Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 , especially pension credit dept. They do not know their arses from their elbows! I think I will have to live to 120 before I come across another department that is less efficient, less accurate in employees' knowledge, less time wasting and therefore less effective, than them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"1 in 7 living on state benefits. Costing 34% of government spending. Totally unsustainable. " Oddly enough, there are those who should be in receipt of benefits, and aren't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This governments messaging is so confusing! Scrapping WFA, resulted in 215000 new claims for pension credits and the need to employ 500 extra staff to process those claims. The claims were actively encouraged by the government because of the backlash, even using the same old phrasing "of you are entitled". Freezing some disability benefits, smacks of this not being thought out in terms of consequences because of the sudden change in direction, I'm all for being tighter on benefits, but not being loose on the the scrapping / freezing that it then ends up costing us more. I'm hoping that they start to think of the consequences of their words and actions a little more, rather than shooting from the hip and having to tidy up a mess after. " My complaint regarding the pension credit department is from March last year, throughout the last 12 months. If they have 500 new employees being trained by the existing useless bunch, God help us. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"1 in 7 living on state benefits. Costing 34% of government spending. Totally unsustainable. Oddly enough, there are those who should be in receipt of benefits, and aren't. " Possibly - the problem with any system being abused, be it immigration, benefits, whatever is that some genuine cases get overlooked. But as another poster points out, 1 in 7 citizens on state benefits is unsustainable, and a huge drag on growth and prosperity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"1 in 7 living on state benefits. Costing 34% of government spending. Totally unsustainable. " These measures are mainly aimed at working age people. The figure quoted was 1.5% rising to 2.2% in 10 years , of government spending. Still a lot of money mind. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"1 in 7 living on state benefits. Costing 34% of government spending. Totally unsustainable. Oddly enough, there are those who should be in receipt of benefits, and aren't. Possibly - the problem with any system being abused, be it immigration, benefits, whatever is that some genuine cases get overlooked. But as another poster points out, 1 in 7 citizens on state benefits is unsustainable, and a huge drag on growth and prosperity. " I imagine that statistic would change if they use categories, such as working age citizens on benefits and working age at work citizens, ie the bigger picture. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Universal Credit is meant to support people who would otherwise not be able to work. That as well as the National Living Wage. So many companies only hiring part time staff, who will not earn enough to get by on. Also some people with illnesses and disabilities often take jobs that nobody else wants. It’s open to abuse, unfortunately. But not as much as some of the other, older benefits." Why should the state support bad employers and those who can't be bothered to work? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Universal Credit is meant to support people who would otherwise not be able to work. That as well as the National Living Wage. So many companies only hiring part time staff, who will not earn enough to get by on. Also some people with illnesses and disabilities often take jobs that nobody else wants. It’s open to abuse, unfortunately. But not as much as some of the other, older benefits. Why should the state support bad employers and those who can't be bothered to work?" What makes you feel that these people can't be bothered to work. To claim most of these benefits you need to supply medical evidence, so are the medical professionals lying or is the equipment they use to gain a diagnosis dodgy or not up to scratch? The government are targeting an easy section of society, like the elderly. Go after big business and make them pay appropriate taxes before going after genuinely disabled people, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Universal Credit is meant to support people who would otherwise not be able to work. That as well as the National Living Wage. So many companies only hiring part time staff, who will not earn enough to get by on. Also some people with illnesses and disabilities often take jobs that nobody else wants. It’s open to abuse, unfortunately. But not as much as some of the other, older benefits. Why should the state support bad employers and those who can't be bothered to work?What makes you feel that these people can't be bothered to work. To claim most of these benefits you need to supply medical evidence, so are the medical professionals lying or is the equipment they use to gain a diagnosis dodgy or not up to scratch? The government are targeting an easy section of society, like the elderly. Go after big business and make them pay appropriate taxes before going after genuinely disabled people, Mrs x" 28 June 2024- ‘HMRC needs more resources to claw back £40 billion in unpaid tax HMRC is missing at least £40 billion in unpaid tax. This figure – known as the ‘tax gap’ – was released by HMRC last week. The tax gap is the difference between the amount of tax owed and what the government collects. Missing this amount of tax is simply unacceptable at a time when the health service and public services are ‘on the brink of collapse’ from underfunding. Unpaid tax is growing The tax gap has increased in real terms to £40 billion from £36 billion in 2021-22. That’s an eye watering sum of money. It’s also an under-estimate as it doesn’t include money that wealthy companies shift offshore, as our friends at TaxWatch point out.’ (Tax justice web) £40bn. The proposed benefit cuts was supposed to raise £3bn? Farmers iht £520m, school fee vat £460m, pensioners winter fuel £1.7bn Labour have picked off some easy targets | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Universal Credit is meant to support people who would otherwise not be able to work. That as well as the National Living Wage. So many companies only hiring part time staff, who will not earn enough to get by on. Also some people with illnesses and disabilities often take jobs that nobody else wants. It’s open to abuse, unfortunately. But not as much as some of the other, older benefits. Why should the state support bad employers and those who can't be bothered to work?What makes you feel that these people can't be bothered to work. To claim most of these benefits you need to supply medical evidence, so are the medical professionals lying or is the equipment they use to gain a diagnosis dodgy or not up to scratch? The government are targeting an easy section of society, like the elderly. Go after big business and make them pay appropriate taxes before going after genuinely disabled people, Mrs x 28 June 2024- ‘HMRC needs more resources to claw back £40 billion in unpaid tax HMRC is missing at least £40 billion in unpaid tax. This figure – known as the ‘tax gap’ – was released by HMRC last week. The tax gap is the difference between the amount of tax owed and what the government collects. Missing this amount of tax is simply unacceptable at a time when the health service and public services are ‘on the brink of collapse’ from underfunding. Unpaid tax is growing The tax gap has increased in real terms to £40 billion from £36 billion in 2021-22. That’s an eye watering sum of money. It’s also an under-estimate as it doesn’t include money that wealthy companies shift offshore, as our friends at TaxWatch point out.’ (Tax justice web) £40bn. The proposed benefit cuts was supposed to raise £3bn? Farmers iht £520m, school fee vat £460m, pensioners winter fuel £1.7bn Labour have picked off some easy targets " That 40 billion would cover the disability payments, and with change. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"PIP is nothing to do with being in or out of work. It's non means tested and intended to bridge the immense additional costs that being disabled generates. Research by the charity Scope shows that on average, disabled households need an additional £1,010 a month to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households. I held off claiming PIP for 8yrs after I first acquired disabilities, because frankly, I was embarrassed to claim it. I knew how much stress it would entail to claim and I didn't feel psychologically fit enough to go through all of the fighting and repeating very traumatic aspects of my life. However, I started an application in December 2024 because the additional costs of being disabled have become so great, that we can no longer afford them. We have paid every single penny of those additional costs from our own pockets, own income or through acquiring debt, to date. Some headline figures for my extra costs: £4500 for the active lifestyle wheelchair you can see in the profile pic. At the time I first required a wheelchair (to continue to work, among other reasons), I was turned down by NHS wheelchair services, because we lived in a house with stairs and they said they would not provide a wheelchair for mainly use outside of the house. I owe my employer for this, they fronted me the money, interest free. £2500 for an electric attachment to the manual chair, required from September 2024 when I needed hand/wrist surgery and couldn't self propel. Acquiring the electric add-on enabled me to return to WORK sooner. We paid for this with credit because we didn't have a spare £2500. £330,000 for an open plan bungalow, required because we did not qualify for a Disabled Facilities Grant to adapt our previous 3 bed semi with stairs, because we and I WORK. Our mortgage went from £750pm to £1500pm. We would not have moved house if it wasn't to accommodate my wheelchair use. Those are the biggies. We pay extra for all manner of things, including requiring a larger car (to get the wheelchair in); needing to do laundry more frequently (because clothing gets filthy in minutes when I'm propelling); requiring the purchase of 4-5 pairs of thick-palmed gloves a year (because they get holes in quickly when I'm propelling) and many other things. We purchased my toilet frame (£150), my shower seat (£90), my banana board for transfers (£60) and paid for the installation of the electric hoist in the boot of my car (£1500 + an extra £500 when it needed moving from my old, dead car into the newer one in Jan 2024). I now require assistance to get ready for WORK in a morning, but to get carers to attend at a specific time, early enough to do this, I must pay a private agency £34 an hour. The council rate is £20 an hour but they cannot specify a visit time, it's anything from 08:00-10:30. How could I work in those circumstances?? These daily (5 days a week) costs have been the straw that broke the camel's back and I decided to start a PIP application. The experience so far has left me wishing myself dead, in all honesty. I feel like such an immense burden on my family and reading all of the history of it, reading Mr KC's testimony for the application and having endured the 2.5hr interrogation that misrepresented many things, has left me wondering what the point is of continuing. I've carried on working, pushing myself physically and mentally to breaking point, enduring long stretches in hospital (3wks in November 2024 most recently), I've paid a fuck ton of taxes and yet here I am, being told by the Government that I need to try harder. That I'm a scrounger. Lazy. Workshy. Etc. I read online commentary like on here and it just reaffirms what I assume people see when they see me out and about. They see a fat woman in a wheelchair and they assume I'm lazy. Workshy. That I brought my disability on myself. That I'm subhuman and deserve to be judged. Etc. For the record, my disability was caused by my pregnancy with my child who is now 8. Reliving the whole shitshow for the benefit of the DWP and effectively begging for a few quid to bridge the immense costs I've put up with this far has been horrific. Anyone who thinks claiming PIP is easy or preferable to being able to afford one's own life, is deluded to fuck. Absolutely deluded. It's as shit as I expected, and then some. I haven't even had an actual outcome yet, so haven't received a penny in PIP yet, this is having applied over 3 months ago. In that time, I obviously have to pay my care bill, which is costing over £600 a month. £600 a month to have 1hr a day of help to get washed and dressed. Bring it, anyone who wants to deny me the PIP I've applied for. That's people here, or the Govt. " I'm the other end of the spectrum, neurological disability, so it's unseen. So I'm a fake, lazy bastard. I'm at the tribunal stage. I applied in Oct 2023. You deserve it and this ❤️. I wish I was brave enough to tell my story and of my heartless employers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"PIP is nothing to do with being in or out of work. It's non means tested and intended to bridge the immense additional costs that being disabled generates. Research by the charity Scope shows that on average, disabled households need an additional £1,010 a month to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households. I held off claiming PIP for 8yrs after I first acquired disabilities, because frankly, I was embarrassed to claim it. I knew how much stress it would entail to claim and I didn't feel psychologically fit enough to go through all of the fighting and repeating very traumatic aspects of my life. However, I started an application in December 2024 because the additional costs of being disabled have become so great, that we can no longer afford them. We have paid every single penny of those additional costs from our own pockets, own income or through acquiring debt, to date. Some headline figures for my extra costs: £4500 for the active lifestyle wheelchair you can see in the profile pic. At the time I first required a wheelchair (to continue to work, among other reasons), I was turned down by NHS wheelchair services, because we lived in a house with stairs and they said they would not provide a wheelchair for mainly use outside of the house. I owe my employer for this, they fronted me the money, interest free. £2500 for an electric attachment to the manual chair, required from September 2024 when I needed hand/wrist surgery and couldn't self propel. Acquiring the electric add-on enabled me to return to WORK sooner. We paid for this with credit because we didn't have a spare £2500. £330,000 for an open plan bungalow, required because we did not qualify for a Disabled Facilities Grant to adapt our previous 3 bed semi with stairs, because we and I WORK. Our mortgage went from £750pm to £1500pm. We would not have moved house if it wasn't to accommodate my wheelchair use. Those are the biggies. We pay extra for all manner of things, including requiring a larger car (to get the wheelchair in); needing to do laundry more frequently (because clothing gets filthy in minutes when I'm propelling); requiring the purchase of 4-5 pairs of thick-palmed gloves a year (because they get holes in quickly when I'm propelling) and many other things. We purchased my toilet frame (£150), my shower seat (£90), my banana board for transfers (£60) and paid for the installation of the electric hoist in the boot of my car (£1500 + an extra £500 when it needed moving from my old, dead car into the newer one in Jan 2024). I now require assistance to get ready for WORK in a morning, but to get carers to attend at a specific time, early enough to do this, I must pay a private agency £34 an hour. The council rate is £20 an hour but they cannot specify a visit time, it's anything from 08:00-10:30. How could I work in those circumstances?? These daily (5 days a week) costs have been the straw that broke the camel's back and I decided to start a PIP application. The experience so far has left me wishing myself dead, in all honesty. I feel like such an immense burden on my family and reading all of the history of it, reading Mr KC's testimony for the application and having endured the 2.5hr interrogation that misrepresented many things, has left me wondering what the point is of continuing. I've carried on working, pushing myself physically