The Summer Budget

My husband was on disability benefits for fifteen years. I know a bit about it, but whatever I say will be attacked. It's not theory for me, but some people think you should not put personal things in a thread like this.

The thing is, every disabled person has different needs, different circumstances, different finances when s/he becomes disabled.

This government is attacking disabled people, just like some people on this thread. The idea that if you are disabled you should not have any more than someone who is not is very unfair to disabled people. They have enough problems without telling them they are taking too much from the state.

Disability can happen suddenly to everyone. Think about what you wish for.
My husband first became disabled when he fell off a ladder and broke his back when we lived in Hull. Three years later we moved to York and bought the guest house that we had for ten years. Most of our family and friends were surprised. We had the impression we were expected to stay where we were until we faded away.It was the best move we made.

By the way, Ana, I asked Petra if she knew how the man saved the £6000, not that it matters. Why should a disabled man not be able to save £6000 over a number of years?

I know you asked Petra. Am I not allowed to give my input just because the question wasn't directly asked of me, durhamjen?

www.thepeoplesassembly.org.uk/calendar#show%20more%20content

People's Assembly against austerity cuts.

Osborne wants to cut the benefits cap from £26000 to £20000 outside London and the South East. He also wants people who get housing benefit to pay 10% of their rent.
How ridiculous is that? That's for families with young children. How many more does he want to be in poverty? Oh, I forgot, poverty does not rely on money.

You would have to earn just over £25,000 to get take home pay of £20,000 Jen and outside London that is a pretty reasonable income - not high but much better than all the people on minimum wage. Should you be able to be on benefits for more than many people can earn? Should we not be looking at what can be earned? In some countries you get a percentage of your last years income if you are unemployed (usually time limited). This means it is more of an insurance system and keeps the high earners on board as they know they will get something that they can live on while they look for a job without getting into debt or loosing their house. I really think minimum wage may be more of a problem.

I agree with you, Gracesgran. Take-home pay of £20,000 would certainly be classed as a good average wage in my area, which is why I get so cross when people go on about the government 'slashing the benefits cap'.

I watched a clip in ITV news tonight featuring a young woman on benefits. The inverviewer said 'The government is threatening to cut housing benefit to under 25s - how are you going to be able to pay your rent?'.

The rely was...'work?'.

reply

Didn't the present Grek government stand in an anti-austerity ticket when they were recently elected DJ?

You can't spend what you ain't got!

I do not think you can blame the present Greek government for what's happened over there. They have only been in government since January.

I notice that Gordon Brown is still being blamed by this government even though they have been in power for over five years.

I won't go down the Greek Government line - far too contentious and should have it own thread .

One thing we need to take into account is that the benefit cap is for a household income so that could be split between two people. Ugh ... it's too late to think. Night, night

Durhamjen

I have been on Incapacity Benefit and Disability Living Allowance since 2001.

I obviously had Incapacity Benefit stopped when I received my State Pension. That's how it works!

I am tired of your constant berating of fellow GN's whom you know nothing, zilch, nada, bu---r all about.

In other words in answer to your post of 21.05 , you are not the only person on the planet to 'know' about benefits or disability issues! Patronising!

Do you have a thought as to the scenarios I gave re the two different people on benefits at all?

Yet again you say "whatever I say I will be attacked". Sorry but you are seeing yourself as a victim but you are not, sometimes others simply do not agree with you.

As the saying goes 'If you get on your high horse make sure you have strong legs'.

Benefits have always been a subject of great debate. It's what the receivers of benefits do with them that intrigues me. There are people who smoke 30 a day at £7+ a pack and order takeaway on a regular basis. Then there are those who save their benefits, for example for a holiday. The government can give out money but not control the spending of it once it's in someone's hand. Except through VAT, of course.

I should like to see a new control of child related benefits for those in non-working households, whatever the reason they cannot work. Child related benefits would be paid for existing children/pregnancies when other non-working benefits are first claimed but if a baby is conceived whilst on benefits no additional payments should be available for that new child. This would stop the 'have another baby, get more money' attitude that seems to prevail in this country.

I just don't think things are that easy nonnanna although I do somewhat agree with your aim.

For instance, if we had another "great global recession" (heaven forbid) you would have a real downturn in births and difficulty later on in rebuilding the economy. We need the closest to a steady birth-rate as we can get to keep the country in balance.

