[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 585: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 641: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
450,000 disabled people to lose out - Page 3 - Carers UK Forum

450,000 disabled people to lose out

Discuss news stories and political issues that affect carers.
According to the latest timetable, which is subject to change, PIP will be introduced for new claims in Merseyside, North West England, Cumbria, Cheshire and North East England from April 2013 and then rolled out across the country for all new claims from June 2013.

Existing claimants will not be "invited" to claim PIP until October 2013, it is intended that all existing claimants will have transferred from DLA to PIP, subject to them meeting the new criteria, by March 2016 so, as DLA will continue to paid to over-65s for as long as they continue to meet the entitlement criteria, your husband may, if his renewal is successful, manage to avoid the change to PIP.
I got his age wrong ooops hes only 63 lol I bet they will just give DLA for a year at a time now for those nearing 65
This is a situation in which, with the length of time which it is currently taking to hear appeals, it may prove beneficial to appeal a decision dependent on how close the claimant is to 65, appeals relate to the benefit which was originally claimed not to benefits which replace them.
There is no finite limit to the capacity of the needy to benefit from help by the state. And indeed "Capacity to benefit" is regarded by some as a proxy definition of "need". So the needy continue to argue their case for increased support from those of us who pay taxes. Good for them. But I don't fancy their chances in this economic climate. There is also a finite limit beyond which we struggling taxpayers are unwilling to budge to help our fellows, and frankly, it has already been reached.

Meanwhile it is becoming quite clear that Britain's employers have rejected the potential of most people with disabilities to make a contribution to the economy, despite the fact that vast numbers of people with disabilities are gasping to have their skills and abilities given a chance, and have a huge amount to offer. Nobody wants to have the words "Welfare Recipient" engraved on their tombstone.

A plague on both these perverse narratives. Almost every family in Britain has a member who has been marginalised and rejected by these cruel mathematics.
The future belongs to the political party that can harness the massive, untapped potential of Britain's disabled and convert that into a positive force for economic transformation.
Interestingly it is people with disabilities who are trying to design a new inclusive model of working which would suit the needs of both those people with disabilities who could work, including those with fluctuating conditions, and employers, the existing model has failed too many for whom work would be a viable option if it was more flexible.

As for funding welfare, if everyone who should pay tax, including large corporations, did pay tax and the banks were made to pay back out of their profits the taxpayer-funded bailouts which they have benefited from, welfare payments would be affordable.

And where the issue of taxpayers versus benefit claimants is concerned can I point out, yet again Image , that every one of us is a taxpayer either through indirect taxation or through direct taxation and many of those in receipt of benefits, including disability benefits are both.
You certainly can, and actually the poor pay far more in taxes, both direct and indirect, as a proportion of their income, than the wealthy. So a wholesale and radical redistribution of taxation is also a part of the "new deal" that we are all gasping for. In some respects this might well involve finding and negotiating a "win-win" scenario whereby employers can gain tax breaks by training and employing people who otherwise wouldn't get a look in. But the era of ever-increasing unconditional state handouts for adults with disabilities has failed dismally, and has to come to an end.
This government is giving huge amounts to conflicts overseas, and to international aid. Councils talk about "limited resources" yet spend money on "art" for public places. Council tax is my largest single outgoing every year. Surely our own citizens should be well looked after before we start giving away money overseas? Genuinely disabled people should have enough money to heat their homes properly and eat properly.
But the era of ever-increasing unconditional state handouts for adults with disabilities has failed dismally, and has to come to an end.
This is the language of the tabloid press, benefits already are conditional, including ESA for those, all too frequently wrongly, placed in the WRAG rather than the Support Group. And this conditionality is going to be increased with greater sanctions for those who do not meet the conditions placed on them under Universal Credit, a Staturory Instrument has just increased the sanctions placed on JSA claimants who are deemed to have not met the conditions of their Jobseekers Agreement with a three-year sanction for a third "offence".

Plus the value of benefits is going down not increasing, benefit claimants, including those in low-paid work, are finding that they less to spend on essentials than they did the previous year, hence the proliferation of food banks and the increase in the number of people resorting to them, and this is going to be an increasing problem as the government looks for further ways to cut the cost of the Welfare State.
This government is giving huge amounts to conflicts overseas, and to international aid. Councils talk about "limited resources" yet spend money on "art" for public places. Council tax is my largest single outgoing every year. Surely our own citizens should be well looked after before we start giving away money overseas? Genuinely disabled people should have enough money to heat their homes properly and eat properly.
It should not be a competition to determine who is more deserving whether we are talking about the real poverty experienced in the third world versus the relative poverty in this country or whether a disabled claimant is sufficiently "genuine" to be deserving of State support, and many disabled people are about to find that under the transition from DLA to PIP, just as they are finding out as they are transferred from IB to ESA, that, whilst their condition has not changed or even deteriorated, they are now no longer deemed to be "genuinely" disabled and therefore deserving of financial support.

There would be sufficient funds available, we are after all still one of the richest countries in the world despite the recession, to meet the needs of the poor both here and abroad if those at the top and corporations were made to pay their taxes. Huge amounts are lost to tax evasion and avoidance but successive governments have preferred to concentrate their efforts on the relatively small amount of money lost through benefit fraud rather than deal with those who choose not to pay the tax that they owe.

And the issue around foreign aid is not whether we should give money to assist those experiencing real poverty in the third world, can anyone really believe that it is acceptable for people to starve or die of easily-treatable diseases for the sake of a few pence, but whether it goes to the poor or into the pockets of politicians, etc. and whether it should be conditional on buying arms and other goods from British manufacturers.
Agreed, Parsifal.

It's not just taxation. Nor removal of benefits. Local authorities have jumped on the charging bandwagon: some areas have seen enormous inflation-busting rises in the amounts charged for social care. That really hits disabled and elderly people hard (those who elect to have the services and those who decide they can't afford it), and there is no control over it.
To me, it boils down to priorities. In my area there have been a number of grandiose schemes funded by the Local Authority whilst carers and carees are struggling. This week, I went to a local town where they removed the flower beds in the pavement because they attracted yobs. Fair enough. Rather than just pave them over with matching slabs, they took up all the slabs over a vast area, replaced them with granite slabs instead, and put lots of expensive seats in the area and cycle racks. I've never see anyone use either seats of slabs. In my sister in law's street they've done a "Street Enhancement" project, a monumental waste of money, so many planters etc. that parking is a total nightmare now. The argument has been used that it's a "different budget" from social care, but in total it's all part of the budget of the same County Council. These schemes always seem to flourish just before elections so that the councillor can say on their election literature "I did...." more immediately evident and vote grabbing than adult social care of course.