and mentally to breaking point, enduring long stretches in hospital (3wks in November 2024 most recently), I've paid a fuck ton of taxes and yet here I am, being told by the Government that I need to try harder. That I'm a scrounger. Lazy. Workshy. Etc. I read online commentary like on here and it just reaffirms what I assume people see when they see me out and about. They see a fat woman in a wheelchair and they assume I'm lazy. Workshy. That I brought my disability on myself. That I'm subhuman and deserve to be judged. Etc. For the record, my disability was caused by my pregnancy with my child who is now 8. Reliving the whole shitshow for the benefit of the DWP and effectively begging for a few quid to bridge the immense costs I've put up with this far has been horrific. Anyone who thinks claiming PIP is easy or preferable to being able to afford one's own life, is deluded to fuck. Absolutely deluded. It's as shit as I expected, and then some. I haven't even had an actual outcome yet, so haven't received a penny in PIP yet, this is having applied over 3 months ago. In that time, I obviously have to pay my care bill, which is costing over £600 a month. £600 a month to have 1hr a day of help to get washed and dressed. Bring it, anyone who wants to deny me the PIP I've applied for. That's people here, or the Govt. I'm the other end of the spectrum, neurological disability, so it's unseen. So I'm a fake, lazy bastard. I'm at the tribunal stage. I applied in Oct 2023. You deserve it and this ❤️. I wish I was brave enough to tell my story and of my heartless employers." Oh and your comment about misrepresented interrogation - spot on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've said it before, cutting benefits actually contributes to killing the economy. When a person gets a benefits what's the first thing the do with it. The buy something, goods and services. Food shop, a cup of tea or coffee, a burger. A bus journey, petrol for the car. Gas, water and electric. Medicines. Disability aids. It's money going back into the economy. It's a myth it's draining the economy and is unsustainable. It's paying the wages and overheads of those providing the utilities goods and services. If anything the goverment should be putting the benefits up. So granny can buy two cups of char at the cafe a week instead of one. Thus helping the cafe survive. "So why not just put everyone on benefits then we could all support the economy in these ways. Even local pubs might he able to reopen if everyone was on benifits with cash to spend. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Universal Credit is meant to support people who would otherwise not be able to work. That as well as the National Living Wage. So many companies only hiring part time staff, who will not earn enough to get by on. Also some people with illnesses and disabilities often take jobs that nobody else wants. It’s open to abuse, unfortunately. But not as much as some of the other, older benefits. Why should the state support bad employers and those who can't be bothered to work?" The State has been supporting bad employers since the introduction of working tax credits. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Universal Credit is meant to support people who would otherwise not be able to work. That as well as the National Living Wage. So many companies only hiring part time staff, who will not earn enough to get by on. Also some people with illnesses and disabilities often take jobs that nobody else wants. It’s open to abuse, unfortunately. But not as much as some of the other, older benefits. Why should the state support bad employers and those who can't be bothered to work? The State has been supporting bad employers since the introduction of working tax credits." Zero legislation or inspection bodies have eradicated bad employers. In the absence of a plethora of good employers and good jobs, something has to be done. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I love the way that those who were absolutely blasting PIP and the rumoured cuts have totally ignored my post. " It is very intimidating to say something potentially inflammatory to someone in your position on a (community) forum like this. But if you did it on the open internet, you would have plenty of trolls looking to get a rise out of you. " Can't you say "cut PIP" to the e-face of a disabled, working person? " Cut PIP. Not yours, or people like you, for whom it was designed. There is a website called "benefitsandwork" (won't link it directly here) with a section entitled "Claim PIP for ADHD". It will walk you through how to get benefits for the disability of ADHD. Now, ADHD could, in theory, be truly debilitating for some people. Their website says: "In 2023, there were 52,989 PIP claimants with ADHD listed as their main disabling condition. This makes it the fourteenth most common condition to get an award of PIP for out of over 500 conditions listed by the DWP. So, if you have ADHD and it affects your daily living activities, such as cooking, washing, dressing or mixing with other people or your ability to get around, you should definitely consider making a claim.In 2023, there were 52,989 PIP claimants with ADHD listed as their main disabling condition. This makes it the fourteenth most common condition to get an award of PIP for out of over 500 conditions listed by the DWP. So, if you have ADHD and it affects your daily living activities, such as cooking, washing, dressing or mixing with other people or your ability to get around, you should definitely consider making a claim." Without saying so explicitly, it clearly gives you the "cheat sheet": "Our guide takes you through the PIP2 form, box-by-box, explaining the kind of information you need to put in each one. Being fully prepared for an assessment is vital too. Knowing what questions you are likely to be asked and what unspoken assumptions may be made based on your answers, unless you deal with them, can make all the difference. Our guide will ensure you are as ready as you possibly can be." Question for YOU: Are you satisfied that those 50-odd thousand claimants are as justified as your in receiving PIP? Do you feel it's fair to be in the same category as them? After reading your circumstances, very few people would take issue with your benefits. But many more might be concerned about people being encouraged to self-identify as ADHD, be given a step-by-step guide as to how to tick the correct boxes to make a claim and how to "pass the assessment". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Universal Credit is meant to support people who would otherwise not be able to work. That as well as the National Living Wage. So many companies only hiring part time staff, who will not earn enough to get by on. Also some people with illnesses and disabilities often take jobs that nobody else wants. It’s open to abuse, unfortunately. But not as much as some of the other, older benefits. Why should the state support bad employers and those who can't be bothered to work? The State has been supporting bad employers since the introduction of working tax credits." Exactly. These should all be abolished. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I love the way that those who were absolutely blasting PIP and the rumoured cuts have totally ignored my post. It is very intimidating to say something potentially inflammatory to someone in your position on a (community) forum like this. But if you did it on the open internet, you would have plenty of trolls looking to get a rise out of you. Can't you say "cut PIP" to the e-face of a disabled, working person? Cut PIP. Not yours, or people like you, for whom it was designed. There is a website called "benefitsandwork" (won't link it directly here) with a section entitled "Claim PIP for ADHD". It will walk you through how to get benefits for the disability of ADHD. Now, ADHD could, in theory, be truly debilitating for some people. Their website says: "In 2023, there were 52,989 PIP claimants with ADHD listed as their main disabling condition. This makes it the fourteenth most common condition to get an award of PIP for out of over 500 conditions listed by the DWP. So, if you have ADHD and it affects your daily living activities, such as cooking, washing, dressing or mixing with other people or your ability to get around, you should definitely consider making a claim.In 2023, there were 52,989 PIP claimants with ADHD listed as their main disabling condition. This makes it the fourteenth most common condition to get an award of PIP for out of over 500 conditions listed by the DWP. So, if you have ADHD and it affects your daily living activities, such as cooking, washing, dressing or mixing with other people or your ability to get around, you should definitely consider making a claim." Without saying so explicitly, it clearly gives you the "cheat sheet": "Our guide takes you through the PIP2 form, box-by-box, explaining the kind of information you need to put in each one. Being fully prepared for an assessment is vital too. Knowing what questions you are likely to be asked and what unspoken assumptions may be made based on your answers, unless you deal with them, can make all the difference. Our guide will ensure you are as ready as you possibly can be." Question for YOU: Are you satisfied that those 50-odd thousand claimants are as justified as your in receiving PIP? Do you feel it's fair to be in the same category as them? After reading your circumstances, very few people would take issue with your benefits. But many more might be concerned about people being encouraged to self-identify as ADHD, be given a step-by-step guide as to how to tick the correct boxes to make a claim and how to "pass the assessment"." For every person who has a genuine claim, there are many who don’t deserve any support at all. Some that the BBC used as examples include someone who “can’t leave the house after covid because she is scared of germs outside “ and another who has bad time management due to autism but still had a full time job as an air hostess. Both receive PIP. Neither should. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why should the state support bad employers and those who can't be bothered to work?" "The State has been supporting bad employers since the introduction of working tax credits." "Exactly. These should all be abolished." What are these bad employment practices that need to be stamped out? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why should the state support bad employers and those who can't be bothered to work? The State has been supporting bad employers since the introduction of working tax credits. Exactly. These should all be abolished. What are these bad employment practices that need to be stamped out?" It is the in work benefits which need to be abolished. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've said it before, cutting benefits actually contributes to killing the economy. When a person gets a benefits what's the first thing the do with it. The buy something, goods and services. Food shop, a cup of tea or coffee, a burger. A bus journey, petrol for the car. Gas, water and electric. Medicines. Disability aids. It's money going back into the economy. It's a myth it's draining the economy and is unsustainable. It's paying the wages and overheads of those providing the utilities goods and services. If anything the goverment should be putting the benefits up. So granny can buy two cups of char at the cafe a week instead of one. Thus helping the cafe survive.
So why not just put everyone on benefits then we could all support the economy in these ways.
Even local pubs might he able to reopen if everyone was on benifits with cash to spend."Benefits are there for those who are in need. If someone decides to live on benefits then the government's job who everyone pays tax is to encourage people back to work if they are capable. Where it's failing is there are only a small percentage of jobs that attract people and some employers mess their employees about. Amazon won't let you go to the toilet. Factories break safety rules. White collar jobs are still into dog eat dog work ethic from the 80's. The work place can be a minefield and for some people it's once bitten. I've seen people driven to nervous breakdowns, that's because of their job. That shouldn't be. The fact this country has so many capable people on benefits is a living indictment of the mess the employment and work place is in. Add on the polarised atmosphere after last summers riots hence no growth in the economy. The right don't want to work for the left and vice versa. Labour have dug themselves a hole by claiming a ficticious blackhole for the reason for cuts mainly to kill off the Conservatives for political points, now they can't get out of the real one they've now created by killing the economy. That's what happens when Labour government's believe their own bs. Like 1978. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why should the state support bad employers and those who can't be bothered to work? The State has been supporting bad employers since the introduction of working tax credits. Exactly. These should all be abolished. What are these bad employment practices that need to be stamped out? It is the in work benefits which need to be abolished." How would you house those families that can no longer afford their rent? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm assuming positive ADHD and mental health diagnosis has spiralled beyond it now being manageable financially and administratively. If we ever discover that there was fraud or wrong diagnoses, what is the correct action to prevent similar happening again? " ADHD totalling around 2.6 million people, with 694,000 children and 1.9 million adults In the 2022 survey, 28% of adults in England were obese and a further 36% were overweight, making a total of 64% who were either overweight or obese. Add three million on rehab and quarter million with smoking related illness. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why should the state support bad employers and those who can't be bothered to work? The State has been supporting bad employers since the introduction of working tax credits. Exactly. These should all be abolished. What are these bad employment practices that need to be stamped out? It is the in work benefits which need to be abolished." Which ones and why? Mrs xp | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have met Mrs KC and she is a remarkable person with huge mental and physical resources. On this issue she speaks with great knowledge and authority." Thanks, Leo. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not going to requote lengthy posts for brevity. I support anyone who has additional disability related costs in receiving PIP, whether they are in work or out of work. With reference to "cheat sheets" for things like ADHD, people claiming MIGHT have genuine reason, or they might not. The application process is deliberately complicated and lengthy and so getting advice from online sites is common for all applicants, genuine or not. Many people who apply are refused PIP, so simply making an application using online advice does it mean any actual money will be awarded. If my own experience to date is representative of the norm, I don't understand how it is possible to fraudulently claim PIP. The amount of medical and social evidence I had to submit was vast, going back years. The interrogation I under went was horrible and combative (deliberately). The "assessor" covertly followed us out of the assessment centre and watched me getting into the car, presumably to ascertain if I suddenly developed the ability to leap gracefully across the road. We were watched for the second we arrived and every aspect of my appearance ("casually dressed; of average build; normal complexion), which is utterly irrelevant, was presumably watched back from CCTV. Even my footwear was described in the introduction to the assessors report, which is requested a copy of. The report fundamentally misrepresents material presented from my doctors, OTs and a social worker. It misrepresents or misunderstands the medical letters supplied and totally ignores several items submitted, because it's convenient to the assessment outcome. Trust me when I say that the rumoured "reforms" WILL negatively impact people like me, because the system even as it is now, negatively impacts people like me. Just undergoing the application and in person assessment so far has genuinely been mentally very difficult. LeoBlooms has met me and knows my mental fortitude but this process is breaking me. Making it harder or more combative would result in people like me just giving up. I have little enough energy and health as it is and what little I do have, is not for the DWP to benefit from." The reason you face these challenges is fraud. Systems aren’t designed for people like you they are designed to catch the ones who exploit the system. Whether it’s PIP, going on holiday, or even supermarket shopping, the process has become about hindering the dishonest, rather than supporting the honest. Does PIP need to be this difficult? I don’t know, because I haven’t experienced it myself. But I do know I "resent" being treated as dishonest, daily / weekly by proving I paid for my shopping before a tag is removed from my steak or having to throw a bottle of water away at airport security, trivial things in the grand scheme of things but it makes me so angry so I can get why you would be so upset and distraught over the way you were / are treated. People are now treated as dishonest by default. