Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Does anyone elsee agree with the benefit cuts?

211 replies

mrsruffallo · 27/01/2012 13:07

Because I do. They make sense to me. Reward the workers, esp. those in low paid employment, and make it harder to be better off unemployed than working. If ConDem also taxed the rich in an appropriate mnner, I would be very happy.

OP posts:
ValarMorghulis · 27/01/2012 17:27

I saw someone earlier in the week who had posted that they didn't know why "we" were so worried about the disabled as DLA wasn't going to be included in the cap.

No its not. But PIP is. and since they want to replace DLA with PIP eventually they WILL be included in the CAP. But also considering that a great many disabled people are unable to work and also have children, obviously the cuts affect them.

MNHQ
RebeccaMumsnet · 27/01/2012 17:44

Hi there,

We have moved this thread to Politics

Best wishes

MNHQ

TheHumancatapult · 27/01/2012 17:44

ninky im expecting to lose mine unde rPIP dla only gave me 1 year despite my condtion never going to be cured as i use a wheelchair

Glitterknickaz · 27/01/2012 17:58

What BIWI said.
Except I do know about it all, because I live it every day.
Except I do know that despite having three disabled children I will soon only be able to claim disability living allowance for one of them.

The other two are not going to lose their disabilities, sadly.

PinkoLiberal · 27/01/2012 18:05

Glitter- why only DLA for one of them? Do you mean the tax credits?

BarfAndHeave · 27/01/2012 18:12

Bakingaddict: yet again I find myself wishing makaton had a sign for arse talking.

youngermother1 · 27/01/2012 18:12

Just to clarify a couple of points:

DLA fraud may be 0.5%, but the same govt report said that 9% was overpaid as the recipients were not checked on soon enough to identify they no longer qualified. This does not count as fraud as there is no obligation on the recipient to get checked or admit when better. I think this figure should also be quoted when saying it should not be cut.

Rolls-royce sells most of its cars abroad, so actually brings a lot of money into the country. It also supports a lot of UK suppliers and employees - so, I think, all good.

TheHumancatapult · 27/01/2012 18:16

youngmother

yet they are calling people back for regualr reassments I got 12 months and have to apply again it wont ever be cured I have spinal cord injury so permant .

but even 9% is still less than the 20% that they want it cut by !!! and if were doing that what about the fact it is underclaimed by many

PinkoLiberal · 27/01/2012 18:21

Whoa re these people who are not assessed? DS3 is given until he is 16 but severe autism does not heal; ds1 is checked every 3 years.

reports have also included that people are missing OUT for same reason anyway, people not getting reassessed when needs go up; I would estimate 30% of the people on DLA I know get less than the rate they should receive.

ValarMorghulis · 27/01/2012 18:23

So a fraud rate of 0.5%, an "error" rate of 9% yet a cut target of 20%? So even by their own figures (which are bound to rather generously counted in their favour) they are looking to disqualify at least 10.5% of genuine claimants.

Now if you also look at the estimated numbers of people who could qualify for DLA but choose not to apply...

I have some figures here from Macmillon. They relate ONLY to cancer patients so are only a small number of the true figures, yet still make remarkable amounts.

in England 55 per cent of people dying from cancer (69,000 patients) are not claiming DLA or AA ? worth £106 million;
in Scotland 64 per cent of people dying from cancer (almost 10,000 people) are not claiming DLA or AA ? worth £15 million;
in Wales 32 per cent of people dying from cancer (almost 3,000 people) are not claiming DLA or AA - worth £4 million;
in Northern Ireland 23 per cent of people dying from cancer (nearly 900 people) are not claiming DLA or AA ? worth £1.3 million.

So they aren't paying what they should be paying yet still want to reduce what they are paying to genuine claimants?

and people think that is ok

ValarMorghulis · 27/01/2012 18:26

Pinko - agree. DS currently gets MRC and LRM.

By all of our specialists assessments and my own understanding of the system he should be receiving HRC. But i simply cannot bring myself to complete those forms again. I don't want to risk losing his DLA altogether given all of this reshuffling and the whole process is so soul destroying i just can't do it.

I doubt I am alone.

