Budget

[ford prefect]

What's wrong with the patient transport service that the NHS trust provides?

As I said, his son is Autistic, quite low functioning and there is a routine and that involves the drive down in the car with dad. It is very strict and can't be changed easily.

But surely if the son is so disabled then he gets benefits specifically designed to pay for the extra care?

Does he not get the higher rate of DLA in order to help pay for such expenses?

I don't want to come across as demanding that your friend justifies their expenses, I'm just curious as it's my understanding that these benefits are there exactly for these reasons.

Yes, his total income (all benefits is substantially less than £800 per month). None of which is going up in line with VAT and most of which is now stuck at the same rate for the next three years.The saving grace is that the DLA mobility component goes towards motability for a car, so he gets free road tax and insurence.

Frankly the amount of money full time carers in general recieve ( a paltry £53.90 per week), which is means tested and removed if you can work over 18 hours per week or earn more than £100 per week is disgusting and is as much a black mark against this government as it was the last.

 

[Scouse]

I, for one, being a single bloke, get no benefits at all.

I'd cancel child benefit for everyone. If you can't afford to have 'em then you shouldn't expect the rest of us to pay for your spunky habits.


I'd use some of the cash for that to provide proper services for the disabled and support for people with disabled kids.

Job done.

 

[rynnor]

I'd cancel child benefit for everyone. If you can't afford to have 'em then you shouldn't expect the rest of us to pay for your spunky habits.

Slippery slope - then we could stop all medical care for fat people, people who smoke or drink or do drugs because we shouldnt all pay for their habits huh?

And no sports injury treatment because thats self inflicted and no treatment for bikers because they are unsafe, same for horseriders in fact we wont need much at all in the way of healthcare.

No firemen because people shouldnt be stupid or clumsy - what a lovely world

 

[rynnor]

Frankly the amount of money full time carers in general recieve ( a paltry £53.90 per week), which is means tested and removed if you can work over 18 hours per week or earn more than £100 per week is disgusting and is as much a black mark against this government as it was the last.

Most countries in the world would give him bugger all - in most other cultures the extended family would look after the boy while the father worked.

Looks like the state is expected to take up the slack as our society fragments.

 

[Ch3tan]

Nah. If fucks the poorest. It's why the Lib Dems campaigned so hard against it.


It's all bullshit anyway. We're going to see (relatively) modest tax rises over the next couple of years but the cuts in public spending are going to be hewuge.

It's like £1 getting you 5 bananas for your public money now only getting you 3 bananas. It's a fucking big cut in spending for the same amount of tax.

The rest goes to the bank of england as interest on the money they lent us.

Eh you what? Is it really that hard to use a spreadsheet to calculate the interest 20% instead of 17.5% on top of your base charges, rather than just add on 2.5%?

Everyone I know did this when the rate went to 15% and then back up to 17.5%. It seems that the people you know operate shoddy business.

 

[Ch3tan]

I, for one, being a single bloke, get no benefits at all.

I'd cancel child benefit for everyone. If you can't afford to have 'em then you shouldn't expect the rest of us to pay for your spunky habits.


I'd use some of the cash for that to provide proper services for the disabled and support for people with disabled kids.

Job done.

Strip child support for individuals that do not try and help themselves, refuse housing to single parents - there family or the other parent should bear the burden of support. Where a single parent is living with their family, rather than claiming housing benefit, then they should get a benefit paid to their parents / family member who is supporting them.

 

[MrHorus]

As I said, his son is Autistic, quite low functioning and there is a routine and that involves the drive down in the car with dad. It is very strict and can't be changed easily.

Ah, that's unfortunate.

Yes, his total income (all benefits is substantially less than £800 per month). None of which is going up in line with VAT and most of which is now stuck at the same rate for the next three years.The saving grace is that the DLA mobility component goes towards motability for a car, so he gets free road tax and insurence.

Frankly the amount of money full time carers in general recieve ( a paltry £53.90 per week), which is means tested and removed if you can work over 18 hours per week or earn more than £100 per week is disgusting and is as much a black mark against this government as it was the last.

The thing is though, I've been unemployed and I have family members and friends that are unable to work through illness.

I know from my own personal experience that a lot of the "value" of benefits is in the intangibles and NOT the actual cash hand-outs that you get.

Does your friend get Housing Benefit?
Council Tax Benefit?
Free prescriptions?
Free dental treatment?
Discounts on council-run services (sports centers, swimming pools etc) for those out of work?
Does he get access to any independent charities or advice centers that are only available to carers and those with medical problems/those out of work?

All the above are things that I need to pay for out of my earnings, whereas my friends and family who (for whatever reason) don't work do not.