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why should the state support bad employers and those who can't be bothered to work? The State has been supporting bad employers since the introduction of working tax credits. Exactly. These should all be abolished. What are these bad employment practices that need to be stamped out? It is the in work benefits which need to be abolished.Which ones and why? Mrs xp" All of them. Why should the state (i.e. those of us who pay in more than we receive) subsidise others who can’t be bothered to be self sufficient? Benefits should be a short term safety net for the occasional hard times that can happen to anyone. They should not be a way of life. And for those who say that people won’t bother to work at all, out of work benefits should (after a reasonable amount of time allowed to get a job, say 6 months) be increasingly difficult to get and intrusive to make people look after themselves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why should the state support bad employers and those who can't be bothered to work? The State has been supporting bad employers since the introduction of working tax credits. Exactly. These should all be abolished. What are these bad employment practices that need to be stamped out? It is the in work benefits which need to be abolished.Which ones and why? Mrs xp All of them. Why should the state (i.e. those of us who pay in more than we receive) subsidise others who can’t be bothered to be self sufficient? Benefits should be a short term safety net for the occasional hard times that can happen to anyone. They should not be a way of life. And for those who say that people won’t bother to work at all, out of work benefits should (after a reasonable amount of time allowed to get a job, say 6 months) be increasingly difficult to get and intrusive to make people look after themselves." So what about benefits to afford someone to live somewhere where the rent is exorbitant and the cost to purchase property is prohibitive, say London, what happens then? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why should the state support bad employers and those who can't be bothered to work? The State has been supporting bad employers since the introduction of working tax credits. Exactly. These should all be abolished. What are these bad employment practices that need to be stamped out? It is the in work benefits which need to be abolished.Which ones and why? Mrs xp All of them. Why should the state (i.e. those of us who pay in more than we receive) subsidise others who can’t be bothered to be self sufficient? Benefits should be a short term safety net for the occasional hard times that can happen to anyone. They should not be a way of life. And for those who say that people won’t bother to work at all, out of work benefits should (after a reasonable amount of time allowed to get a job, say 6 months) be increasingly difficult to get and intrusive to make people look after themselves.So what about benefits to afford someone to live somewhere where the rent is exorbitant and the cost to purchase property is prohibitive, say London, what happens then? Mrs x" So the state should subsidise landlord profits? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So the state should subsidise landlord profits?" The state has sold off over 2 million council houses and flats at one time discounts to tenants under right to buy. 75% of sales receipts had to repay central government loans. In addition governments of all colours have failed to rebuild social housing This is why two thirds of housing benefit now goes to the private rented sector. This problem starts and ends at Westminster | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why should the state support bad employers and those who can't be bothered to work? The State has been supporting bad employers since the introduction of working tax credits. Exactly. These should all be abolished. What are these bad employment practices that need to be stamped out? It is the in work benefits which need to be abolished.Which ones and why? Mrs xp All of them. Why should the state (i.e. those of us who pay in more than we receive) subsidise others who can’t be bothered to be self sufficient? Benefits should be a short term safety net for the occasional hard times that can happen to anyone. They should not be a way of life. And for those who say that people won’t bother to work at all, out of work benefits should (after a reasonable amount of time allowed to get a job, say 6 months) be increasingly difficult to get and intrusive to make people look after themselves.So what about benefits to afford someone to live somewhere where the rent is exorbitant and the cost to purchase property is prohibitive, say London, what happens then? Mrs x So the state should subsidise landlord profits?" I never said that did I. So you are saying what and why something should be removed but have no idea what to replace them with because like it or not they are needed. You, like us, live in the Northwest with much more affordable housing costs, which are still way to high. People living modest lives in the South East may need help towards accomodation costs due to market factors but you wouldn't help them, so what next, you okay with more homelessness? What about Child Benefit? Should that be abolished because you can claim that whilst working? Child Tax Credit too, scrap that? People, genuine working people, need help but you'd deny them that, why? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never said that did I. So you are saying what and why something should be removed but have no idea what to replace them with because like it or not they are needed. You, like us, live in the Northwest with much more affordable housing costs, which are still way to high. People living modest lives in the South East may need help towards accomodation costs due to market factors but you wouldn't help them, so what next, you okay with more homelessness? What about Child Benefit? Should that be abolished because you can claim that whilst working? Child Tax Credit too, scrap that? People, genuine working people, need help but you'd deny them that, why? Mrs x" No, I wouldn’t help people to live in a certain area. If they can’t afford to live there, live somewhere else. Market forces will soon equalise prices if (say) London can’t get the workers to function. I can’t see why people are so attached to an area. Move to where the work pays for the standard of living you want. As for child benefit and tax credit, again why should we pay for someone else’s rugrats? The biggest problem in this country regarding cost of living is the cost of housing. Another poster was correct about right to buy being a bad idea as the houses were never replaced. We also have population growth at unprecedented levels and a general lack of new housing being built, particularly affordable houses. Most of that is due to poor choices from politicians, and they continue to make poor choices bankrupting the country subsidising the status quo. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not going to requote lengthy posts for brevity. I support anyone who has additional disability related costs in receiving PIP, whether they are in work or out of work. With reference to "cheat sheets" for things like ADHD, people claiming MIGHT have genuine reason, or they might not. The application process is deliberately complicated and lengthy and so getting advice from online sites is common for all applicants, genuine or not. Many people who apply are refused PIP, so simply making an application using online advice does it mean any actual money will be awarded. If my own experience to date is representative of the norm, I don't understand how it is possible to fraudulently claim PIP. The amount of medical and social evidence I had to submit was vast, going back years. The interrogation I under went was horrible and combative (deliberately). The "assessor" covertly followed us out of the assessment centre and watched me getting into the car, presumably to ascertain if I suddenly developed the ability to leap gracefully across the road. We were watched for the second we arrived and every aspect of my appearance ("casually dressed; of average build; normal complexion), which is utterly irrelevant, was presumably watched back from CCTV. Even my footwear was described in the introduction to the assessors report, which is requested a copy of. The report fundamentally misrepresents material presented from my doctors, OTs and a social worker. It misrepresents or misunderstands the medical letters supplied and totally ignores several items submitted, because it's convenient to the assessment outcome. Trust me when I say that the rumoured "reforms" WILL negatively impact people like me, because the system even as it is now, negatively impacts people like me. Just undergoing the application and in person assessment so far has genuinely been mentally very difficult. LeoBlooms has met me and knows my mental fortitude but this process is breaking me. Making it harder or more combative would result in people like me just giving up. I have little enough energy and health as it is and what little I do have, is not for the DWP to benefit from." 
I think it's a disservice that took many so, typically when they've little or no experience of people with disabilities and the horrific ordeals that you go through, in systems that are deliberately established to make things tougher than they reasonably need to be. The high success rate of those who get denied meager benefits, following appeals that they made, is tantamount proof that it's a grossly unfair and inappropriately harsh system. All parties that have sought or want to make things this bad or harder, should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves and be unfit to serve the public. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why should the state support bad employers and those who can't be bothered to work? The State has been supporting bad employers since the introduction of working tax credits. Exactly. These should all be abolished. What are these bad employment practices that need to be stamped out? It is the in work benefits which need to be abolished.Which ones and why? Mrs xp All of them. Why should the state (i.e. those of us who pay in more than we receive) subsidise others who can’t be bothered to be self sufficient? Benefits should be a short term safety net for the occasional hard times that can happen to anyone. They should not be a way of life. And for those who say that people won’t bother to work at all, out of work benefits should (after a reasonable amount of time allowed to get a job, say 6 months) be increasingly difficult to get and intrusive to make people look after themselves." Did you read my original contribution? I work. I have always worked and pay plenty of tax. But to just exist on the most basic level with a disability is costing me, pun intended, an arm and a leg more than for someone non disabled. I know this because just over 8yrs ago, I was not disabled and I didn't have to think about such things. I cannot afford, and frankly resent having to try and afford, basic items that enable me to live something resembling a normal life and yes, to work. Without buying my wheelchair, I would not be working. Without the assistance from carers to get ready for work, neither me nor my husband would either work or be able to work FT anymore. This discussion was about disability related benefits, but as with every discussion about benefits, it's quickly derailed into a rant about free market economics and state support at large. Try being disabled. Try requiring all of these extra costs and then come back and tell me that you can afford it on your regular salary. It's not because I don't work hard. It's not because I'm lazy. It's not because I want to be reliant on PIP - the fact I refused to claim for 8yrs but now the costs are so great that it's PIP or frankly suicide for me. I cannot continue to burden my family so much. I really can't. It's that big of a thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This discussion was about disability related benefits, but as with every It's not because I don't work hard. It's not because I'm lazy. It's not because I want to be reliant on PIP - the fact I refused to claim for 8yrs but now the costs are so great that it's PIP or frankly suicide for me. I cannot continue to burden my family so much. I really can't. It's that big of a thing. " Perhaps you should get direct tax breaks. Perhaps your carers or equipment should be free or subsidised entirely. Not a single person on this thread (hopefully) believes that your should receive less. But the method of delivery of funds is broken. You yourself realise this, at least from its degrading requirements and process. The cure isn't to throw more resources at it, but to somehow figure out a smarter system that gives more to those who need (you), and less to those who (genuinely) don't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This discussion was about disability related benefits, but as with every It's not because I don't work hard. It's not because I'm lazy. It's not because I want to be reliant on PIP - the fact I refused to claim for 8yrs but now the costs are so great that it's PIP or frankly suicide for me. I cannot continue to burden my family so much. I really can't. It's that big of a thing. Perhaps you should get direct tax breaks. Perhaps your carers or equipment should be free or subsidised entirely. Not a single person on this thread (hopefully) believes that your should receive less. But the method of delivery of funds is broken. You yourself realise this, at least from its degrading requirements and process. The cure isn't to throw more resources at it, but to somehow figure out a smarter system that gives more to those who need (you), and less to those who (genuinely) don't." Agreed. This would be a perfect project for the government AI push difficult, yes, but not unachievable. The system and processes need to be smarter, ensuring support for those who genuinely need it without unnecessary bureaucracy or inefficiency. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why should the state support bad employers and those who can't be bothered to work? The State has been supporting bad employers since the introduction of working tax credits. Exactly. These should all be abolished. What are these bad employment practices that need to be stamped out? It is the in work benefits which need to be abolished.Which ones and why? Mrs xp All of them. Why should the state (i.e. those of us who pay in more than we receive) subsidise others who can’t be bothered to be self sufficient? Benefits should be a short term safety net for the occasional hard times that can happen to anyone. They should not be a way of life. And for those who say that people won’t bother to work at all, out of work benefits should (after a reasonable amount of time allowed to get a job, say 6 months) be increasingly difficult to get and intrusive to make people look after themselves. Did you read my original contribution? I work. I have always worked and pay plenty of tax. But to just exist on the most basic level with a disability is costing me, pun intended, an arm and a leg more than for someone non disabled. I know this because just over 8yrs ago, I was not disabled and I didn't have to think about such things. I cannot afford, and frankly resent having to try and afford, basic items that enable me to live something resembling a normal life and yes, to work. Without buying my wheelchair, I would not be working. Without the assistance from carers to get ready for work, neither me nor my husband would either work or be able to work FT anymore. This discussion was about disability related benefits, but as with every discussion about benefits, it's quickly derailed into a rant about free market economics and state support at large. Try being disabled. Try requiring all of these extra costs and then come back and tell me that you can afford it on your regular salary. It's not because I don't work hard. It's not because I'm lazy. It's not because I want to be reliant on PIP - the fact I refused to claim for 8yrs but now the costs are so great that it's PIP or frankly suicide for me. I cannot continue to burden my family so much. I really can't. It's that big of a thing. " I did read your post and replied to it highlighting the number of spurious claims made for every genuine one. Then the thread went off at a bit of a tangent. