While I kind of agree that PIP shouldnt be a means tested benefit to a degree, I think there should be an upper limit, but a high one, like 100k. If you earn 100k + a year, you shouldnt need any state benefit. I'd be interested to see how many PIP recipients earn over 100k a year. I bet there are more than most people think. I know a guy who earns 142k a year, and his wife is on about half that, say 70k a year, and he gets top living and mobility PIP benefits, which is around £500 a month, plus a free mobility car which the government tax, MOT and insure for him. Now he is legitimately disabled mind, he has the same condition that I have, muscular dystrophy, but even still, he and his wife collectively bring in over £220k a year plus bonuses and he gets £500 a month and a free car like come on man! You can afford to pay for your own car ffs.
i was laughing as that accusation is pretty hollow now nearly everyone else leases their car .Not that i've ever had a car from Motobility . Off the top of my head problems with making PIP means tested include it would require more DWP staff , where do you set the income level , where do you set the capital level , is their an exclusion for compensation payments , do other benefits affect the rate of PIP and some people would make the decision it isn't worth working then .
British farmers do grow it, we're one of the world's biggest producers of medical marijuana, over 40% of the world supply and about to expand that.
First off, what accusation? Its not an accusation, its a free car, you pay nothing for it, you dont pay road tax, you dont pay insurance, you dont pay for the MOT literally all you pay for is the petrol you use. Or if its an electric car, they will install a charger at your house (That you DO pay for). Leased cars weren't free last time I checked, you still pay a monthly amount for it. No, other benefits shouldnt affect PIP awards, just income imo. It would be deadly simple to check if someone is earning a certain wage. where do you set the income level? I said, set it high, like £100-150k. So that most people getting PIP will be fine, just the few who earn a ton. ****ing accusation.....twat
Coming in a bit late on this PIP conversation. expected to be looking at 5bn worth of savings by the Labour government….. was estimated at 12bn the tories were looking at. what’s most important is that the most vulnerable and in need are the last ones who are looked at. And that tax on millionaires and billionaires is set accordingly and tax avoidance is punished….not just those doing some cash in hand jobs.
it's not free you give up your DLA/PIP Mobility component which means you pay a lease of £300 per month or like me you buy your own and bank the DLA hence i run a 15 yer old VW Polo. twat
You know I receive PIP and have a mobility car too right? You give up a free benefit to pay for the car, its not the same as paying it out of your own pocket is it ya ****ing strunz! I dont have a problem with that either, would be hypocritical of me to have that attitude. Just saying if you earn £150k a year, maybe thats something you could pay yourself?
it would be exactly like paying it out of my own pocket logically i agree with your last point but means testing PIP for the few outliers (as i'm sure most working and getting PIP are more likely getting near the average wage) is like taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut .
actually thinking about it when i was working and getting Mobility Allowance / DLA i never reached the giddy heights of the national; average wage
I get ya, sorry for snapping. I mean, I get it, you are giving up money to get the car, but its not money you are earning, its money you are being gifted. I wouldnt neccessarily say its the same. I work and earn slightly above average wage, but when I say it should be means tested, I am saying for 100k a year earners and over, so the majority wouldnt be affected. Am just saying if you earn THAT much money, disabled or not, you really can afford to pay a 100 or so quid a month to tax and insure a car rather than have it subsidised.
I don't understand the rules around motability, but I thought there was an element that you had to pay for yourself ? The broader point I agree with. I think benefits should be mean tested and it's why I was in support of ending the blanket winter fuel allowance as there are a significant number of pensioners who are very well off and don't need state benefits (other than the pensions which they've paid in for) I would though, like to see these sorts of savings directed towards the most needy instead of being syphoned off for other areas of spending. And that said, isn't there something like £22bn unclaimed benefits in the UK each year Anyway, there's a joke in there about blankets and winter fuel allowance but I'll leave @FosseFilberto to make it
I guess you could look at it that way. I dont necessarily see tax as something I can pay so I can later claw it back, personally. My tax money is taken so my country can have schools, free healthcare and a police force. I am not strictly in the "taxation is theft" camp. Not saying you or Solid are either, but thats just how I choose to see taxation.