My solution would be that all child benefits are withdrawn and a wrap around child care system set up which anyone with a child could use. So there would be 24/7 nursery and pre-school care which you could use for the hours you needed (even overnight and weekends). You would then be able to take any job available and use the hours you needed. This could be used by all, so a high paid worker sent abroad, say, for a few days, could use this.

This care system would continue during the school years - but please, not with the expectation that it would be provided by teachers - giving breakfast clubs, after-school and homework clubs, and boarding facilities.

The drawback with this is that only those who can afford to work fewer hours because of higher income coming into the home or a willingness to forgo some years of income because you could otherwise support your family (another worker) would be able to be at home. However, until we started giving benefits because someone was in a single adult family it was ever thus. The idea that everyone lived the 1950s picture-book life with the children coming home to a sparkling house with the new fridge and Television - and lashings of ginger beer - was never true. Mum's, aunts and sisters helped one another and people worked part time; many people had to work who now feel a right, because of a child, not to.

This may seem harsh but we are condemning many women to no work, no possibility of improving their place on the career ladder and a very poor retirement so I believe it is best for them and, ultimately for their children to enable them to work. However, if we do we must have a support system in place to make it possible.

Gracesgran I have never understood why childcare is not available 24/7 now when an increasing number of people are working shifts or twelve hour days, four on four off. Schools and nurseries could take on additional staff for the extra hours which would create new jobs. Interesting thread this.

But how would 24/7 childcare be paid for?

Yes, who would pay the extra wages bill and all the employment costs (including pensions) ?

More people working and working full time so more chance of moving into better paid jobs would mean more taxes Ana and Elegran. Add to that I did say "My solution would be that all child benefits are withdrawn ..." so the cost of all benefits currently paid directly to families because they have children would be in the pot.

You would really be doing just what Gove wanted and making state schools (as no doubt those would often be the buildings used) unidentifiable from independent ones where you can often opt for termly boarding, weekly boarding or what is called daily boarding but usually means the child stays late for afterschool activities, tea and prep and then goes home but the parents can opt for them to stay (in familiar circumstances) on nights that they will be away.

"The thing is, every disabled person has different needs, different circumstances, different finances when s/he becomes disabled.

This government is attacking disabled people, just like some people on this thread. The idea that if you are disabled you should not have any more than someone who is not is very unfair to disabled people. They have enough problems without telling them they are taking too much from the state."

POGS, you seem to have omitted to criticise that part of my post from 21.05 yesterday. When did I say that I was the only person to know about disability? Can't find that either.

'This government is attacking disabled people, just like some people on this thread.'

I can't find any posts 'attacking' disabled people, durhamjen.

(Yes, I realise that I am not POGS...)

Jen I do think it is unfair to say people are attacking the disabled. Those of us who want to understand the implications of a particular cut will want to discuss in the "what about this" and "this seems fair/unfair". I would be surprised to find anyone who thinks the current benefits are easy to use or that they always do the most for the least able. That does not mean we want to attack anyone.

Perhaps my comment on how we treat, in particular, single adult households with children (I will not say single parent - children always have two) but I think we have limited the life chances of many of these - usually - women. How we ensure this is changed without making life impossible for those who have extreme problems is very, very difficult but it does not mean we should not discuss it and, to be honest, attacking your fellow posters as if they are less socially conscious than yourself is really not helpful. This is not about any one person but how the country runs the system. I dislike much that the Conservatives believe but that would not stop me allowing that a) anyone might come up with a good idea whatever their politics and b) we need to review a system that has been added to, tweaked and expanded over 65 years without any real overview.

There is an extra "in" in the second line - sorry

Very reasonable post GG. Many aspects of this situation to discuss.

"On the case of the man going on holiday to China with two carers! He certainly had too much money to spend , quite unbelievable, and glad that it won't be happening now , we hope."

This appears to me to be attacking a disabled man. I am surprised nobody else thinks so.

I'm surprised that you think so. I read it as a criticism of the benefits system at the time - a good example of Gordon Brown's largesse!

I know different benefits will take different amounts of savings into account but £10,000 is the lowest I have come across so far. It may surprise some GNs but I believe those on a very low income will do a great deal to save so may try to do this in circumstances those in work would not. There is always hope for better times for those in work but, in my opinion, "poor" pensioners and the "poor" disabled will not really see the hope of much change so squirrel away savings little by little because the rainy day is never far away.