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This discussion was about disability related benefits, but as with every It's not because I don't work hard. It's not because I'm lazy. It's not because I want to be reliant on PIP - the fact I refused to claim for 8yrs but now the costs are so great that it's PIP or frankly suicide for me. I cannot continue to burden my family so much. I really can't. It's that big of a thing. Perhaps you should get direct tax breaks. Perhaps your carers or equipment should be free or subsidised entirely. Not a single person on this thread (hopefully) believes that your should receive less. But the method of delivery of funds is broken. You yourself realise this, at least from its degrading requirements and process. The cure isn't to throw more resources at it, but to somehow figure out a smarter system that gives more to those who need (you), and less to those who (genuinely) don't." Maybe. But none of what you've written is what's being proposed. That's the nub of the problem. And by people reducing the conversation to "benefit are bad", then we lose any sense of WHY these benefits exist in the first place. And I can assure you that there are plenty of people who think there should be zero state benefits or support for people with disabilities and that it should just be Hunger Games esque. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This discussion was about disability related benefits, but as with every It's not because I don't work hard. It's not because I'm lazy. It's not because I want to be reliant on PIP - the fact I refused to claim for 8yrs but now the costs are so great that it's PIP or frankly suicide for me. I cannot continue to burden my family so much. I really can't. It's that big of a thing. Perhaps you should get direct tax breaks. Perhaps your carers or equipment should be free or subsidised entirely. Not a single person on this thread (hopefully) believes that your should receive less. But the method of delivery of funds is broken. You yourself realise this, at least from its degrading requirements and process. The cure isn't to throw more resources at it, but to somehow figure out a smarter system that gives more to those who need (you), and less to those who (genuinely) don't. Agreed. This would be a perfect project for the government AI push difficult, yes, but not unachievable. The system and processes need to be smarter, ensuring support for those who genuinely need it without unnecessary bureaucracy or inefficiency." The notion of AI tools trying to decipher the extent to which I need help to wash below the waist, or put on my knickers or use an intermittent catheter is infinitely more terrifying than the ill qualified woman who I spent 2.5hrs with in mid-February. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never said that did I. So you are saying what and why something should be removed but have no idea what to replace them with because like it or not they are needed. You, like us, live in the Northwest with much more affordable housing costs, which are still way to high. People living modest lives in the South East may need help towards accomodation costs due to market factors but you wouldn't help them, so what next, you okay with more homelessness? What about Child Benefit? Should that be abolished because you can claim that whilst working? Child Tax Credit too, scrap that? People, genuine working people, need help but you'd deny them that, why? Mrs x No, I wouldn’t help people to live in a certain area. If they can’t afford to live there, live somewhere else. Market forces will soon equalise prices if (say) London can’t get the workers to function. I can’t see why people are so attached to an area. Move to where the work pays for the standard of living you want. As for child benefit and tax credit, again why should we pay for someone else’s rugrats? The biggest problem in this country regarding cost of living is the cost of housing. Another poster was correct about right to buy being a bad idea as the houses were never replaced. We also have population growth at unprecedented levels and a general lack of new housing being built, particularly affordable houses. Most of that is due to poor choices from politicians, and they continue to make poor choices bankrupting the country subsidising the status quo." OK so let's look at it from the opposite perspective. If government has allowed these problems to come into place, by not controlling the markets, by not enforcing decent standards of wages and living then surely it's tge governments responsibility to rectify this. To look after the citizens should by the primary concern of any government. As you say if you don't like the system due to the pressures of where you live then ultimately you can choose to relocate. Just like you, if you don't like the system you can relocate to somewhere more aligned with your ideals, maybe abroad, somewhere without a benefit system to catch those in need. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pensioners, farmers, and now the disabled. " Exactly alot of haters towards him | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why should the state (i.e. those of us who pay in more than we receive) subsidise others who can’t be bothered to be self sufficient? Benefits should be a short term safety net for the occasional hard times that can happen to anyone. They should not be a way of life. " Many people pay in for years of being in good health and paying their dues with being employed but life has a habit of literally out of the blue changing ones health to such a degree that a person needs support through jk fault of their own.. Sometimes for some and I speak as a family member to a loved one who has lost their house, mobility and income and it's not an 'occasional issue' it's the rest of their life .. If we are anything of any substance as a society we look after people in their hardest times most of us know zilch about.. For those who are capable but don't contribute and defraud the rest of us and the system I have zero affinity and they should be dealt with but they requires enough staff to do so and we don't have that.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why should the state (i.e. those of us who pay in more than we receive) subsidise others who can’t be bothered to be self sufficient? Benefits should be a short term safety net for the occasional hard times that can happen to anyone. They should not be a way of life. Many people pay in for years of being in good health and paying their dues with being employed but life has a habit of literally out of the blue changing ones health to such a degree that a person needs support through jk fault of their own.. Sometimes for some and I speak as a family member to a loved one who has lost their house, mobility and income and it's not an 'occasional issue' it's the rest of their life .. If we are anything of any substance as a society we look after people in their hardest times most of us know zilch about.. For those who are capable but don't contribute and defraud the rest of us and the system I have zero affinity and they should be dealt with but they requires enough staff to do so and we don't have that.." Well said, there but for the grace of God, we have a responsibikity to pick up those unfortunate to have fallen, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This discussion was about disability related benefits, but as with every It's not because I don't work hard. It's not because I'm lazy. It's not because I want to be reliant on PIP - the fact I refused to claim for 8yrs but now the costs are so great that it's PIP or frankly suicide for me. I cannot continue to burden my family so much. I really can't. It's that big of a thing. Perhaps you should get direct tax breaks. Perhaps your carers or equipment should be free or subsidised entirely. Not a single person on this thread (hopefully) believes that your should receive less. But the method of delivery of funds is broken. You yourself realise this, at least from its degrading requirements and process. The cure isn't to throw more resources at it, but to somehow figure out a smarter system that gives more to those who need (you), and less to those who (genuinely) don't. Agreed. This would be a perfect project for the government AI push difficult, yes, but not unachievable. The system and processes need to be smarter, ensuring support for those who genuinely need it without unnecessary bureaucracy or inefficiency. The notion of AI tools trying to decipher the extent to which I need help to wash below the waist, or put on my knickers or use an intermittent catheter is infinitely more terrifying than the ill qualified woman who I spent 2.5hrs with in mid-February. " It might be now, however if implemented correctly it could remove the unnecessary questioning you wrote about earlier. The logic and reasoning would be consistent and the ability to pull your data from many sources to instantly complete applications would also remove waiting times that cause a lot of anxiety. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pensioners, farmers, and now the disabled. " These policies are what Labour used to complain about and vote against when it was the nasty Tories making the proposals | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pensioners, farmers, and now the disabled. These policies are what Labour used to complain about and vote against when it was the nasty Tories making the proposals" True.. The reality of being in power and the choices to be made rather than sound bites.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
Fuck me sideways with a shovel
If I laugh any harder, my uterus will fall out | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This discussion was about disability related benefits, but as with every It's not because I don't work hard. It's not because I'm lazy. It's not because I want to be reliant on PIP - the fact I refused to claim for 8yrs but now the costs are so great that it's PIP or frankly suicide for me. I cannot continue to burden my family so much. I really can't. It's that big of a thing. Perhaps you should get direct tax breaks. Perhaps your carers or equipment should be free or subsidised entirely. Not a single person on this thread (hopefully) believes that your should receive less. But the method of delivery of funds is broken. You yourself realise this, at least from its degrading requirements and process. The cure isn't to throw more resources at it, but to somehow figure out a smarter system that gives more to those who need (you), and less to those who (genuinely) don't." Having watched Wes Streeting on Sunday with LK, it would appear that they want to look at those claiming PIP through mental health. He feels there is an over diagnosis of mental health problems. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know what they say,what is meant for you wont pass you by" Perhaps you could tell the assessors at Maximus about this little saying?! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know what they say,what is meant for you wont pass you by Perhaps you could tell the assessors at Maximus about this little saying?! "Yes well trying to look at the funny side of it,life has become a joke full circle really lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This discussion was about disability related benefits, but as with every It's not because I don't work hard. It's not because I'm lazy. It's not because I want to be reliant on PIP - the fact I refused to claim for 8yrs but now the costs are so great that it's PIP or frankly suicide for me. I cannot continue to burden my family so much. I really can't. It's that big of a thing. Perhaps you should get direct tax breaks. Perhaps your carers or equipment should be free or subsidised entirely. Not a single person on this thread (hopefully) believes that your should receive less. But the method of delivery of funds is broken. You yourself realise this, at least from its degrading requirements and process. The cure isn't to throw more resources at it, but to somehow figure out a smarter system that gives more to those who need (you), and less to those who (genuinely) don't. Having watched Wes Streeting on Sunday with LK, it would appear that they want to look at those claiming PIP through mental health. He feels there is an over diagnosis of mental health problems." 2.6 million apparently, approximately 708,000 children and 1.9 million adults with ADHD in a first world country. That’s more than the entire population of Gaza who are bombed daily, with little food or meds and homes destroyed. Can these figures be taken as correct. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This discussion was about disability related benefits, but as with every It's not because I don't work hard. It's not because I'm lazy. It's not because I want to be reliant on PIP - the fact I refused to claim for 8yrs but now the costs are so great that it's PIP or frankly suicide for me. I cannot continue to burden my family so much. I really can't. It's that big of a thing. Perhaps you should get direct tax breaks. Perhaps your carers or equipment should be free or subsidised entirely. Not a single person on this thread (hopefully) believes that your should receive less. But the method of delivery of funds is broken. You yourself realise this, at least from its degrading requirements and process. The cure isn't to throw more resources at it, but to somehow figure out a smarter system that gives more to those who need (you), and less to those who (genuinely) don't. Having watched Wes Streeting on Sunday with LK, it would appear that they want to look at those claiming PIP through mental health. He feels there is an over diagnosis of mental health problems. 2.6 million apparently, approximately 708,000 children and 1.9 million adults with ADHD in a first world country. That’s more than the entire population of Gaza who are bombed daily, with little food or meds and homes destroyed. Can these figures be taken as correct. " On a lighter note, that is a quite a lot of diagnosis by doctors and or psychiatrist, by the laws of average there has to be misdiagnosis of the condition and people gaming the system including health care providers, on an even lighter note when I was in my 20's a chap 'straw knob' walking into the local library in his red underpants they carted him off back on the streets in a few days with his dole money doubled and he only did it the once.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know what they say,what is meant for you wont pass you by Perhaps you could tell the assessors at Maximus about this little saying?!
Yes well trying to look at the funny side of it,life has become a joke full circle really lol"It's hard to find anything funny when you find yourself working to mainly pay for your essential disability equipment and somewhat accessible bungalow, but in doing so, are working yourself into the ground even more. But according to the Govt and many in society, I'm still not working hard enough. Ha ha. He he. Hilarious. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know what they say,what is meant for you wont pass you by Perhaps you could tell the assessors at Maximus about this little saying?!
Yes well trying to look at the funny side of it,life has become a joke full circle really lol
It's hard to find anything funny when you find yourself working to mainly pay for your essential disability equipment and somewhat accessible bungalow, but in doing so, are working yourself into the ground even more. But according to the Govt and many in society, I'm still not working hard enough.
