feel like a rant

[dmo]

just want to know your veiws prob being totally mean but..............
my rant is mobilty cars people get for free why?
i know lots of people need them but they should be means tested.
my sister in law has cp but can walk ok she is a teaching assistane so works full time and shops full time her dh is head of IT in a high school and earns 30k+ they have a 24k car in their drive and all they pay for is petrol!!
another man owns his own cake bussiness quote for 1 wedding cake £300 he he boosts he does at least 4 a week plus normal cakes, he gets a car why?
plus my sister in law cant drive so has a free bus pass plus extra money for taxis
whats your veiws?

Goodness, that does sound unfair.

certain things shouldn't be means tested. for one thing, means testing puts people off claiming, even if they are poor. plus even a head of IT would struggle to pay for a 24k car I imagine.

think you are being mean.

parp.

sounds liek a touch of envy to me.

I would agree, my Mum has a mobility car and she is a genuine case who relies on it. My neighbour has just got a convertible on mobility and freely admits she could work if she wants to but why should she when she gets what she does!!

No not sour grapes on my part, I have a very nice car of my own thanks

people who exaggerate or make up disabilities to get the money are another case though - they should be ashamed of themselves.

but as has been shown before, any "clampdown" tends to affect the truly needy just as much. It's not worth getting worked up over.

i have nice car also so no sour grapes from me.
my mum has a mobilty car and she needs it as she cant walk very far (not to bus stop) so car is a life line.
my rant is people who earn good money who can work and still get benifits, humbug from me
dont like hanger on ers the money would be best spent on those that truly need it

because often people with disabilities have to spend more money in order to have the same independence as those without disabilities. I can't comment on motobility cars as know nothing about them, but in terms of DLA for instance, certain components, i.e. the mobility component can be used to pay for things that I wouldn't have to pay for if I didn't have a disability. e.g. if I go shopping and buy too much to carry home I have to get a taxi, something I wouldn't have to do if I was able to drive. Or I might have to get a taxi to an area that isn't on the local buss route, again if I was able to drive I wouldn't have to do that. I don't see why it should be means tested, as if you're working at least you're paying tax and in some circumstances should be more entitled to the benefits as there is a need to go out to work for example. My dh pays enough tax as it is, I don't see why I should be penalised purely because he earns a salary.

People taking the piss, i.e. falsely claiming is a totally different issue though, but I genuinely don't think that those who are genuinely entitled should be means tested.

ONe of OH's family gets a mobility car, but that is instead of one of his benefits - he had to choose between the two. He relies on the car completely as it is the only way he can get around. Some people do need them. It would cost them a lot more to provide taxies everyday surely. And its a bit of a walk to the bus stop so its almost impossible for him to get buses.

The problem is whenever you have a benefits system, a minority of people will take the piss. SO you can either make it harder to get those benefits (and therefore excluding some that do need them), you can stop the benefit system (and therefore deprive many of the things they need), or you can try and root out benefit fraud/misuse as much as you can, but realise that there is always going to be some who misuse it. Its sad, but you can only combat it to a certain extend.

put my rant to top of pile