1949 benefits programme on C4 now..who is watching?

[Allthingspretty]

anyone?

A mobility car has to be easy to get in and out of, and in many cases have room for a wheelchair, and often a hoist or ramp, so they tend to be bigger. To get the mobility car she would have to be receiving the higher rate mobility component of DLA and then use that towards the cost of the car. It wouldn't be additional to the benefits she gets.
For Karen clearly a Fiesta would present some difficulties.
What kind of car was it anyway? I wasn'tlooking closely but it didn't look like a 7 seater.

They did call it a mobility car on the programme I think.

it looked to me like a 7/8 seater taxibus which I assumed was so that she had room for a wheelchair as she was using a crutch so I guessed there were times where her pain was worse and she needed a chair. I could be wrong. maybe she's just greedy and entitled and likes as much of the road as possible to herself

I also think her son was a carer for her? he seemed to be on the programme and she was quite specific in saying she couldn't manage without him so obviously a one seater car would not be sufficient for them.

It was a very nice car.

Just coming back to this thread - didn't think I'd get such an angry response by saying that I thought more emphasis should be on family supporting family members than on local authority involvement.

As Jakebullet notes I'm originally from another country (Canada) but in UK for 15 years, now a british citizen. I'm not a gun-toting american and am actually very liberal but more libertarian as I want to reduce the state.

I appreciate my experience has been very different and I grew up in a country where cost of living was less, housing was less an issue and there was, possibly, less state involvement. However I'm still always baffled living here but people's attitudes by the level of involvement the state should play in their lives. Work at the council, get council housing, get assistance from the council - council on speed dial! Yes, in principle if no one is available to look after someone then the state should intervene but I always assumed that the state was the 'last port of call' as it were and as it should be. I ALWAYS see on MN carers writing that by looking after a relative or close family member we are 'saving the LA/council money'. That's like me saying that by treating my daughter well and looking after her I'm saving social workers and the foster system the cost of having to intervene!

My primary worry is that the state can no longer afford the kind of provision that people expect. Britain is wealthy but seriously in debt. And I think some people are deluded about the cost of this level of support. Usualsuspect above stated that Karen on the show has paid into the system and Karen may feel she has paid into the system and is now due.

The thing is Karen hasn't paid that much into the system. She said she was an Asst Carer for 22 years, right? Just say she was working full time and was on a salary of £20k p.a. On that salary she is on a very low tax rate and her annual contribution to NI would be around £1,470 pa. Over 22 years that is £32,340. Now she's been on disability for 7 years, I think she was getting something like £155/week which works out to £56,420 over the last 7 years and that doesn't include all the associated administrative costs or, potentially, her housing. So Karen has paid into the system but not nearly as much as she's taken out in the past or will do in future.

Obviously the premise of NI is obviously everyone pays into the system and only a few have to tap into the funds when they need to, regardless of what they put in. I'm not suggesting Karen is not deserving, I'm not suggesting she should have paid more in taxes but I am saying that some people THINK they have paid in and can get out and don't realize what the costs are over time. People can bark at me for daring to put a 'price' on an individual but the more people use the system long term, the more it costs and the less taxpayers there are out there to cover costs. I'm not a fan of Gideon but I can see that they are looking at this long-term and thinking: '...frig, this just aint tenable, somethings gotta change!'

I think I tend to agree with you to some extent Wilomena. I suppose though anyone of us could end up ill in our lifetime and not be able to work. I just didn't like her attitude and sense of entitlement. Also her 'f' ing at the guy in the office did her no favours.

I think because the money keeps on coming she isn't accountable and can behave how she likes which is different to someone in the workplace.

Helpful post william. I think you are supposed to pay in for 30 years to get the State pension, which presumably Karen will also receive so she will be taking out even more (I think they said she was in her fifties).

I think if a disabled child needs extra care which isn't given then indeed the Carer is saving the taxpayer money. My friend has a severely physically disabled daughter and has seen the support she gets cut massively. We can all argue about support but fact is that our society is founded upon the principles of supporting those most vulnerable. My friend needs support to help her care for her DD, if that help want there she would go under and that would mean a massive increase in costs for her care to the taxpayer. There is nothing "entitled" about saying "help me" in that situation.

Likewise with an autistic child I receive Carers Allowance and DLA for him. This has enabled me to spend more time with him and have a period of time out of work in order to meet his changing needs as he grows and develops. All children grow and develop but the changes can be massive for a child with a developmental disorder and his/her parents or caregivers.

Obviously I would care for my son even if I didn't have Carers Allowance and DLA for him, he is my son, he copes with a lot and I am proud of him. Trying to hold down a full time job with a child who doesn't sleep, has bowel issues, is challenging, anxious and emotional is hard, add in phone calls from the school at various times for ad hoc meetings, hospital appointments and you can get a small idea of how it feels to live my life. It got so bad that I went part time...I tried all way of working those hours before realising that I couldn't manage. Even then it was a leap of faith and has taken me over a year to stop feeling guilty about being "on benefits".

