsee above quote where poster refers to the task as a burden.

Don’t you plan on being a pensioner one day?

What about people who aren’t “slightly older parents”? What about people who’s children become disabled due to accident or illness? Are you suggesting nobody should choose to become a parent unless they are 100% certain, given every eventuality that could possible happen, they would be more than capable of dealing with it, with absolutely no support from anyone except family? Where does that end? Why only put that on parents? Why not do the same for anyone who takes part in, say, sports. You choose to play rugby, if you get injured you should make sure you can look after yourself with no state help. Why not get rid of the state pension? You know that when you retire, you will need money to look after yourself or have your family do it for you. You’ve 50 working years to make provision, if you haven’t, you’re on your own.

You are speaking with an abundance of privilege, having had opportunities that many people have not, through no fault of their own. Any society is judged by how it takes care of its most vulnerable members. Do you really believe we should leave them to rot?

Like them having money?

And if you remember, I pointed out this would cost the tax payer far MORE than pip being paid in cash.

Of course not, none can ever be 100% certain of anything. It’s about managing the balance of probabilities against your own personal risk threshold.

Trust me, I haven’t had an abundance of privilege in life, whatever you may think.

Yep.

I was 25 when I had my son who is my only child. He was born healthy and suddenly became disabled when he was 8 due to complications from an illness.

How could I have predicted that was going to happen?

So how do you propose family who have to give up their jobs to care for elderly/disabled family because their sense of duty should make them, survive when they end up with no income/not enough to survive on?

What is the obsession on this thread about taxis and petrol money

I do. Even though it is happening 12 years later than I was promised when I started working.

I started my own personal pension when I was 24. I’ve increased the amount I pay into my pension as my career has grown, to the point where my pension calculations make no allowance for the state pension. There is no guarantee of what it will be or when I will get it so I am not basing my future needs on it. I’m very privileged that I have been able to do that and am aware that for many people that isn’t possible. That’s why if in 15 or so years time, the triple lock has gone, or taxation on higher earning pensions rises, or the state pension is means tested, I’m entirely ok with that if it is done to provide for people who need the money more than me or reduces over half of the benefits bill.

If we remain as we are and disability benefits continue to be cut whilst people like my parents who could comfortably live on their private pensions still get a full state pension (yet complain whenever a change to state pension is suggested) then whatever state pension paid to me will be passed on to my disabled daughter who will definitely need the money to pay the additional costs she faces.

I also have to consider that she will not be able to step in and care for us in our dotage, because of her disability, so we will have to allow for provision of personal care. It’s not always as simple as “it’s what family does”.

Well fundamentally everyone needs money to pay for the things they need. Unless you can let me in on a secret of how to live cost free?!

You’ve had enough privilege that you can’t understand why what you are arguing and the choices you made, are not possible for a whole lot of people.

The balance of probability is exactly why we have to make sure for those who the risks were low but the consequences were high, have the support and care they need rather than letting them sink because “well, life sucks sometimes”

This shows a deep misunderstanding of the issues around poverty and how it impacts on people. You should be ashamed of yourself.