Like you say he gets stuff from Motability too, so that's road tax and insurance that I need to pay for that someone in his situation doesn't.

Benefits are NOT just about the cash in the bank.

 

[Ch3tan]

Horus, when I rail against the benefits culture in the UK, I am not on about cash handouts - I doubt many are. It's the housing benefit, disablity benefits and council tax benefits which are (in my experience as an estate agent the past year) most often abused, and the easiest for most to get.

For example, a friend of mine works 16 hours a week as a sales assistant, he is capable of quite easily getting a full time management job but does not want to have to move back home. He gets a 1 bed flat from the council, around £650pcm in benefits for the rent. He gets whatever dole he is entitled to for working only 16 hours a week, and gets his council tax paid for him.

Now this is a ridiculous situation, where people would rather be poor because it means they can get their own place to live. Housing benefits need a massive review.

 

[rynnor]

For example, a friend of mine works 16 hours a week as a sales assistant, he is capable of quite easily getting a full time management job but does not want to have to move back home. He gets a 1 bed flat from the council, around £650pcm in benefits for the rent. He gets whatever dole he is entitled to for working only 16 hours a week, and gets his council tax paid for him.

Lol - nice one

Scrap the welfare state?

 

[Ch3tan]

It doesn't need scrapping, it needs reforming. People who actually need housing should get it, not every Tom, Dick and Harry, or even Sally cause she opened her legs.

Parents need to take more responsibility for their children - no matter if they are over 18 or not. If you have a child, they are your burden, they should not become the states burden.

 

[Chilly]

the council should put people in big shared houses, with just enough kitchen space and bathroom space. enough to get by on if you need to, not enough to relax and not bother trying to get an upgrade.

 

[MrHorus]

For example, a friend of mine works 16 hours a week as a sales assistant, he is capable of quite easily getting a full time management job but does not want to have to move back home. He gets a 1 bed flat from the council, around £650pcm in benefits for the rent. He gets whatever dole he is entitled to for working only 16 hours a week, and gets his council tax paid for him.

Yep.

It's genuinely true that sometimes you really ARE better off on benefits as you get CTB and HB, whereas when you work full time you don't.

They should grade the benefits so that people can taper off when they start full time work.

 

[rynnor]

It doesn't need scrapping, it needs reforming. People who actually need housing should get it, not every Tom, Dick and Harry, or even Sally cause she opened her legs.

Every attempt to reform it has failed (and there have been many over the years) so its probably beyond reform which leaves the only real choices as leave it unchanged or scrap the whole thing?

 

[MYstIC G]

Slippery slope - then we could stop all medical care for fat people, people who smoke or drink or do drugs because we shouldnt all pay for their habits huh?

Actually, this I'd be happily up for. You wanna smoke, take out medical insurance. If you've got £7 to waste on a packet then pony up another £7 so I don't have to pay for your lung diseases in later life.

 

[georgie]

By paying £7 for a pack of fags smokers are already paying for their own treatment down the line, and they're also paying for a hell of a lot of what you use too.

 

[DaGaffer]

Actually, this I'd be happily up for. You wanna smoke, take out medical insurance. If you've got £7 to waste on a packet then pony up another £7 so I don't have to pay for your lung diseases in later life.

And how are you going to audit that? Bottom line is the cost of "insurance" for a smoker is more than covered by the duty they pay.

 

[Chilly]

Actually, this I'd be happily up for. You wanna smoke, take out medical insurance. If you've got £7 to waste on a packet then pony up another £7 so I don't have to pay for your lung diseases in later life.

wasnt it shown that smokers are economically profitable? not only do they cover their health costs but they die earlier and are less of a burden on the pension system?

 

[ford prefect]

Ah, that's unfortunate.

Does your friend get Housing Benefit?
Council Tax Benefit?
Free prescriptions?
Free dental treatment?
Discounts on council-run services (sports centers, swimming pools etc) for those out of work?
Does he get access to any independent charities or advice centers that are only available to carers and those with medical problems/those out of work?

He doesn't get housing benefit as he lives in a house he inherited and it is fully paid for.

No he doesn't get council tax benefit because the house is a small two bedroom semi and you only get council tax credits if the house has a room specifically for the disabled persons sole use because of their disability.

Yes he get free perscriptions, because we live in South Wales and we are (Sheep aside) civilized here, so everyone gets them (and no, I'm not Welsh).
No he doesn't qualify for free dental treatment.

He doesn't have a lot of time to go swimming or playing sport, the best he can hope for is a few cans when I go around on a friday night.

He has been waiting three years to get a downstairs extension built on a disabled facilites grant for his son.

