Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Welfare Bill - Benefit Capping

27 replies

CogitoErgoSometimes · 23/01/2012 07:23

So often, not least on MN, I see posts that give the lie to the myth that benefit claimants are somehow rolling in cash. It is clearly a tough existence that you wouldn't wish on anyone. And yet the proposal to cap benefits at £25k take-home (about £35k before tax) is being opposed on grounds such as affecting 'millions', plunging people into poverty, homelessness etc. I'm finding it very difficult to square the two... they can't both be right.

OP posts:
Acumenoop · 26/01/2012 14:01

This is what I mean about ideology. The Tories have decided that disability isn't really real etc, so they can legislate it out of existence, but the needs don't actually go away just because the funding does.

My DP was on MRC DLA until 2009. As now, he was quadriplegic with no use of arms and legs, unable even to press a nurse call or community alarm button, but he slept reasonably well between 12am and 6am. It was only when we moved to the 120 minute turning schedule that he got HRC DLA.

It is unreasonable and unrealistic to say that I could have worked outside the home while caring, on my own, for someone with that level of physical disability. I do work, but for my own business that I run from home, because I have had the luck, the ability, and the privilege to teach myself programming, that I can do anywhere, and without a decent night's sleep. But I am enormously lucky to be able to do that, and it's only recently I've managed it.

If these proposals had been in place in 2009, I would have had to leave DP in a house, unable to call for help, unable to take a drink of water or go to the loo, unable to move at all, tied to the bed by the drainage bag. It's inhumane, yes, but also unrealistic to think this would save money long term, as if I did not attend him, eventually the NHS and LA would have to provide someone. Carer's Allowance is £55 a week, but our LA-funded agency costs £60 an hour.

So just to simplistically follow that through, for me to be out of the house 24 hours a week would cost the council £1440, or £74,480 pa. It's just not a money saving measure. Under FCFC, they can legally claw back all of my wages over £131 to contribute to the cost, but my wage would be unlikely to approach that amount.

Acumenoop · 26/01/2012 14:59

Er, coming back to say, if that were the deal, I would have taken it in 2009. That would have been a great deal for me: 24 hours of care cover and to be able to take a job out of the home. I would have actually jumped at that, because it's no fun being locked in a house for ten years, for your entire twenties, in limbo. Almost any job would have been preferable, and I have worked in KFC.

But I don't actually think that is the deal. That's not the argument, anyway, that they're making. They're making a fiscal case and it doesn't hold up.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread