disabled will NOT be exempt from 'bedroom tax'

bluebell I question your ability to read and understand our posts? River said "mild depression". What is wrong with that?

Please explain where either of us did what you said:

"^Well done Moved and River - lets turn a serious issue into one about people with blue badges and benefits who shouldn't have them and disabled people who don't work and should. Whoever said that being disabled means you are entitled not to work? Oh yes probably the DM!"^

Perhaps it would be more helpfully if, instead of just throwing out your impressions of what you think we said, you could actually discuss some of the points made.

Well Riverwalk, that qualified psychiatrist knows that there are people claiming benefits who only have mild depression. Depression does have a medical definition - it's just that in everyday language it's easy to use the phrase ' I'm depressed' - I know I do - especially over certain posts on GN. But as I said earlier, the issue is about the bedroom tax and disabled people and shouldn't be another of those tedious, ill- informed DM rants about 'I know someone with a blue badge who can actually fly' posts. No one is denying that some people play the system but to deflect a serious discussion in the way Moved and River did is appalling. My guess is that they find it hard to put forward reasons why it's acceptable to treat disabled people in this way and so just attack the concet of disability itself with anecdotes - remember that wonderful quote about Gove - data being the plural of anecdote?

I suffer from depression and believe me it can be a work stopping disability. Don't you think the DWP try to weed us 'not physically ill' out of the system.

It's bad enough being so ill without people assuming you're swinging the lead because they see other disabled people working or they've been 'depressed' and got better.

I'd like a redefinition of the word 'depression' to make it clear that it is a debilitating illness and not just feeling a bit down in the dumps.

That media organ for the intellectually challenged!

Well done Moved and River - lets turn a serious issue into one about people with blue badges and benefits who shouldn't have them and disabled people who don't work and should. Whoever said that being disabled means you are entitled not to work? Oh yes probably the DM!

Moved on your point about the label 'disabled' - you're quite right.

Also, being disabled shouldn't necessarily entitle you to be classed as too disabled to work. I lived for many years near to sheltered housing for blind adults - every day I would see regulars at the Underground station on their way to work, jostling for space just like everyone else.

From a disabling point of view and getting yourself to work and back in London it doesn't come much harder than to be blind.

I always think of these people when I see someone who is claiming disability benefits because of mild depression, unspecified back pain, anxiety, etc., for years on end.

See ninethenana's thread 'I hope it's ok to ask' which has a link to the War on Welfare' petition started by Francesca Martinez. Lots of sigatures already!

Thats disgraceful vampirequeen they could put 4 one and two bed flats on the same amount of land for rental .

I've read all this thread and would like to make a few comments:

1 My sister died of a degenerative disease. Her hoist was kept where it was used, by her bed. I wonder why it would be kept somewhere it would not be used?

2 Whether the decisions are right or wrong the government has got everyone talking about the subject which is probably long overdue and may well result in some good ideas.

3 Lots of sympathy for the disabled and the homeless, just find it hard to choose one above the other.

4 MP on TV a couple of days ago on the subject of Wonga/debt etc. said that no local authority has yet spent all the money allocated to help people who have needs as a result of the housing benefit cuts.

5 I wonder if this has all been done so that those who really need the additional room/s can be helped but those who don't can be singled out?

6 If I had to choose between a student/child having a bed to sleep in on odd weekends or a child having a proper home I would choose the latter. Shame there has to be a choice.

7 I know someone with a blue badge and lots of benefits who is imo not really in need. Not everyone labelled 'disabled' is really.

8 Don't know what tax cheating has to do with this.

I am just trying to play devil's advocate. Of course I would love to be able to help everyone all the time and have lots of sympathy for those who really do need help. I just don't know how to do it, it is not as simple as some seem to think.

Aka - if you look back at the last thread about the bedroom tax you will find many suggestions - I don't intend to repeat them.

vampirequeen

I hope you are not expecting people like me who are already paying over £500 a month in income tax on an occupational pension to pay even more tax.

Frank

Build more social housing. Not just 'affordable' homes that a lot of people can't afford. The council are about to build two homes on a brown field site next to my house but they won't be for rent. The council is building to sell.

So what can be done for homeless families - it's all very well saying they 'need help'. They need help now. How?

As you say, Iam64 punishing the vulnerable is no way to sort this out. What on earth are these polticians thinking? Have they visited the homes of disabled and chronically sick people, and seen for themselves the amount of medication, equipment and paraphernalia that needs to be stored and accessible for daily living? Wheelchairs, hoists, stairlifts, boxes and boxes of dressings and medication, always needing to be on hand for carers and visiting nurses. When my sister was ill for just over a year, the deliveries of sterile water bottles, special nutritious drinks and boxes of assorted dressings took up a bedroom. Who knows how they would have managed as a couple required to live in a one-bedroomed flat, year in, year out. There wouldn't have been room.

This government is spiteful and will continue to target the most vulnerable members of society. Unfortunately, thanks to the tabloid press finding 'scroungers' who are happy to have their story told, there is a general impression that billions are being lost to benefit fraud and no amount of genuine statistics will convince the public.
So many of the smug people who think this tax is a good idea have huge homes, and probably holiday homes as well. They seem to think people in receipt of benefits are some kind of sub-species of humanity who don't have all the normal sensitivities that they and their ilk possess.
Of course homeless families need help, but when this subject was last aired several solutions to the housing crisis were suggested. To make yet another group suffer greatly is simply inhumane.

Bez

I have not thought the situation you have.
In every situation I have dealt with the parents had only been married once.