As for the free car insurance, car and tax, it isn't actually free, he never see's the mobility part of the DLA, it all goes to motability who do it all on a discount, in essence he stil pays.

Regardless, this is getting off topic really, the 20% vat increase doesn't take into account the unforseen expenses that people in these kinds of circuumstances face. It leaves them at an even bigger disadvantage than before. As I have said though, I am not in the least bit suprised, as this country has blundered from one incompetant leadership to another for decades.

 

[MYstIC G]

By paying £7 for a pack of fags smokers are already paying for their own treatment down the line, and they're also paying for a hell of a lot of what you use too.

Actually I have medical insurance, so you're wrong.

And how are you going to audit that? Bottom line is the cost of "insurance" for a smoker is more than covered by the duty they pay.

Insurance issued with a credit-card sized ID card, no insurance = no purchase. Just an idea, I'm sure somebody better aligned with implementing systems could come up with something better.

wasnt it shown that smokers are economically profitable? not only do they cover their health costs but they die earlier and are less of a burden on the pension system?

Don't know, you tell me. That said I don't want to make money out of smokers, I would just like them to pay for there own habit.

If I choose to drive a car I have (yes we all know some don't) to pay the cost to insure it. If I hurt someone, nobody else has to pick up the tab. Why can't the same apply to smoking, it's a choice after all?

 

[Tom]

If I hurt someone, nobody else has to pick up the tab.

Apart from the people who fund the NHS.

 

[MYstIC G]

Apart from the people who fund the NHS.

Why always so negative? You're nitpicking an example.

 

[DaGaffer]

Actually I have medical insurance, so you're wrong.

No he's not. Or not completely anyway. Medical insurance is relatively cheap in the UK because it doesn't have to do the heavy lifting of medical care that it does in other countries. Just how much I took the NHS for granted became painfully clear to me when I moved here (€50 every time you talk to your doctor).

Insurance issued with a credit-card sized ID card, no insurance = no purchase. Just an idea, I'm sure somebody better aligned with implementing systems could come up with something better.Don't know, you tell me. That said I don't want to make money out of smokers, I would just like them to pay for there own habit.

As I said above, they do pay for their habit, and then-some. And you're opening up a yawning hole with that kind of approach; it would be insurance to buy a drink, insurance to eat a mars bar eventually (and the only winners would be the insurance companies).

If I choose to drive a car I have (yes we all know some don't) to pay the cost to insure it. If I hurt someone, nobody else has to pick up the tab. Why can't the same apply to smoking, it's a choice after all?

See above, excise duty and VAT does that job already.

 

[MrHorus]

See above, excise duty and VAT does that job already.

The excise duty on tobacco isn't ringfenced for the NHS though.

 

[Tom]

Why always so negative? You're nitpicking an example.

 

[MYstIC G]

Oh bra-vo. How long have you been sitting on that one?

 

[DaGaffer]

The excise duty on tobacco isn't ringfenced for the NHS though.

And a good thing too. But it doesn't alter the fact that study after study has shown smokers put in more than they get out of the public purse (mainly because they aren't a pesky OAP burden). I bet there are people in the Treasury who really wish the GMC would shut the hell up sometimes; booze, fags and petrol keep the country afloat and are wonderfully inelastic to price hikes.

 

[Wij]

And a good thing too. But it doesn't alter the fact that study after study has shown smokers put in more than they get out of the public purse (mainly because they aren't a pesky OAP burden). I bet there are people in the Treasury who really wish the GMC would shut the hell up sometimes; booze, fags and petrol keep the country afloat and are wonderfully inelastic to price hikes.

Indeed. As Vince Cable rightly pointed out on R4 yesterday in response to Labour accusations that VAT is a regressive tax, taxes on booze and fags, which were a staple of the last government, are about as regressive as taxes get.

I think he even used the phrase booze'n'fags

 

[Chilly]

Actually I have medical insurance, so you're wrong.

Aye but the NHS trains the doctors, which costs a couple of quid, to say the least.

 

[cHodAX]

indeed, gonna be a killer for my mum (single parent with 4 kids at home, works full time as a teacher, benefits really help her etc)

That is a killer. People like your mum are exactly the sort the system should be helping but now she gets penalised for being prepared to work.

 

[Embattle]

And a good thing too. But it doesn't alter the fact that study after study has shown smokers put in more than they get out of the public purse (mainly because they aren't a pesky OAP burden). I bet there are people in the Treasury who really wish the GMC would shut the hell up sometimes; booze, fags and petrol keep the country afloat and are wonderfully inelastic to price hikes.

Even if I was to exclude the cherry picking methods used by the few studies done, I still find the whole argument flawed, stupid and pointless.