Access to benefits

racyguy

poppy123456 said:

Why on earth should a partners circumstances be taken into consideration when someone claims PIP? That really would be ridiculous. Claiming PIP has nothing at all to do with any extra expenses caused through a disability. My daughter claims Enhanced for both parts, lives at home with me, never goes out alone and has no extra expenses at all but this doesn't mean she's not entitled to the PIP she receives.

Entitlement to PIP in itself is fine, just as it is to me, everybody is entitled to make a claim. But where entitlement falls down in my opinion is that the current situation does not take into consideration two important things. The first is the real need for a financial award due to having sufficient income/resources elsewhere. The second is the consideration of the real need for an award when considering what extra expense the claimant is put to because of the disability.
You may well have an underlying entitlement but is there a need for the money that the entitlement brings. You yourself say that for your daughter there are no extra costs created by her disability so why should a financial award be made that is clearly not needed?

  

poppy123456

How dare you tell me that my daughter doesn’t financially need her PiP award and that is' clearly not needed!!! She claims it because she’s entitled to it because of her disability!!! 

What she spends her PIP on is entirely her decision! 

PIP isn’t means tested so other income and financial circumstances make no difference what so ever!! 

racyguy

poppy123456 said:

How dare you tell me that my daughter doesn’t financially need her PiP award!!! She claims it because she’s entitled to it because of her disability!!! 

What she spends her PIP on is entirely her decision! 

PIP isn’t means tested so other income and financial circumstances make no difference what so ever!! 

I certainly have no intention in upsetting you but isn't this a case of the old adage of claimants making Welfare Benefit claims solely for financial reasons simply because they are entitled to?
I will leave it there but my way of looking at the whole benefit situation could so easily be changed to provide for large increases to those claimants that have a genuine and demonstrative financial need out of the savings made (some part way to creating a position of financial equality and giving a minimum income floor) at no cost to the taxpayer?
 

Spoonbill

If anyone happens to be familiar with any good books/discussions exploring the subject more, I'm thinking that might offer more space for thought and decompression etc. From a review, I understand that Stef Benstead's Second Class Citizens is one example that deals with means-testing problems, but I've only got as far as putting it on a long to-read (or perhaps more likely, listen) list, so I can't say how balanced that particular one might be. If anyone knows and feels like putting one forward, I for one would like to try to learn more.

chiarieds

Seeing that Stef Benstead says she has ME (more correctly known as Myalgic Encephalopathy, not Encephalomyelitis, as Dr Charles Shepherd has explained), & it's also stated that she has Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (which I also have), begins to fill me with some dismay.....

Stef says, 'I currently suffer from ME, also known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. I became ill whilst studying for a PhD at the University of Cambridge, following a 1st class degree from that university. I had to withdraw from the PhD after completing one year of study.'    Yet also,

'Stef has a 1st from the University of Cambridge but had to leave a PhD at the same university after becoming severely ill with the genetic connective tissue disorder, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome.'

The 2 conditions are not mutually exclusive (yet I'm being somewhat cynical here @Spoonbill ), so unsure her book will be on my reading list.

onebigvoice

@mikehughescq,  What a brilliant and interesting post above a very interesting read thanks.

racyguy

The only observation I have is when a need become a want.
Additionally I must be in the 20% that Mike mentions about not using a payment for the purpose it is paid. Our fuel costs are met by 12 equal monthly direct debit payments which almost always meets the actual annual cost. We also receive £200 extra Winter Fuel Allowance We are also on a low income (PCG) but cannot remember a time when the WFA was used to pay for the necessities of life. Maybe we take budgeting too seriously. Our household budget does allow us to have meals out, go to the cinema etc. paid for out on the WFA, CWP , budget surplus as well as the Christmas £10 each. 
As for pensioners not claiming benefits I agree that this is the case. A single pensioner (over 65) is entitled to a weekly minimum income of just under £400 (£20800 pa, Gross £26,400 if working 35 hours a week on £14.50 an hour.) if they are also in receipt of DLA/PIP enhanced care & mobility and that excludes the WFA & CWP. 
I do remain satisfied that a great deal of money is being paid out to the wrong people simply because they are entitled.

poppy123456

Then it’s a very good thing that you don’t make the decisions about who is and who isn’t entitled to these benefits then isn’t it. 

racyguy

poppy123456 said:

Then it’s a very good thing that you don’t make the decisions about who is and who isn’t entitled to these benefits then isn’t it. 

Entitlement to make a claim is one thing but an universal entitlement to a fixed financial award for all and every successful claimant is a totally different thing in my opinion.  Should wealthy (both capital and/or earnings) individuals receive the same level of financial award as say someone living on benefits and being unable to work?  

poppy123456

If someone is entitled to a disability benefit such as PIP regardless of their financial circumstances then yes, they have every right to claim it. It’s not means tested so their financial circumstances make no difference.
 If I won the lottery tomorrow, I would continue to claim my PIP because I’m i’m entitled to it!

chiarieds

Hmmm...when need becomes a want, tho they are synonymous, so how would that actually be defined?

Perhaps if someone has the luxury of not needing monies paid to them in benefits, with careful budgeting, rather than budgeting out of necessity, this should be donated to those in need. Yet how would 'need' be defined? Perhaps someone who has the enhanced rate of PIP for both daily living & mobility would donate somehow to those with lower or no PIP award? Ah. well, perhaps a great deal of money is being paid out to the wrong people....

As far as such a means-tested benefit goes, then I think very polite 'arguments' have been given above. This forum tries to help members, not unfortunately antagonise them.

chiarieds

Sorry Mike, I was posting at the same time as yourself. It both takes me a while to type & was also venting off steam. The poster has previously commented, 'With my health issues some would expect me to be in bed 24/7. I don't and I still enjoy a full life despite the issues.' Great; with my health issues if I was in bed 24/7 I wouldn't be in so much pain, but rail against this. So, who is deserving of more money, or would @racyguy somehow give me some of his money as his quality of life is better than mine? This would indeed be nonsense.

When I separated from my husband, all I had at the time was my DLA......£450 every 4 weeks; believe me I seriously had to budget; grew vegetables out of necessity. Outgoings £250+ a month, & that was before paying for gas & electricity, or food. Didn't have your luxury, as had to pay for LPG, & also electricity to our Park Home owner, which continues.

So, did I 'need' DLA, yes, in order to exist.; does PIP now help, yes.

Am in total agreement that indeed 'need' & 'want,' as mentioned above, are one & the same thing.

poppy123456

What makes me so angry is my daughter was judged by raceguy as not needing her PIP because she has no extra expenses because of her disability. She has no extra expenses because she lives with me. She's unable to live alone and would need a lot of support and help just to get through 1 single day and there's 7 of those in a week.

For her, it's not as easy as just "looking for somewhere to live"

She certainly doesn't live with me rent free, she pays her way, although she wouldn't know what a 10p was if you gave it to her so i guide her and help her with her money.

Everything she does is because i'm there, she needs support to make a meal, dress, wash, go out, budgeting, going to appointments, telephone calls and just stepping foot outside the door. Every week she tells me that she wouldn't know how she would cope without me and i've given up my life for her but i'd do it all again in a single heartbeat.

It makes my blood boil when a complete stranger judges MY daughter!!

poppy123456

@Teddybear12 thank you. I just get so angry when people judge my daughter.

Spoonbill

I think it's a bit much to expect for an in-depth socio-economic analysis on a disability board, @racyguy. I hope that you will take the time to read the article posted by mikehughescq (sorry, tagged you again!) and perhaps look into some analyses of universality and means testing in more depth to see how they actually play out. Economics is notoriously difficult to grapple with, and I struggle, so I'm actually sympathetic to your resistance, but I think it's worth bearing in mind that a position without evidence is an idealogical opinion, which you're entitled to hold, yet it doesn't guarantee that anyone else will find it of any substantive merit.

Again, I am sympathetic to difficulty understanding the socio-economics but also aware that it's an emotive and potentially triggering subject (as you can see from the responses!).

calcotti

The last obvious case of reacting to the 'people getting benefit they don't need' approach was the introduction of the Child Benefit High Income Charge.
Recent House of commons briefing paper explores all the complexity that introduced
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8631/CBP-8631.pdf

Tori_Scope

A comment containing profanity aimed at another member has been removed, as this isn't something we allow on the community. You can read our house rules here.

We do of course allow debate to take place on the community, and it's okay to disagree with someone's comment by providing robust evidence or an alternative view that questions their opinion. That being said, it's important to remember that this reply should remain civil and friendly in tone. We all enter debates with different backgrounds, experiences, and mindsets, and showing empathy and respect is vital in ensuring that discussions remain constructive.

If you think another member has made a comment that breaches our house rules, including if it isn't in line with our 'keep it friendly' statement, please report it so that we can review it and take action if necessary.

This thread will remain open for the time being.

racyguy

calcotti said:

The last obvious case of reacting to the 'people getting benefit they don't need' approach was the introduction of the Child Benefit High Income Charge.
Recent House of commons briefing paper explores all the complexity that introduced
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8631/CBP-8631.pdf

I agree entirely. Family Allowance as it was was paid out on the basis of the number of children you had. Yes this money was a lifeline for some who saw it as extra funding going towards the maintenance of the children. Yet the way it was being handed out was like a sausage machine. In my younger days along with my many friends and work colleagues their wives popped to the post office to collect their entitlement. Some saw it as to be frittered away simply because they simply didn't need it. Back in 1990 I had twin girls aged 9 and was at that time receiving a net salary of over £5500 a month.
I disagreed with my wife in collecting this money as we had no need of it. Her argument was that she was entitled to it so claimed it. 

calcotti

racyguy said:

calcotti said:

The last obvious case of reacting to the 'people getting benefit they don't need' approach was the introduction of the Child Benefit High Income Charge.
Recent House of commons briefing paper explores all the complexity that introduced
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8631/CBP-8631.pdf

I agree entirely. 

I don’t think we do agree. My point was that removing the non means tested universality of Child Benefit has resulted in a complicated mess. I understand your stance to be the opposite of that.

calcotti

Don’t know if Wales is progressing it’s plans for a trial
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-57120354