Frank

I'm supporting the points made by Eleothan and Bluebell. This is a bedroom tax,not a spare room payment. The selling off of council houses, along with preventing councils using the money raised to build social housing started this downward spiral. I feel we're heading back to an Angela's Ashes/Dickensian view of the deserving and undeserving poor. I am not defending benefit fraud, but it seems to be much less of a cost to the public purse than tax avoidance. Everyone agrees 'something has to be done' about the long housing waiting lists, families in B&B etc. How anyone can agree with we evict people with disabilities from specially adapted homes which will then need refurbishing to accommodate people who don't need hoists/stair gates etc is beyond me. The cost of this policy in financial terms will be huge, but in human terms immeasurable. So many separated families, where the non custodial parent (often the father) is given a 2 bed flat a) because the council/housing association has no one bed flats and b) because any reasonable local authority/housing association would want to ensure the children have a room to sleep in/do homework etc. There are so few one bedroom properties available. I also saw the coverage of the accommodation the man with serious arthritis, who has 3 bedrooms. His daughter is at university and comes home for holidays and to help him when he is unwell. The small room holds all his hoists etc. Maybe he could manage in a 2 bed - but the costs involved in moving him (financial/emotional) must surely outweigh any benefits. We need to build affordable housing, social housing - that's the problem, not enough appropriate housing. We have increasing numbers of single households, which was not the case when our current housing stock/social housing stock was built. Punishing the vulnerable is no way to improve society

bluebell

Another thing I forgot to mention was a daughter owned a bungalow and her parents lived in a council house until the mother died.
The father moved in to her bungalow and lived there for 7 years and suddenly got dementia and became unmanageable.
The Social Worker said the daughter would have to downsize to pay for the care as there was no need for 1 person to have a 5 bedroom bungalow with a double garage.
In this case her parents had not contributed to the purchase of the bungalow in any way.

Frank

bluebell

My parents changed the ownership of the house to Tenants in Common for inheritance tax reasons because prior to 2006 ( I think ) if Mum's half of the house had gone to Dad and then to me only Dad's allowance could have been used so by leaving half the house to me the inheritance tax would have been avoided.
The law however changed after Mum's death so I would have not had to pay inheritance tax anyway.
Another problem which happened to 1 of Mum's friends was her husband died and all of the house went to her.
She got married again and sadly died unexpectedly 3 months later. All of the estate went to her new husband and Mum wanted to make sure this did not happen to her money.
Dad got a so called lady friend after Mum died but as soon as she realised Dad could not will all of the house to her she went.
What has happened in the cases where the house has been owned on a tenants in common basis which I have dealt with the son / daughter has been widowed and retired and have moved in to the parents home knowing they had rights over it and cared for their parent for 3 years plus and the parent has become unmanageable due to the condition getting far worse.
The thank you they got was for some social worker to say the house has got to be sold to pay for the care which is unlawful as the offspring have been carers and they are owner occupiers with the right to stay in the house.

Frank

Bez yes, in those circumstances it's perfectly understandable.

Aka and bluebell. It may be true that SOME people have their house registered as tenants in common to possibly avoid care fees but that is not always the case. We had our last house in UK registered like that because we were advised to do so by the solicitor as it is a second marriage and we both have children. This then allowed us to each leave our half to our respective children as step children do not inherit anything. Also if the surviving spouse remarried any will would be revoked and unless a new one was drawn up naming step children they would fail to inherit anything from their parent and it could go completely out of either family. It had nothing to do with thoughts of care home fees.

Frank, do you think I enjoy having to claim benefits. I was brought up to work and that's exactly what I did from the age of 15 to 53 then I became ill and my world collapsed. My husband is my carer which saves the taxpayer a huge amount of money not only in home care but in how often I would be in hospital. He also works 17 and half hours a week so we can feel we're still contributing something to society. 17 and half hours a week doesn't sound much but there are times when I'm not safe within that period.

Not all benefit claimants are scroungers. Some of us have actually paid our dues and unfortunately have had to claim earlier than we expected.

Benefit payments including housing benefit were worked out to provide a certain acceptable standard of living. By reducing housing benefit the government have reduced benefits overall. This may save the taxpayer money but it makes life even more difficult for people like me.

Also I have the added pressure of having to prove I'm ill on a regular basis. The DWP doesn't share information between it's own departments so I have to prove myself for ESA and DLA even though I give the same information to each.

You think it's ok for people to make arrangements to protect their inheritance and tbh I don't have a problem with that. I don't think anyone should have to spend their hard saved money on care when others don't but spare a thought for people like me at the other end of the social spectrum. We're not all claiming benefits to rip off the hard working taxpayer. Those people despite what the media says are few and
far between.

£120,000 not £100, 000 - even worse!

And Frank, you know full well what I object to with you - it's the whole tenants in common, parents leaving half a house to a son or daughter business - that is as Aka says a deliberate strategy to avoid paying care fees and for everyone who does that, the la has to fund part of their care and so there is less for essential services whilst some adult child increases their inheritance. A form of cheating and scrounging that you completely subscribe to and encourage. Shame on you!

Eloethan - absolutely! The real problem is a shortage of affordable housing both to buy and rent. Look how successful this coalition is being in deflecting the arguments into where to store hoists and wheelchairs! I know it's awful about families in B&B but the problem isn't caused by disabled people but by government policies and the blessed Margaret started that ball rolling. Also, what about the absolute fact that in parts of the country, there simply aren't smaller properties for people to move into. How can it be right by any measure that you reduce someone's benefits for having an extra room when there is NO smaller house for them . What about homes that have been especially adapted? And who can defend forcing a disabled child with disturbed sleep patterns into having to share with a sibling. Wicked, evil, heartless, vindictive - but never mind , let people who can afford a 75% mortgage on a £600,000 house have an interest free loan of £100,000. Lets have another hike in house prices so that homeowners will have a feel good factor in time for the next election. The economics of the madhouse.