Looking back I can see how close I was to a massive breakdown. I have recovered, sleep is still an issue but better for DS and I am doing some voluntary work and putting the feelers out about gong back to work part time. Financially it is far better for me to work but it isn't just the money, in work I felt useful, I had adult conversation, I had a life. Work is about so much more than money.

So we can say that Carers would or should care for their relative anyway but we need to factor in what that does to the health of the Carer in the long term and which might end up costing far more than supporting them financially during a time of need.

Either I provide care or the state does.

I'm cheaper. The care needs are still there, still cost more for the local authority to provide. There needs to be a certain amount of knowledge in place to deal with their needs too, not just anyone can do it.

I am unable to work as I have three children all with needs sufficient to merit middle/higher rate DLA.

Caring for the kids doesn't put a roof over my head, food in my tummies. So stop my benefits. We're homeless and STILL can't actually work so have to give up kids. So local authority legally obliged to step in.

What is the magic solution? Euthanasia? (And yes I've had it suggested)

Interesting viewpoint Gobby.
My son has AS. I took early retirement (on a reduced pension) to look after him. He gets middle rate DLA but I have not claimed carer's allowance because I think that as he is my child it is my responsibility to look after him, not the State's.

Lucky you pussycatwillum, many of us are NOT in a position to "take early retirement" (with any lump sum which might come from that) and HAVE to claim Carers Allowance until we are in a position to work again.

Nice to have the choice NOT to claim but mine helps pay the bills while I concentrate on my son's needs. It also means I am there at the end of the school day to deal with any issues which arise. It helps me in all manner of ways and my DS as well.

You don't have to claim CA....great. Many of us have no option and it doesn't make you superior or us inferior morally. We do what we have to do to meet the extra needs of our children.

....if you could do with the CA but don't claim out of some misguided moral superiority then you are a fool. It's there for you if you NEED it.

I didn't need it all the while I was in work but I bloody well need it now and I have no pension to replace it with as I am still too young......and as the goalposts have moved with regard to pensions I will remain "too young" for many years yet. Lets say I still have a good 10 years on top of the 30 I worked even if I wait until DS is 16 before returning (unlikely).

In the meantime I claim CA.

i'm really sure what your point was pussycat

carer's allowance is there for those carers who need it. you don't need it so you don't claim it- gobby does need it so she does claim it.

carers allowance isn't there as a payment to those that hold the opinion the state has a responsibility to care for your child. it's there whether you hold that opinion or not. and whether you need it or not has nothing to do with whether you hold that opinion or not. if you need it you need it, so you claim it. you clearly don't need it, that doesn't mean those that do have different morals than you.

"I think that as he is my child it is my responsibility to look after him, not the State's."

CA isn't just available to parent carers- your child might be your responsibility, but the woman up the road who is cared for by her SIL isn't her SIL responsibility is she? SIL didn't bring her into the world and make a commitment to care for her for life- she is choosing to provide the care for her at the cost of her career, pension, family life, free time, sleep, relationships.

Not all of us have pensions so we do claims Carers Allowance. DD requires 24 hour care and multiple hospital and hospice stays. CA doesnt even begin to cover the cost of lost earnings/her costs. And we will care for her as an adult rather than put her in a Winterbourne View type establishment (she has severe cerebral palsy and is tube fed and on oxygen)
I do think as a society we should all pull together to help vunerable members like elderly and disabled people and that is what DLA/Carers etc is for.

I'm not quite sure how you expect me to answer that. Should I give up my CA (and with it lose into the bargain my IS and HB) to starve on the streets so I can be somehow superior?

This is what I don't get. Nobody who is against the current system can give a viable alternative apart from 'stop the money' but then what do you do when the family then has to go to work to survive and can't provide the care if the state isn't supposed to do it either?

People with disabilities will still exist. More will be born or acquire disability later in life. They will still need care - so what do you do with them? What is your solution? You never say.

Oh, and I do care for my kids because they are my kids, of course I do. Pride doesn't put food on the table, and carers not claiming CA are no more superior to me. CA also helps protect my pension (if it still exists in 30 years).

The reason I said what I said was that I hadn't thought of it from the other angle, that I am saving the state money by not claiming.
I did not mean anything else.

Fair enough pussycat, things don't always come across as we mean them to when we write them down (am guilty of that lots) .

Thanks Jake.

But pussycatwillum some people who spend a lot of years in a caring role wouldn't get a state pension if they didn't claim carer's allowance as it entitles them to national insurance credits (or home responsibilities protection, not entirely sure now). You can still earn a small amount when claiming carer's so it's also protecting those who can manage to work part-time while caring, but not earn enough to pay national insurance. Fair enough if you were nearer pension age and able to take early retirement but not everyone has that option.

OK so I am very lucky and I shouldn't have put my point of view.
I am sorry to have said things which clearly upset a lot of people.
I appreciate Jake's gracious response.
I will not contribute again.

Housing this week.

I'm watching.

I'm not convinced that single parents are priority on housing lists - it's not been like that for a long time where we live.

That single mother was in 'how to get a council house' last week, i'm sure of it.