Sevenfold · 27/01/2012 18:29

dd just got an indefinite award at 16(yep I know she will no doubt be assessed for the new one soon) so If DLA stayed she wouldn't be assessed again.
quite right to
she will never get better, brain damage cannot be cured.
oh I do wish that the people who right posts that are so full of shit would bog off

wubblybubbly · 27/01/2012 18:33

They are also forcing cancer patients to undergo back to work interviews ffs. How do you fake cancer I wonder?

People genuinely have no idea what is going on.

PinkoLiberal · 27/01/2012 18:47

I know wrt to cancer patients- used to work (admin / fundraising) for Macmillan and it's fucking awful.

Don;t excuse the swearing, I mean it! If you can;t curse about cuts to disabled and terminally people then it's a bad day for sure!

NinkyNonker · 27/01/2012 19:20

Yep, my mum has to go back for assessments, you know, in case her missing limb has resprouted. But obviously she wouldn't be over the moon had that happened cause then she'd lose her dla and her free car. Duh.

stephrick · 27/01/2012 19:24

While yes I agree that you shouldn't get something for nothing, as a single mum working the HB is a joke, I had to work overtime over christmas, a small firm so I had to do my extra bit, I earned £35 pounds more, HB reduced by £60 council tax benefit reduced by £50. I'm working my socks off and can't see a way out. Should go on the rock and roll. but have too much pride so will carry on.

PinkoLiberal · 27/01/2012 19:27

Quite Steph! Which is why dh has worked for nothing, to build a business-dignity and pride

PinkoLiberal · 27/01/2012 19:28

(But obviously could not have done it without benefits, eating is useful in promoting productivity I find!)

NinkyNonker · 27/01/2012 19:33

I know Pinko, tis crap. Mum is an active campaigner for various prosthetic groups, many members of which are servicemen. At the moment it is doubly tough as the govt are failing in their support of servicemen prosthetic wise so are telling NHS trusts to bump them to the top of their lists. All well and good, but the budgets have been cut so in order to service the servicemen so to speak, meaning everyone else misses out. In her area, the entire budget for prostheses (supply, fit, support etc) is around £120k p/a. A serviceman moved to the area at the end of the budget period and his needs alone were due to cost £90k.

So they are cutting every bloody thing with no thought to how they will actually make it work. Half the country are waltzing along blindfolded. ARGH.

niceguy2 · 27/01/2012 19:45

Does anyone elsee agree with the benefit cuts?

In answer to the original question, yes I support it.

But I agree with it because we're spending more money than we earn. Borrowing is no longer an option. And benefits are one of our largest areas of expenditure.

So if we are serious about tackling our deficit and repaying our debt then we must also take a long hard look about not what we SHOULD be paying for but what we CAN AFFORD to pay for.

If we fail to do that then in the long run even more people suffer.

If money were no object then no I wouldn't support cutting benefits. But until someone can come up with a sensible plan for erasing our deficit then this seems to be the only choice.

stephrick · 27/01/2012 19:52

I should point out ex does pay for his children, though some do not without i'd be screwed. according to the law he dose'nt have to living and working in scotland.

smallwhitecat · 27/01/2012 19:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

NinkyNonker · 27/01/2012 20:24

PIP is due to be incorporated later apparently.

I agree with the cuts, but not to DLA. That just belies the whole point of support.

ValarMorghulis · 27/01/2012 20:56

If money were no object then no I wouldn't support cutting benefits. But until someone can come up with a sensible plan for erasing our deficit then this seems to be the only choice.

Here's a radical idea. Instead of aiming to push thousands into homelessness and poverty how about tightening the tax laws that allow big businesses and millionaire entrepreneurs to evade paying.

the total amount the government hope to save by capping benefits is estimated to be £290million a year.

The statistics that came originally from Richard Murphy and others suggest that tax avoidance loses us £25 billion a year; tax evasion loses us £70 billion a year; and uncollected tax amounts to £27 billion to £28 billion. Half of that is not collected by HMRC simply because it does not have the resource to chase it. The estimate of the tax gap is £125 billion a year. Obviously, we will not collect all of that, but if we just addressed the tax gap and went for, say, one fifth of it?Äî£20 billion or £25 billion?Äîthat would solve all our problems. We also have tax relief on savings to the rich which amounts to £20 billion and £30 billion. If we cut back on some of that we would have a massive increase in income and solve all our problems, but we refuse to face up to it. We never talk about revenues; we always talk about spending. Is that not the solution to our problems?

smallwhitecat · 27/01/2012 21:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn