Government Trying to Abolish DLA and Attendance Allowance?

Taggy · 05-08-2009, 08:46

Is this yet another example of Government trying to stamp on people least able to put up a fight!! Totally disgraceful if this is allowed to go ahead!!
DLA and AA threat

Best Regards- Taggy

jaysay · 05-08-2009, 10:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taggy

Is this yet another example of Government trying to stamp on people least able to put up a fight!! Totally disgraceful if this is allowed to go ahead!!
DLA and AA threat

Best Regards- Taggy

Just wonder if Mancie has read this yet

webglynne · 26-08-2009, 20:12

I know that there are places where carers are concerned that their hosts, the charity website they post in, is not making enough row about all this. If the charity for the blind, and others, are worried about how this will effect their members they ask why carers charities are not screaming in protest, some even go as far as suggesting that objecting will not be done as that could upset the paymasters.

cashman · 26-08-2009, 22:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

Just wonder if Mancie has read this yet

well i have n have signed, its disgraceful, what do you actually think?

Mancie · 26-08-2009, 22:45

Got to admit it's confusing.. but seems to me the proposal is that payment system would change to "means tested".. I don't like the idea because most people have already paid via tax and national insurance for these benifits..but the old argument could be why a millionare should be paid the same benefits regardless of income.
Overall I would not agee with it and signed up.

garinda · 26-08-2009, 23:45

The social benefits system does need a major overhaul.

It should be there as a safety net for those genuinely in need. Not as a career option for the work shy, which for some it most definitely is.

A system that allows able bodied people to be financially better off for not working, is wrong, both for society and for them as individuals.

This country now pays out more in social benefits annually than it raises in Income Tax. That is wrong.

I firmly believe all social benefits should be means tested. I'm still amazed that we pay child benefit to children whose parents who are city bankers etc, and who probably have combined earnings in excess of £250,000., that should be stopped.

The benefits system should benefit those who genuinely are in need.

Mancie · 27-08-2009, 00:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

The social benefits system does need a major overhaul.

It should be there as a safety net for those genuinely in need. Not as a career option for the work shy, which for some it most definitely is.

A system that allows able bodied people to be financially better off for not working, is wrong, both for society and for them as individuals.

This country now pays out more in social benefits annually than it raises in Income Tax. That is wrong.

I firmly believe all social benefits should be means tested. I'm still amazed that we pay child benefit to children whose parents who are city bankers etc, and who probably have combined earnings in excess of £250,000., that should be stopped.

The benefits system should benefit those who genuinely are in need.

What worries me is that the "major overhaul" you talk about will be done under a Tory Government. I don't agree when there's talk of means testing for basic benefits like JSA and child allowance, for the simple reason that these are paid directly to wives/individuals that may have a partner earning an income, but that income could be kept by the earner and non of it passed on to the wife/partner.
Taking into account the income of benefit applicants is already a requeirment in almost all of benefits paid, but it's another case of thin end of the wedge.

garinda · 27-08-2009, 00:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

What worries me is that the "major overhaul" you talk about will be done under a Tory Government. I don't agree when there's talk of means testing for basic benefits like JSA and child allowance, for the simple reason that these are paid directly to wives/individuals that may have a partner earning an income, but that income could be kept by the earner and non of it passed on to the wife/partner.
Taking into account the income of benefit applicants is already a requeirment in almost all of benefits paid, but it's another case of thin end of the wedge.

If in the situation of a parent witholding earnings, child benefit, paid to the other parent, isn't enough to feed, clothe, and put a roof over that child.

Witholding earnings that should be paid in child maintenance should be pursued through the legal system.

A non-means tested benefit for every child in the country is ludicrous. Stop paying it to high earners, and pass it on to those children it will make a real difference to.

Mancie · 27-08-2009, 00:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

If in the situation of a parent witholding earnings, child benefit, paid to the other parent, isn't enough to feed, clothe, and put a roof over that child.

Witholding earnings that should be paid in child maintenance should be pursued through the legal system.

A non-means tested benefit for every child in the country is ludicrous. Stop paying it to high earners, and pass it on to those children it will make a real difference to.

Of course child benefit is not enough to feed and clothe a child..but at least it's something a mother has control of... this was one of the first basic payments made when the whole structure of health and wefare reforms where introduced back in the 50's... basic and untouchable!

garinda · 27-08-2009, 00:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

Of course child benefit is not enough to feed and clothe a child..but at least it's something a mother has control of... this was one of the first basic payments made when the whole structure of health and wefare reforms where introduced back in the 50's... basic and untouchable!

It's archaic, as well as patronising to say it's something mothers have control of. Like every child has a doting mum, and a dad who blows all his weekly wages in the boozer and at the bookies.

Some child benefit is paid to lone parents who happen to be male.

Should Prince Edward and his wife get child benefit?

No.

Should the money saved if it was means tested, go from the pin money tin of the wealthy, into the pockets of children from poorer backgrounds?

Yes.

Mancie · 27-08-2009, 00:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

It's archaic, as well as patronising to say it's something mothers have control of. Like every child has a doting mum, and a dad who blows all his weekly wages in the boozer and at the bookies.

Some child benefit is paid to lone parents who happen to be male.

Should Prince Edward and his wife get child benefit?

No.

Should the money saved if it was means tested, go from the pin money tin of the wealthy, into the pockets of children from poorer backgrounds?

Yes.

But you are suggesting that a basic payment that is made to everyone with children should be means tested..I say No..it's better to have a few that don't need it getting it ..rather than the people that do need it not getting it

garinda · 27-08-2009, 01:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

But you are suggesting that a basic payment that is made to everyone with children should be means tested..I say No..it's better to have a few that don't need it getting it ..rather than the people that do need it not getting it

Yes I am saying that someone earning more than the average wage should not be getting a non-means tested benefit.

That money should be targetted at children for whom it would make a difference.

As stated earlier, a country that is paying out more social benefits than it raises in income tax, will soon be in no position to help those people who really do need state assistance.

Having generations who decide they want to procreate, and stay at home and not work, whilst an ever dwindling workforce pays for them to do so, is wrong, and in the long term unsustainable, and the real poor and needy will suffer as a consequence.

Mancie · 27-08-2009, 01:25

And who would be "targeting" these basic benefits?.. Whitehall civil servants that are given instructions to write proposals with a remit of cutting public money ?.. cuts cuts cuts...it's time to vote Tory if that's your outlook.

garinda · 27-08-2009, 01:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

And who would be "targeting" these basic benefits?.. Whitehall civil servants that are given instructions to write proposals with a remit of cutting public money ?.. cuts cuts cuts...it's time to vote Tory if that's your outlook.

...and if you believe that all wealthy people should continue getting social benefits, when there are children for whom that money, saved from those who don't need it, could benefit massively, perhaps it's you who are the more natural conservative.

Give me one good reason why two teachers say, on a combined income of £60,000., should recieve child benefit?

garinda · 27-08-2009, 01:42

There were boys at my school from wealthy backgrounds, one of whose already well off mother used to pay for my friend's tennis lesson at Whalley Tennis Club with the child benefit money, and I also had another school friend whose mum kept it in a tin in the kitchen...to pay the gardener.

Totally true, and in my opinion totally wrong, when that money could have gone to many other children in much greater need.