Ha ha. He he. Hilarious. "To be fair, when people think of benefit claimants they think work shy/scroungers, even though there are many benefits, as I've listed on this thread. You definitely aren't. I can only work part-time after which I resemble a d*unk person. I'm more likely to get judged. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think that Labour needs to make changes to the benefits system. I think one of the more palatable ways of looking at the disability benefits is to say those that can provide medical evidence of a certain condition takes preference over self diagnosis. It's hard to 'fake' medical tests, x-rays, ct scans, MRIs, blood tests etc. Eligibility should be dependant upon this and not someone just saying they have a condition because they 'feel' they have something. If evidence is available then you should just be able to supply this and then not need an assessment, it could all be corroborated through medical reports. If you have no actual medical evidence then go through an assessment process. It's only like 'means tested' benefits were you have to supply evidence of income when asked to. It's already distressing enough being disabled without having to prove it over and over again, your medical records already show this. This should be so easy to implement, whatever government is in power should do this. Mrs x" PIP is not awarded on disability or proof of disability, but the help needed due to the disability. And it's certainly not based on self diagnosis. They could possibly ask for evidence before assessing the person though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think that Labour needs to make changes to the benefits system. I think one of the more palatable ways of looking at the disability benefits is to say those that can provide medical evidence of a certain condition takes preference over self diagnosis. It's hard to 'fake' medical tests, x-rays, ct scans, MRIs, blood tests etc. Eligibility should be dependant upon this and not someone just saying they have a condition because they 'feel' they have something. If evidence is available then you should just be able to supply this and then not need an assessment, it could all be corroborated through medical reports. If you have no actual medical evidence then go through an assessment process. It's only like 'means tested' benefits were you have to supply evidence of income when asked to. It's already distressing enough being disabled without having to prove it over and over again, your medical records already show this. This should be so easy to implement, whatever government is in power should do this. Mrs x PIP is not awarded on disability or proof of disability, but the help needed due to the disability. And it's certainly not based on self diagnosis. They could possibly ask for evidence before assessing the person though. " Interesting. I can see how a change in PIP would support people with physical disabilities that are medically proven by speeding up the process. However, I'm guessing mental health can be as hard to disprove as a bad back, if a person is fraudulent and well versed. Everything would then hinge on the ongoing support for that person. How would any change in PIP change this outcome, and still support those that are genuine? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think that Labour needs to make changes to the benefits system. I think one of the more palatable ways of looking at the disability benefits is to say those that can provide medical evidence of a certain condition takes preference over self diagnosis. It's hard to 'fake' medical tests, x-rays, ct scans, MRIs, blood tests etc. Eligibility should be dependant upon this and not someone just saying they have a condition because they 'feel' they have something. If evidence is available then you should just be able to supply this and then not need an assessment, it could all be corroborated through medical reports. If you have no actual medical evidence then go through an assessment process. It's only like 'means tested' benefits were you have to supply evidence of income when asked to. It's already distressing enough being disabled without having to prove it over and over again, your medical records already show this. This should be so easy to implement, whatever government is in power should do this. Mrs x" You cannot currently claim PIP or any other sickness or disability related benefit without evidence from actual medical diagnosis. This idea that people are self diagnosing and then rinsing the State for thousands of pounds is simply bulls***. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think that Labour needs to make changes to the benefits system. I think one of the more palatable ways of looking at the disability benefits is to say those that can provide medical evidence of a certain condition takes preference over self diagnosis. It's hard to 'fake' medical tests, x-rays, ct scans, MRIs, blood tests etc. Eligibility should be dependant upon this and not someone just saying they have a condition because they 'feel' they have something. If evidence is available then you should just be able to supply this and then not need an assessment, it could all be corroborated through medical reports. If you have no actual medical evidence then go through an assessment process. It's only like 'means tested' benefits were you have to supply evidence of income when asked to. It's already distressing enough being disabled without having to prove it over and over again, your medical records already show this. This should be so easy to implement, whatever government is in power should do this. Mrs x PIP is not awarded on disability or proof of disability, but the help needed due to the disability. And it's certainly not based on self diagnosis. They could possibly ask for evidence before assessing the person though. " Sorry but as far as I was aware PIP is based upon having a disability or health condition that impacts on your daily living. In fact when making an award it states that the decision was come to based upon a number of factors, the first one being the 'How your disability affects you' form. This section of the form is section 3 and is by far the largest part of the initial assessment form going from page 13 to p 39 of the 44 page document. This is a direct quote from an award letter page 2 of 6. Of the 5 further bullet points, explaining how the assessor came to their decision all of them referenced the evidence, or proof of disability, from medical professionals this person, was or had been under, so they do ask for proof of health conditions and disabilities. As for proof of disability this is mentioned at various points within the initial form and you are reminded again on page 40 of 44 to 'Remember to include your supporting evidence'. This is in section 4 'What happens next'. So I know there isn't a list of 'approved' disabilities to be awarded PIP. However the starting point is you have a disability or a health condition that impacts your daily life. It's this impact on your life that's assessed but you must have a disability or health condition initially. As for the self diagnosis, I have read and heard about people claiming they have conditions such as ADHD. Now I'm not denigrating sufferers of this condition if they need help they should get it. However are one poster on this thread pointed out there are websites advising people what to say and do in order to gain an award by saying they have ADHD. This i think suggests that they are playing the system because if they had a medical diagnosis and supporting medical evidence then they wouldn't need use of such 'cheat' website services. They would simply be advised to fill out the form and send of their evidence. I'm only using ADHD as one example but I've heard of more cases involving other mental issues such as anxiety and depression, with other similar websites and online tutorials being available. Again I'm not saying these issues aren't debilitating and if you have a diagnosis and evidence then all well and good. It's a shit system that could be so much simpler if integrated with a claimants medical team. Hope they get it sorted. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think that Labour needs to make changes to the benefits system. I think one of the more palatable ways of looking at the disability benefits is to say those that can provide medical evidence of a certain condition takes preference over self diagnosis. It's hard to 'fake' medical tests, x-rays, ct scans, MRIs, blood tests etc. Eligibility should be dependant upon this and not someone just saying they have a condition because they 'feel' they have something. If evidence is available then you should just be able to supply this and then not need an assessment, it could all be corroborated through medical reports. If you have no actual medical evidence then go through an assessment process. It's only like 'means tested' benefits were you have to supply evidence of income when asked to. It's already distressing enough being disabled without having to prove it over and over again, your medical records already show this. This should be so easy to implement, whatever government is in power should do this. Mrs x PIP is not awarded on disability or proof of disability, but the help needed due to the disability. And it's certainly not based on self diagnosis. They could possibly ask for evidence before assessing the person though. Interesting. I can see how a change in PIP would support people with physical disabilities that are medically proven by speeding up the process. However, I'm guessing mental health can be as hard to disprove as a bad back, if a person is fraudulent and well versed. Everything would then hinge on the ongoing support for that person. How would any change in PIP change this outcome, and still support those that are genuine? " They have improved in the respect a nurse assesses claimants. Before it was a layperson (and mine didn't know the difference between a hospital and community nurse, or that a brain injury did not necessarily affect the intellect. Oh and the judgement!!!!!! Evidence comes in various forms. The most common being reports from HCPs. Sometimes the reports are not helpful. Like them asking a GP from my local practice who has never had any dealings with me about my activities of daily living (so assumes they are OK, even though in my notes will be letters from my OT and neurorehab consultants, and neuropsychology). So cos this fits in them not wanting to pay out, overrides the copious evidence from regular sessions with OT and neurorehab. It's a DWP person who makes the final decision. The mandatory reconsideration is a waste of time. Then it's to court. How can they improve it? God knows. My HCPs know people who have less wrong than I, and less needs, who have got it. It's a fight. Unlike the poster here, she'll get it, I cannot afford to get private carers, working part-time. Social services won't provide them because my needs fluctuate from blob to capable. And being capable turns me into a blob.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think that Labour needs to make changes to the benefits system. I think one of the more palatable ways of looking at the disability benefits is to say those that can provide medical evidence of a certain condition takes preference over self diagnosis. It's hard to 'fake' medical tests, x-rays, ct scans, MRIs, blood tests etc. Eligibility should be dependant upon this and not someone just saying they have a condition because they 'feel' they have something. If evidence is available then you should just be able to supply this and then not need an assessment, it could all be corroborated through medical reports. If you have no actual medical evidence then go through an assessment process. It's only like 'means tested' benefits were you have to supply evidence of income when asked to. It's already distressing enough being disabled without having to prove it over and over again, your medical records already show this. This should be so easy to implement, whatever government is in power should do this. Mrs x PIP is not awarded on disability or proof of disability, but the help needed due to the disability. And it's certainly not based on self diagnosis. They could possibly ask for evidence before assessing the person though. Sorry but as far as I was aware PIP is based upon having a disability or health condition that impacts on your daily living. In fact when making an award it states that the decision was come to based upon a number of factors, the first one being the 'How your disability affects you' form. This section of the form is section 3 and is by far the largest part of the initial assessment form going from page 13 to p 39 of the 44 page document. This is a direct quote from an award letter page 2 of 6. Of the 5 further bullet points, explaining how the assessor came to their decision all of them referenced the evidence, or proof of disability, from medical professionals this person, was or had been under, so they do ask for proof of health conditions and disabilities. As for proof of disability this is mentioned at various points within the initial form and you are reminded again on page 40 of 44 to 'Remember to include your supporting evidence'. This is in section 4 'What happens next'. So I know there isn't a list of 'approved' disabilities to be awarded PIP. However the starting point is you have a disability or a health condition that impacts your daily life. It's this impact on your life that's assessed but you must have a disability or health condition initially. As for the self diagnosis, I have read and heard about people claiming they have conditions such as ADHD. Now I'm not denigrating sufferers of this condition if they need help they should get it. However are one poster on this thread pointed out there are websites advising people what to say and do in order to gain an award by saying they have ADHD. This i think suggests that they are playing the system because if they had a medical diagnosis and supporting medical evidence then they wouldn't need use of such 'cheat' website services. They would simply be advised to fill out the form and send of their evidence. I'm only using ADHD as one example but I've heard of more cases involving other mental issues such as anxiety and depression, with other similar websites and online tutorials being available. Again I'm not saying these issues aren't debilitating and if you have a diagnosis and evidence then all well and good. It's a shit system that could be so much simpler if integrated with a claimants medical team. Hope they get it sorted. Mrs x" Your first paragraph after mine - yes we agree. I didn't read about the claim form as I know it from experience. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think that Labour needs to make changes to the benefits system. I think one of the more palatable ways of looking at the disability benefits is to say those that can provide medical evidence of a certain condition takes preference over self diagnosis. It's hard to 'fake' medical tests, x-rays, ct scans, MRIs, blood tests etc. Eligibility should be dependant upon this and not someone just saying they have a condition because they 'feel' they have something. If evidence is available then you should just be able to supply this and then not need an assessment, it could all be corroborated through medical reports. If you have no actual medical evidence then go through an assessment process. It's only like 'means tested' benefits were you have to supply evidence of income when asked to. It's already distressing enough being disabled without having to prove it over and over again, your medical records already show this. This should be so easy to implement, whatever government is in power should do this. Mrs x You cannot currently claim PIP or any other sickness or disability related benefit without evidence from actual medical diagnosis. This idea that people are self diagnosing and then rinsing the State for thousands of pounds is simply bulls***. " Sorry but I've just explained that PIP is awarded on disability, evidence of it and is assessed on how it impacts your daily living. As for self diagnosis, I'm talking about conditions you, me or anyone could go and see our GP about. Say anxiety or depression. In most cases you describe to the GP your symptoms and come away with a prescription in the main. An anti depressant is normally the first point of treatment. So now an individual has a 'medical' diagnosis and that satisfies the first criteria for claiming PIP. You then just need to describe how it impacts you sufficiently to possibly be in line for an award. Unlike yourself, who has substantial evidence of your disability these people don't necessarily. Where you can prove your conditions, the effects and duration it will have upon you, some of these claimants can't. What about the effects of any medication given to these people for their condition. In some cases they should improve, or why else prescribe them. So in genuine debilitating examples of course they should recieve the full support of the system. But this means going through the system, seeing other medical professionals, who concur that they have a debilitating condition. It's those that have been the GP feeling 'low' or down that then immediately make a claim that's an issue. That's what I mean by self diagnosing themselves, if you ho into the GPs and say you feel your depressed that's what you may be doing. That's the problem I think, I'm not sure how big a problem it is and it should definitely not impact the genuine disabled people who need all the help they can get. That's why if they are going to change the system then eligibility is the first thing they should look at. Saying this does not mean I'm not sympathetic to what you've been through but things need changing, how that happens we will have to wait and see. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just reading some of the testimony’s online regarding the fear this is causing. Those people and the candid disclosure in this thread have my respect for what tiny value it’s worth. I was completely unaware that ADHD and Autism are grounds for PIP so if PIP and those conditions make it through unscathed I am making a claim and anyone with an issue with that can kiss my beautiful disabled behind. "If your autism and or ADHD have a negative impact on your ability to complete the daily living tasks listed in the PIP descriptors, or impact your mobility (including ability to make, plan and execute a journey) then yes, you might be eligible. The idea of PIP is to bridge the extra costs incurred due to disability. For an autistic person, that might mean needing to use taxis (expensive) because public transport is a no-go. Etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my PIP assessment, I recounted the substantial mental health impact of my acquisition of disability, because I was asked about it at length by the assessor. Note that I did NOT claim that my mental health problems affected my daily living or mobility, I simply disclosed the facts via the letters from my consultant's and GPs etc. So, evidence of suicidal thoughts, several courses of counselling over the past 8yrs, which required a lot of hoops to be negotiated before being eligible, were pored over by the ASSESSOR. She made me recount immensely difficult things that had absolutely no relation to the application I had made, namely, that my PHYSICAL disabilities impact my ability to do daily living tasks and with my mobility. Why do we think she did that? Why did she keep asking over and over? Why did my mental health, which was not something I wrote about as a barrier, but is obviously mentioned in my medical history, focused on so thoroughly? When I tried to focus on the actual physical problems, the assessor claimed not to be aware of the specific issues that cause my physical disabilities, despite the diagnoses being clearly written in a chronological table on the same page as the diagnosis of mental health difficulties. Why? I know why I think this happened, but I'll leave the learnéd people here to decide. " It's because the system is designed to be difficult, is administered by those trying to exclude rather than help and some assessments are carried out by individuals with no medical experience, it stinks, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my PIP assessment, I recounted the substantial mental health impact of my acquisition of disability, because I was asked about it at length by the assessor. Note that I did NOT claim that my mental health problems affected my daily living or mobility, I simply disclosed the facts via the letters from my consultant's and GPs etc. So, evidence of suicidal thoughts, several courses of counselling over the past 8yrs, which required a lot of hoops to be negotiated before being eligible, were pored over by the ASSESSOR. She made me recount immensely difficult things that had absolutely no relation to the application I had made, namely, that my PHYSICAL disabilities impact my ability to do daily living tasks and with my mobility. Why do we think she did that? Why did she keep asking over and over? Why did my mental health, which was not something I wrote about as a barrier, but is obviously mentioned in my medical history, focused on so thoroughly? When I tried to focus on the actual physical problems, the assessor claimed not to be aware of the specific issues that cause my physical disabilities, despite the diagnoses being clearly written in a chronological table on the same page as the diagnosis of mental health difficulties. Why? I know why I think this happened, but I'll leave the learnéd people here to decide. It's because the system is designed to be difficult, is administered by those trying to exclude rather than help and some assessments are carried out by individuals with no medical experience, it stinks, Mrs x" It looks very much that way, I mentioned yesterday introducing an AI assessment would remove a lot of inconsistencies and speed up claims. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my PIP assessment, I recounted the substantial mental health impact of my acquisition of disability, because I was asked about it at length by the assessor. Note that I did NOT claim that my mental health problems affected my daily living or mobility, I simply disclosed the facts via the letters from my consultant's and GPs etc. So, evidence of suicidal thoughts, several courses of counselling over the past 8yrs, which required a lot of hoops to be negotiated before being eligible, were pored over by the ASSESSOR. She made me recount immensely difficult things that had absolutely no relation to the application I had made, namely, that my PHYSICAL disabilities impact my ability to do daily living tasks and with my mobility. Why do we think she did that? Why did she keep asking over and over? Why did my mental health, which was not something I wrote about as a barrier, but is obviously mentioned in my medical history, focused on so thoroughly? When I tried to focus on the actual physical problems, the assessor claimed not to be aware of the specific issues that cause my physical disabilities, despite the diagnoses being clearly written in a chronological table on the same page as the diagnosis of mental health difficulties. Why? I know why I think this happened, but I'll leave the learnéd people here to decide. It's because the system is designed to be difficult, is administered by those trying to exclude rather than help and some assessments are carried out by individuals with no medical experience, it stinks, Mrs x It looks very much that way, I mentioned yesterday introducing an AI assessment would remove a lot of inconsistencies and speed up claims. " The woman who assessed me claimed to be an oncology nurse. She could not spell simple medical terms, her notes that have been submitted to the decision maker in the DWP are, in places, nonsense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my PIP assessment, I recounted the substantial mental health impact of my acquisition of disability, because I was asked about it at length by the assessor. Note that I did NOT claim that my mental health problems affected my daily living or mobility, I simply disclosed the facts via the letters from my consultant's and GPs etc. So, evidence of suicidal thoughts, several courses of counselling over the past 8yrs, which required a lot of hoops to be negotiated before being eligible, were pored over by the ASSESSOR. She made me recount immensely difficult things that had absolutely no relation to the application I had made, namely, that my PHYSICAL disabilities impact my ability to do daily living tasks and with my mobility. Why do we think she did that? Why did she keep asking over and over? Why did my mental health, which was not something I wrote about as a barrier, but is obviously mentioned in my medical history, focused on so thoroughly? When I tried to focus on the actual physical problems, the assessor claimed not to be aware of the specific issues that cause my physical disabilities, despite the diagnoses being clearly written in a chronological table on the same page as the diagnosis of mental health difficulties. Why? I know why I think this happened, but I'll leave the learnéd people here to decide. It's because the system is designed to be difficult, is administered by those trying to exclude rather than help and some assessments are carried out by individuals with no medical experience, it stinks, Mrs x It looks very much that way, I mentioned yesterday introducing an AI assessment would remove a lot of inconsistencies and speed up claims. The woman who assessed me claimed to be an oncology nurse. She could not spell simple medical terms, her notes that have been submitted to the decision maker in the DWP are, in places, nonsense. " So are you challenging a decision or have you already done so? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my PIP assessment, I recounted the substantial mental health impact of my acquisition of disability, because I was asked about it at length by the assessor. Note that I did NOT claim that my mental health problems affected my daily living or mobility, I simply disclosed the facts via the letters from my consultant's and GPs etc. So, evidence of suicidal thoughts, several courses of counselling over the past 8yrs, which required a lot of hoops to be negotiated before being eligible, were pored over by the ASSESSOR. She made me recount immensely difficult things that had absolutely no relation to the application I had made, namely, that my PHYSICAL disabilities impact my ability to do daily living tasks and with my mobility. Why do we think she did that? Why did she keep asking over and over? Why did my mental health, which was not something I wrote about as a barrier, but is obviously mentioned in my medical history, focused on so thoroughly? When I tried to focus on the actual physical problems, the assessor claimed not to be aware of the specific issues that cause my physical disabilities, despite the diagnoses being clearly written in a chronological table on the same page as the diagnosis of mental health difficulties. Why? I know why I think this happened, but I'll leave the learnéd people here to decide. It's because the system is designed to be difficult, is administered by those trying to exclude rather than help and some assessments are carried out by individuals with no medical experience, it stinks, Mrs x" They WERE carried out by lay people. Not now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my PIP assessment, I recounted the substantial mental health impact of my acquisition of disability, because I was asked about it at length by the assessor. Note that I did NOT claim that my mental health problems affected my daily living or mobility, I simply disclosed the facts via the letters from my consultant's and GPs etc. So, evidence of suicidal thoughts, several courses of counselling over the past 8yrs, which required a lot of hoops to be negotiated before being eligible, were pored over by the ASSESSOR. She made me recount immensely difficult things that had absolutely no relation to the application I had made, namely, that my PHYSICAL disabilities impact my ability to do daily living tasks and with my mobility. Why do we think she did that? Why did she keep asking over and over? Why did my mental health, which was not something I wrote about as a barrier, but is obviously mentioned in my medical history, focused on so thoroughly? When I tried to focus on the actual physical problems, the assessor claimed not to be aware of the specific issues that cause my physical disabilities, despite the diagnoses being clearly written in a chronological table on the same page as the diagnosis of mental health difficulties. Why? I know why I think this happened, but I'll leave the learnéd people here to decide. It's because the system is designed to be difficult, is administered by those trying to exclude rather than help and some assessments are carried out by individuals with no medical experience, it stinks, Mrs x" I'm sure there was a documentary about PIP and its assessors or decision makers, and how they were taught to pick up on what you can do, eg you can pull your knickers up without help one day and ignore that you cannot for 6 days. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my PIP assessment, I recounted the substantial mental health impact of my acquisition of disability, because I was asked about it at length by the assessor. Note that I did NOT claim that my mental health problems affected my daily living or mobility, I simply disclosed the facts via the letters from my consultant's and GPs etc. So, evidence of suicidal thoughts, several courses of counselling over the past 8yrs, which required a lot of hoops to be negotiated before being eligible, were pored over by the ASSESSOR. She made me recount immensely difficult things that had absolutely no relation to the application I had made, namely, that my PHYSICAL disabilities impact my ability to do daily living tasks and with my mobility. Why do we think she did that? Why did she keep asking over and over? Why did my mental health, which was not something I wrote about as a barrier, but is obviously mentioned in my medical history, focused on so thoroughly? When I tried to focus on the actual physical problems, the assessor claimed not to be aware of the specific issues that cause my physical disabilities, despite the diagnoses being clearly written in a chronological table on the same page as the diagnosis of mental health difficulties. Why? I know why I think this happened, but I'll leave the learnéd people here to decide. It's because the system is designed to be difficult, is administered by those trying to exclude rather than help and some assessments are carried out by individuals with no medical experience, it stinks, Mrs x It looks very much that way, I mentioned yesterday introducing an AI assessment would remove a lot of inconsistencies and speed up claims. The woman who assessed me claimed to be an oncology nurse. She could not spell simple medical terms, her notes that have been submitted to the decision maker in the DWP are, in places, nonsense. So are you challenging a decision or have you already done so? Mrs x" I don't have a final decision, but you can request the assessor notes immediately after they are submitted to the DWP. I have logged my concerns about her notes but have no further influence until the DWP actually do make a decision. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my PIP assessment, I recounted the substantial mental health impact of my acquisition of disability, because I was asked about it at length by the assessor. Note that I did NOT claim that my mental health problems affected my daily living or mobility, I simply disclosed the facts via the letters from my consultant's and GPs etc. So, evidence of suicidal thoughts, several courses of counselling over the past 8yrs, which required a lot of hoops to be negotiated before being eligible, were pored over by the ASSESSOR. She made me recount immensely difficult things that had absolutely no relation to the application I had made, namely, that my PHYSICAL disabilities impact my ability to do daily living tasks and with my mobility. Why do we think she did that? Why did she keep asking over and over? Why did my mental health, which was not something I wrote about as a barrier, but is obviously mentioned in my medical history, focused on so thoroughly? When I tried to focus on the actual physical problems, the assessor claimed not to be aware of the specific issues that cause my physical disabilities, despite the diagnoses being clearly written in a chronological table on the same page as the diagnosis of mental health difficulties. Why? I know why I think this happened, but I'll leave the learnéd people here to decide. It's because the system is designed to be difficult, is administered by those trying to exclude rather than help and some assessments are carried out by individuals with no medical experience, it stinks, Mrs x They WERE carried out by lay people. Not now." Working in the NHS does not make you an authority on every disability or condition, that's an issue surely. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Liz Kendall sounds so confrontational. I think she's trying to sound authoritative but it's coming across as she's spitting her words out aggressively. " Whately response much better | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Liz Kendall sounds so confrontational. I think she's trying to sound authoritative but it's coming across as she's spitting her words out aggressively. Whately response much better " Nope. She just spouted nonsense, albeit in a less confrontational manner. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you need at leastv4 points on every section to claim? Mrs x" 4 on at least one section, under the new rules. If you get, for example, 2 points in every daily living section, you'd currently get full high rate daily living PIP. Under these new proposals, such people would get zero daily living component, not even lower rate. Some examples of things NOT scoring 4 points: "Needs a therapeutic source to take nutrition" - 2 points "Needs supervision, prompting or assistance to take manage therapy that takes no more than 3.5h a week" - 2 points "Needs assistance to wash either their hair, or body below the waist" - 2 points "Needs assistance to be able to get in or out of a bath or shower [unadapted bath or shower]" - 3 points "Needs supervision or prompting to manage toilet needs" - 2 points "Needs an aid or appliance to be able to manage toilet needs or incontinence" - 2 points "Needs assistance to be able to dress or undress their lower body" - 2 points | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Liz Kendall just lied. She was asked directly how many PIP applicants scoring 2 or 3 points across multiple areas, will be impacted because they'd lose or not be eligible for PIP. Kendall replied that "that's not what the changes are going to affect" but that's EXACTLY what changing the PIP eligibility WILL mean. She doesn't even understand what she's legislating for. Fuck sake "It's not right. From claim I was referring too before I know that the person scored 0 in one section and ones and two in others. They scored a couple of 4s and one 8, so they will still get PIP but someone else could have a larger total but get standard or no entitlement. That's wrong and why doesn't it apply to the motability section? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Liz Kendall just lied. She was asked directly how many PIP applicants scoring 2 or 3 points across multiple areas, will be impacted because they'd lose or not be eligible for PIP. Kendall replied that "that's not what the changes are going to affect" but that's EXACTLY what changing the PIP eligibility WILL mean. She doesn't even understand what she's legislating for. Fuck sake It's not right. From claim I was referring too before I know that the person scored 0 in one section and ones and two in others. They scored a couple of 4s and one 8, so they will still get PIP but someone else could have a larger total but get standard or no entitlement. That's wrong and why doesn't it apply to the motability section?
Mrs x"Presumably, someone somewhere thinks that the mobility section has more relevance to people with physical disabilities and that daily living would possibly impact more non physical disabilities (aka mental health conditions). In reality, someone with some kinds of mental health condition might well score highly on mobility, e.g. if they cannot make a journey independently. So, if that is the intention, it's misinformed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Liz Kendall just lied. She was asked directly how many PIP applicants scoring 2 or 3 points across multiple areas, will be impacted because they'd lose or not be eligible for PIP. Kendall replied that "that's not what the changes are going to affect" but that's EXACTLY what changing the PIP eligibility WILL mean. She doesn't even understand what she's legislating for. Fuck sake It's not right. From claim I was referring too before I know that the person scored 0 in one section and ones and two in others. They scored a couple of 4s and one 8, so they will still get PIP but someone else could have a larger total but get standard or no entitlement. That's wrong and why doesn't it apply to the motability section?
Mrs x
Presumably, someone somewhere thinks that the mobility section has more relevance to people with physical disabilities and that daily living would possibly impact more non physical disabilities (aka mental health conditions). In reality, someone with some kinds of mental health condition might well score highly on mobility, e.g. if they cannot make a journey independently. So, if that is the intention, it's misinformed. "And the youngsters are being hammered by removing LWCRA from them until they are 22. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Liz Kendall just lied. She was asked directly how many PIP applicants scoring 2 or 3 points across multiple areas, will be impacted because they'd lose or not be eligible for PIP. Kendall replied that "that's not what the changes are going to affect" but that's EXACTLY what changing the PIP eligibility WILL mean. She doesn't even understand what she's legislating for. Fuck sake It's not right. From claim I was referring too before I know that the person scored 0 in one section and ones and two in others. They scored a couple of 4s and one 8, so they will still get PIP but someone else could have a larger total but get standard or no entitlement. That's wrong and why doesn't it apply to the motability section?
Mrs x
Presumably, someone somewhere thinks that the mobility section has more relevance to people with physical disabilities and that daily living would possibly impact more non physical disabilities (aka mental health conditions). In reality, someone with some kinds of mental health condition might well score highly on mobility, e.g. if they cannot make a journey independently. So, if that is the intention, it's misinformed. And the youngsters are being hammered by removing LWCRA from them until they are 22.
Mrs x"Indeed. How do severely disabled young people survive from age 18 to 22?! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Someone has to fund the thousands of refugees arriving weekly so they can be put up in hotels,get free dental and medical care plus access to the thing's we can't get. So yeah let's take from the most vulnerable and easiest targets in society "5000 hotel rooms, all empty and paid on full rack rate just incase there’s an influx. At £120 a night per room, £600K a day, £219M a year. Add another £4-8bn in housing, health, education, clothes, cars, legal, etc etc for those year. Disabled, farmers, pensioners winter fuel, business rate rises all paying towards this. £5bn in welfare cuts, £1.7bn pensioners winter fuel, £520M farmers iht, £460m private school fee vat. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my PIP assessment, I recounted the substantial mental health impact of my acquisition of disability, because I was asked about it at length by the assessor. Note that I did NOT claim that my mental health problems affected my daily living or mobility, I simply disclosed the facts via the letters from my consultant's and GPs etc. So, evidence of suicidal thoughts, several courses of counselling over the past 8yrs, which required a lot of hoops to be negotiated before being eligible, were pored over by the ASSESSOR. She made me recount immensely difficult things that had absolutely no relation to the application I had made, namely, that my PHYSICAL disabilities impact my ability to do daily living tasks and with my mobility. Why do we think she did that? Why did she keep asking over and over? Why did my mental health, which was not something I wrote about as a barrier, but is obviously mentioned in my medical history, focused on so thoroughly? When I tried to focus on the actual physical problems, the assessor claimed not to be aware of the specific issues that cause my physical disabilities, despite the diagnoses being clearly written in a chronological table on the same page as the diagnosis of mental health difficulties. Why? I know why I think this happened, but I'll leave the learnéd people here to decide. It's because the system is designed to be difficult, is administered by those trying to exclude rather than help and some assessments are carried out by individuals with no medical experience, it stinks, Mrs x They WERE carried out by lay people. Not now. Working in the NHS does not make you an authority on every disability or condition, that's an issue surely. Mrs x" No it does not. However, you are better placed than a lay person. You learn about long term conditions and their impacts. As well as a gazillion other things 😛 You also undergo , I think it's a 10 week training course before becoming an assessor. Not just about the process but about disabilities. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These changes are politically motivated to ease pressure in the run up to the 2029 election. The timing aligns with fiscal rules by reducing borrowing, with the real impact only coming into force after the next election." Twas ever this.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, based on the recommended scoring of the assessor I had (remember, she didn't understand a lot about my conditions and misrepresented a bunch of things, ignored others), I would potentially not be eligible for the daily living component of PIP. Just understand that someone who is requiring help to dress their lower body, help to wash below the waist, who cannot use their unadapted kitchen to cook, who needs help to use intermittent catheters and who lives in permanent, constant pain for which I'm prescribed liquid morphine, might no longer be eligible for any daily living component of PIP. At present, I might score 4 points on one area, but I also might not. Most of the scores on the assessors recommendations are 2, for me. They are deliberately trying to avoid scoring 4 points or more, obviously. Anyway, this new shite doesn't come in until 2028 or 2029 so I might get a few quid for a few years, to stay in work for a bit longer. Right, I'm off back to WORK, having spent my lunch break listening to Parliament and honestly wondering who in the fuck are elected to that place (on all sides). It's just a bunch of people shouting at each other, arguing with the "opposition" just because they're the opposition. It's pointless and stupid. " They have changed the scoring system. You needed 10 points to qualify re the ADLs part and 4 for the mobility. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, based on the recommended scoring of the assessor I had (remember, she didn't understand a lot about my conditions and misrepresented a bunch of things, ignored others), I would potentially not be eligible for the daily living component of PIP. Just understand that someone who is requiring help to dress their lower body, help to wash below the waist, who cannot use their unadapted kitchen to cook, who needs help to use intermittent catheters and who lives in permanent, constant pain for which I'm prescribed liquid morphine, might no longer be eligible for any daily living component of PIP. At present, I might score 4 points on one area, but I also might not. Most of the scores on the assessors recommendations are 2, for me. They are deliberately trying to avoid scoring 4 points or more, obviously. Anyway, this new shite doesn't come in until 2028 or 2029 so I might get a few quid for a few years, to stay in work for a bit longer. Right, I'm off back to WORK, having spent my lunch break listening to Parliament and honestly wondering who in the fuck are elected to that place (on all sides). It's just a bunch of people shouting at each other, arguing with the "opposition" just because they're the opposition. It's pointless and stupid. They have changed the scoring system. You needed 10 points to qualify re the ADLs part and 4 for the mobility. " Where did you get this info from? I'd really appreciate it if I could look at this please, thanks, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yet they never seem to go after big corporations for tax, rather the none payment of tax. It just seems mean, Mrs x" Possibly because the tax rules and places to hide wealth and avoid said tax are expensive and difficult to unravel plus in the place where such cuts are made no one wants to shit on their own and their friends doorsteps.. Easier to target a section of society that 'some' people think already have it 'too easy', and who can't do much about it.. Not saying at all that it's fair, absolutely not .. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yet they never seem to go after big corporations for tax, rather the none payment of tax. It just seems mean, Mrs x Possibly because the tax rules and places to hide wealth and avoid said tax are expensive and difficult to unravel plus in the place where such cuts are made no one wants to shit on their own and their friends doorsteps.. Easier to target a section of society that 'some' people think already have it 'too easy', and who can't do much about it.. Not saying at all that it's fair, absolutely not .. " Some people are fucking socks then, thinking the disabled have it 'too easy', that's the problem right there. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Liz Kendall just lied. She was asked directly how many PIP applicants scoring 2 or 3 points across multiple areas, will be impacted because they'd lose or not be eligible for PIP. Kendall replied that "that's not what the changes are going to affect" but that's EXACTLY what changing the PIP eligibility WILL mean. She doesn't even understand what she's legislating for. Fuck sake It's not right. From claim I was referring too before I know that the person scored 0 in one section and ones and two in others. They scored a couple of 4s and one 8, so they will still get PIP but someone else could have a larger total but get standard or no entitlement. That's wrong and why doesn't it apply to the motability section?
Mrs x
Presumably, someone somewhere thinks that the mobility section has more relevance to people with physical disabilities and that daily living would possibly impact more non physical disabilities (aka mental health conditions). In reality, someone with some kinds of mental health condition might well score highly on mobility, e.g. if they cannot make a journey independently. So, if that is the intention, it's misinformed. And the youngsters are being hammered by removing LWCRA from them until they are 22.
Mrs x
Indeed. How do severely disabled young people survive from age 18 to 22?! "The evident cruelty from this government and from the former, over 14 years, is really sickening, including their attempts to minimise certain people's suffering and needs. Their deflection onto investments into getting some people into work, is also insulting, when there will obviously be some for whom long-term support is right and they shouldn't have to be caught out, by age limitations, etc. There should probably be extra input into benefit calculations, based on real additional costs from disabilities, instead of just the inflationary figures, across the board. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yet they never seem to go after big corporations for tax, rather the none payment of tax. It just seems mean, Mrs x Possibly because the tax rules and places to hide wealth and avoid said tax are expensive and difficult to unravel plus in the place where such cuts are made no one wants to shit on their own and their friends doorsteps.. Easier to target a section of society that 'some' people think already have it 'too easy', and who can't do much about it.. Not saying at all that it's fair, absolutely not .. Some people are fucking socks then, thinking the disabled have it 'too easy', that's the problem right there. Mrs x" They are but for some it's easier to swallow the hype and the line the media put out be it, judges, benefit 'scroungers', the feckless workshy, immigrants etc than actually finding out what's going on.. Funny enough theres less print space given to tax evasion/avoidance and the like by many aspects of our media.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yet they never seem to go after big corporations for tax, rather the none payment of tax. It just seems mean, Mrs x Possibly because the tax rules and places to hide wealth and avoid said tax are expensive and difficult to unravel plus in the place where such cuts are made no one wants to shit on their own and their friends doorsteps.. Easier to target a section of society that 'some' people think already have it 'too easy', and who can't do much about it.. Not saying at all that it's fair, absolutely not .. Some people are fucking socks then, thinking the disabled have it 'too easy', that's the problem right there. Mrs x They are but for some it's easier to swallow the hype and the line the media put out be it, judges, benefit 'scroungers', the feckless workshy, immigrants etc than actually finding out what's going on.. Funny enough theres less print space given to tax evasion/avoidance and the like by many aspects of our media.. " I agree with that but it cannot be hard for the HMRC to have a quick look and see these successful corporations have not paid tax here. It's got to be simple to legislate if you sell your products or services in this country you must pay tax on it. It's a simple concept really, it's not a wealth tax its just fair and right, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the principal errors in the system that allows tax to be avoided is the ease in which money is able to leave the country along with vague registers of ownership. tackle those two flaws and things would become more managable and more fair." Exactly, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yet they never seem to go after big corporations for tax, rather the none payment of tax. It just seems mean, Mrs x Possibly because the tax rules and places to hide wealth and avoid said tax are expensive and difficult to unravel plus in the place where such cuts are made no one wants to shit on their own and their friends doorsteps.. Easier to target a section of society that 'some' people think already have it 'too easy', and who can't do much about it.. Not saying at all that it's fair, absolutely not .. Some people are fucking socks then, thinking the disabled have it 'too easy', that's the problem right there. Mrs x They are but for some it's easier to swallow the hype and the line the media put out be it, judges, benefit 'scroungers', the feckless workshy, immigrants etc than actually finding out what's going on.. Funny enough theres less print space given to tax evasion/avoidance and the like by many aspects of our media.. I agree with that but it cannot be hard for the HMRC to have a quick look and see these successful corporations have not paid tax here. It's got to be simple to legislate if you sell your products or services in this country you must pay tax on it. It's a simple concept really, it's not a wealth tax its just fair and right, Mrs x" Resources and other priorities maybe, there has to be the political will to push such departments.. Easier to go after self employed and SME's here where if they get it right they'll get something back than to try and track down umpteen shell companies.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, based on the recommended scoring of the assessor I had (remember, she didn't understand a lot about my conditions and misrepresented a bunch of things, ignored others), I would potentially not be eligible for the daily living component of PIP. Just understand that someone who is requiring help to dress their lower body, help to wash below the waist, who cannot use their unadapted kitchen to cook, who needs help to use intermittent catheters and who lives in permanent, constant pain for which I'm prescribed liquid morphine, might no longer be eligible for any daily living component of PIP. At present, I might score 4 points on one area, but I also might not. Most of the scores on the assessors recommendations are 2, for me. They are deliberately trying to avoid scoring 4 points or more, obviously. Anyway, this new shite doesn't come in until 2028 or 2029 so I might get a few quid for a few years, to stay in work for a bit longer. Right, I'm off back to WORK, having spent my lunch break listening to Parliament and honestly wondering who in the fuck are elected to that place (on all sides). It's just a bunch of people shouting at each other, arguing with the "opposition" just because they're the opposition. It's pointless and stupid. They have changed the scoring system. You needed 10 points to qualify re the ADLs part and 4 for the mobility. Where did you get this info from? I'd really appreciate it if I could look at this please, thanks, Mrs x" My application. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yet they never seem to go after big corporations for tax, rather the none payment of tax. It just seems mean, Mrs x Possibly because the tax rules and places to hide wealth and avoid said tax are expensive and difficult to unravel plus in the place where such cuts are made no one wants to shit on their own and their friends doorsteps.. Easier to target a section of society that 'some' people think already have it 'too easy', and who can't do much about it.. Not saying at all that it's fair, absolutely not .. Some people are fucking socks then, thinking the disabled have it 'too easy', that's the problem right there. Mrs x They are but for some it's easier to swallow the hype and the line the media put out be it, judges, benefit 'scroungers', the feckless workshy, immigrants etc than actually finding out what's going on.. Funny enough theres less print space given to tax evasion/avoidance and the like by many aspects of our media.. I agree with that but it cannot be hard for the HMRC to have a quick look and see these successful corporations have not paid tax here. It's got to be simple to legislate if you sell your products or services in this country you must pay tax on it. It's a simple concept really, it's not a wealth tax its just fair and right, Mrs x" Successful businesses are paying taxes here, to change the tax rules and policies would bring hell on the government and take years to finalise, with loses to jobs and taxes as a result. There would also be a huge push on the government that would bring front and centre the £5 billion being creamed off is to underpin the fiscal rules Reeves put in place and to adjust the coffers due to the increase in borrowing that came off the back of the budget. Why has it been done now? To soften the impact of the spring statement, without the 5 billion, which will be referred to as welfare reforms or whatever softer words make people happy, that message would have been so much harsher as they have lost Reeves's headroom of £9.9 Billion in increased borrowing costs. That would have resulted in either further borrowing at increased borrowing costs, or taxing workers. Roll over and take it now, forget about it before the next election, when they fanfare their economic management to deliver on the strict fiscal rules... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yet they never seem to go after big corporations for tax, rather the none payment of tax. It just seems mean, Mrs x Possibly because the tax rules and places to hide wealth and avoid said tax are expensive and difficult to unravel plus in the place where such cuts are made no one wants to shit on their own and their friends doorsteps.. Easier to target a section of society that 'some' people think already have it 'too easy', and who can't do much about it.. Not saying at all that it's fair, absolutely not .. Some people are fucking socks then, thinking the disabled have it 'too easy', that's the problem right there. Mrs x They are but for some it's easier to swallow the hype and the line the media put out be it, judges, benefit 'scroungers', the feckless workshy, immigrants etc than actually finding out what's going on.. Funny enough theres less print space given to tax evasion/avoidance and the like by many aspects of our media.. I agree with that but it cannot be hard for the HMRC to have a quick look and see these successful corporations have not paid tax here. It's got to be simple to legislate if you sell your products or services in this country you must pay tax on it. It's a simple concept really, it's not a wealth tax its just fair and right, Mrs x Successful businesses are paying taxes here, to change the tax rules and policies would bring hell on the government and take years to finalise, with loses to jobs and taxes as a result. There would also be a huge push on the government that would bring front and centre the £5 billion being creamed off is to underpin the fiscal rules Reeves put in place and to adjust the coffers due to the increase in borrowing that came off the back of the budget. Why has it been done now? To soften the impact of the spring statement, without the 5 billion, which will be referred to as welfare reforms or whatever softer words make people happy, that message would have been so much harsher as they have lost Reeves's headroom of £9.9 Billion in increased borrowing costs. That would have resulted in either further borrowing at increased borrowing costs, or taxing workers. Roll over and take it now, forget about it before the next election, when they fanfare their economic management to deliver on the strict fiscal rules..." So after blowing £9.9 billion in a matter of months they do the thing that they criticised the Tories for, and in their own words, are penalizing the most vulnerable to pay for their own mistakes. Also this £5 billion saving is not guaranteed, so what happens if they fall short on this target. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yet they never seem to go after big corporations for tax, rather the none payment of tax. It just seems mean, Mrs x Possibly because the tax rules and places to hide wealth and avoid said tax are expensive and difficult to unravel plus in the place where such cuts are made no one wants to shit on their own and their friends doorsteps.. Easier to target a section of society that 'some' people think already have it 'too easy', and who can't do much about it.. Not saying at all that it's fair, absolutely not .. Some people are fucking socks then, thinking the disabled have it 'too easy', that's the problem right there. Mrs x They are but for some it's easier to swallow the hype and the line the media put out be it, judges, benefit 'scroungers', the feckless workshy, immigrants etc than actually finding out what's going on.. Funny enough theres less print space given to tax evasion/avoidance and the like by many aspects of our media.. I agree with that but it cannot be hard for the HMRC to have a quick look and see these successful corporations have not paid tax here. It's got to be simple to legislate if you sell your products or services in this country you must pay tax on it. It's a simple concept really, it's not a wealth tax its just fair and right, Mrs x Successful businesses are paying taxes here, to change the tax rules and policies would bring hell on the government and take years to finalise, with loses to jobs and taxes as a result. There would also be a huge push on the government that would bring front and centre the £5 billion being creamed off is to underpin the fiscal rules Reeves put in place and to adjust the coffers due to the increase in borrowing that came off the back of the budget. Why has it been done now? To soften the impact of the spring statement, without the 5 billion, which will be referred to as welfare reforms or whatever softer words make people happy, that message would have been so much harsher as they have lost Reeves's headroom of £9.9 Billion in increased borrowing costs. That would have resulted in either further borrowing at increased borrowing costs, or taxing workers. Roll over and take it now, forget about it before the next election, when they fanfare their economic management to deliver on the strict fiscal rules... So after blowing £9.9 billion in a matter of months they do the thing that they criticised the Tories for, and in their own words, are penalizing the most vulnerable to pay for their own mistakes. Also this £5 billion saving is not guaranteed, so what happens if they fall short on this target." Right now it doesn't matter of it returns or not, because they wont be held accountable for it until 2030, after the next GE. On paper they have £5 billion | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yet they never seem to go after big corporations for tax, rather the none payment of tax. It just seems mean, Mrs x Possibly because the tax rules and places to hide wealth and avoid said tax are expensive and difficult to unravel plus in the place where such cuts are made no one wants to shit on their own and their friends doorsteps.. Easier to target a section of society that 'some' people think already have it 'too easy', and who can't do much about it.. Not saying at all that it's fair, absolutely not .. Some people are fucking socks then, thinking the disabled have it 'too easy', that's the problem right there. Mrs x They are but for some it's easier to swallow the hype and the line the media put out be it, judges, benefit 'scroungers', the feckless workshy, immigrants etc than actually finding out what's going on.. Funny enough theres less print space given to tax evasion/avoidance and the like by many aspects of our media.. I agree with that but it cannot be hard for the HMRC to have a quick look and see these successful corporations have not paid tax here. It's got to be simple to legislate if you sell your products or services in this country you must pay tax on it. It's a simple concept really, it's not a wealth tax its just fair and right, Mrs x Successful businesses are paying taxes here, to change the tax rules and policies would bring hell on the government and take years to finalise, with loses to jobs and taxes as a result. There would also be a huge push on the government that would bring front and centre the £5 billion being creamed off is to underpin the fiscal rules Reeves put in place and to adjust the coffers due to the increase in borrowing that came off the back of the budget. Why has it been done now? To soften the impact of the spring statement, without the 5 billion, which will be referred to as welfare reforms or whatever softer words make people happy, that message would have been so much harsher as they have lost Reeves's headroom of £9.9 Billion in increased borrowing costs. That would have resulted in either further borrowing at increased borrowing costs, or taxing workers. Roll over and take it now, forget about it before the next election, when they fanfare their economic management to deliver on the strict fiscal rules..." Not all successful businesses, Starbucks, Amazon to name just two. And what's the point in having a majority if its difficult to push through legislation, it's not difficult, it might not be what the government wants but don't pretend its difficult. Difficult is doing the things they've already done to the less well off, pensioners, farmers etc but they still did it. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yet they never seem to go after big corporations for tax, rather the none payment of tax. It just seems mean, Mrs x Possibly because the tax rules and places to hide wealth and avoid said tax are expensive and difficult to unravel plus in the place where such cuts are made no one wants to shit on their own and their friends doorsteps.. Easier to target a section of society that 'some' people think already have it 'too easy', and who can't do much about it.. Not saying at all that it's fair, absolutely not .. Some people are fucking socks then, thinking the disabled have it 'too easy', that's the problem right there. Mrs x They are but for some it's easier to swallow the hype and the line the media put out be it, judges, benefit 'scroungers', the feckless workshy, immigrants etc than actually finding out what's going on.. Funny enough theres less print space given to tax evasion/avoidance and the like by many aspects of our media.. I agree with that but it cannot be hard for the HMRC to have a quick look and see these successful corporations have not paid tax here. It's got to be simple to legislate if you sell your products or services in this country you must pay tax on it. It's a simple concept really, it's not a wealth tax its just fair and right, Mrs x Successful businesses are paying taxes here, to change the tax rules and policies would bring hell on the government and take years to finalise, with loses to jobs and taxes as a result. There would also be a huge push on the government that would bring front and centre the £5 billion being creamed off is to underpin the fiscal rules Reeves put in place and to adjust the coffers due to the increase in borrowing that came off the back of the budget. Why has it been done now? To soften the impact of the spring statement, without the 5 billion, which will be referred to as welfare reforms or whatever softer words make people happy, that message would have been so much harsher as they have lost Reeves's headroom of £9.9 Billion in increased borrowing costs. That would have resulted in either further borrowing at increased borrowing costs, or taxing workers. Roll over and take it now, forget about it before the next election, when they fanfare their economic management to deliver on the strict fiscal rules...Not all successful businesses, Starbucks, Amazon to name just two. And what's the point in having a majority if its difficult to push through legislation, it's not difficult, it might not be what the government wants but don't pretend its difficult. Difficult is doing the things they've already done to the less well off, pensioners, farmers etc but they still did it. Mrs x" Those companies definitely pay their taxes. The tax system may allow them to offset money, invest in R&D and any number of incentives that all successive governments have allowed. The UK has one of the most complex tax systems in the world, it just isn't easy to unpick it at a corporate level, and if we did we would see large employers pull out of the UK over the many years it would take to reform it. It is a balancing act, the government need businesses to generate capital, to spend that capital on pay, goods, corporation taxes, VAT and many others to get their share. Many people don’t realise that big business contributes to the economy in many ways beyond corporation tax. It’s easy to say, “just tax them more”, but the consequences of that are rarely taken into account. The rub with the pensioners, farmers etc is they are easy to target, the pensioners receive money from the government, easy to change that. Laws for registering death pick up the farmers, easy touch as it is a well trodden path. And that is why it is easier to take money from recipients of benefits. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yet they never seem to go after big corporations for tax, rather the none payment of tax. It just seems mean, Mrs x Possibly because the tax rules and places to hide wealth and avoid said tax are expensive and difficult to unravel plus in the place where such cuts are made no one wants to shit on their own and their friends doorsteps.. Easier to target a section of society that 'some' people think already have it 'too easy', and who can't do much about it.. Not saying at all that it's fair, absolutely not .. Some people are fucking socks then, thinking the disabled have it 'too easy', that's the problem right there. Mrs x They are but for some it's easier to swallow the hype and the line the media put out be it, judges, benefit 'scroungers', the feckless workshy, immigrants etc than actually finding out what's going on.. Funny enough theres less print space given to tax evasion/avoidance and the like by many aspects of our media.. I agree with that but it cannot be hard for the HMRC to have a quick look and see these successful corporations have not paid tax here. It's got to be simple to legislate if you sell your products or services in this country you must pay tax on it. It's a simple concept really, it's not a wealth tax its just fair and right, Mrs x Successful businesses are paying taxes here, to change the tax rules and policies would bring hell on the government and take years to finalise, with loses to jobs and taxes as a result. There would also be a huge push on the government that would bring front and centre the £5 billion being creamed off is to underpin the fiscal rules Reeves put in place and to adjust the coffers due to the increase in borrowing that came off the back of the budget. Why has it been done now? To soften the impact of the spring statement, without the 5 billion, which will be referred to as welfare reforms or whatever softer words make people happy, that message would have been so much harsher as they have lost Reeves's headroom of £9.9 Billion in increased borrowing costs. That would have resulted in either further borrowing at increased borrowing costs, or taxing workers. Roll over and take it now, forget about it before the next election, when they fanfare their economic management to deliver on the strict fiscal rules...Not all successful businesses, Starbucks, Amazon to name just two. And what's the point in having a majority if its difficult to push through legislation, it's not difficult, it might not be what the government wants but don't pretend its difficult. Difficult is doing the things they've already done to the less well off, pensioners, farmers etc but they still did it. Mrs x Those companies definitely pay their taxes. The tax system may allow them to offset money, invest in R&D and any number of incentives that all successive governments have allowed. The UK has one of the most complex tax systems in the world, it just isn't easy to unpick it at a corporate level, and if we did we would see large employers pull out of the UK over the many years it would take to reform it. It is a balancing act, the government need businesses to generate capital, to spend that capital on pay, goods, corporation taxes, VAT and many others to get their share. Many people don’t realise that big business contributes to the economy in many ways beyond corporation tax. It’s easy to say, “just tax them more”, but the consequences of that are rarely taken into account. The rub with the pensioners, farmers etc is they are easy to target, the pensioners receive money from the government, easy to change that. Laws for registering death pick up the farmers, easy touch as it is a well trodden path. And that is why it is easier to take money from recipients of benefits. " It's bollocks saying that big corporations bring more than just paying tax. What do they bring that another corporation wouldn't. Nature abhorrent a vacumn and if one business leaves or fails it's replaced by one that doesn't.. Starbucks were paying fuck all tax here, using the excuse they were registered in the Caymans or some other such tax haven and paid tax there. That's just bollocks, I know they can but the system should be changed so that if you sell anything here, products or services, then you should pay tax on all that. It's simple and if you use the example of scaring companies out of the UK that's hogwash too. Tell Starbucks to fuck off if they don't like it, Costa will seize the opportunity and if they don't someone else will. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"large employers pull out .... this allows new inovative players to step into the void. let them go, as they pay no tax anway they won't be missed. short term pain for long term stability and far more gain." This 👍 Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"large employers pull out .... this allows new inovative players to step into the void. let them go, as they pay no tax anway they won't be missed. short term pain for long term stability and far more gain.This 👍 Mrs x" I'm sorry but that isn't correct, a common misconception that there is always another to take the place. This is going away from OP, however it goes to show how the government are taking £5 billion off those they can easily manipulate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"large employers pull out .... this allows new inovative players to step into the void. let them go, as they pay no tax anway they won't be missed. short term pain for long term stability and far more gain." Economy = 🧻 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yet they never seem to go after big corporations for tax, rather the none payment of tax. It just seems mean, Mrs x Possibly because the tax rules and places to hide wealth and avoid said tax are expensive and difficult to unravel plus in the place where such cuts are made no one wants to shit on their own and their friends doorsteps.. Easier to target a section of society that 'some' people think already have it 'too easy', and who can't do much about it.. Not saying at all that it's fair, absolutely not .. Some people are fucking socks then, thinking the disabled have it 'too easy', that's the problem right there. Mrs x They are but for some it's easier to swallow the hype and the line the media put out be it, judges, benefit 'scroungers', the feckless workshy, immigrants etc than actually finding out what's going on.. Funny enough theres less print space given to tax evasion/avoidance and the like by many aspects of our media.. I agree with that but it cannot be hard for the HMRC to have a quick look and see these successful corporations have not paid tax here. It's got to be simple to legislate if you sell your products or services in this country you must pay tax on it. It's a simple concept really, it's not a wealth tax its just fair and right, Mrs x Successful businesses are paying taxes here, to change the tax rules and policies would bring hell on the government and take years to finalise, with loses to jobs and taxes as a result. There would also be a huge push on the government that would bring front and centre the £5 billion being creamed off is to underpin the fiscal rules Reeves put in place and to adjust the coffers due to the increase in borrowing that came off the back of the budget. Why has it been done now? To soften the impact of the spring statement, without the 5 billion, which will be referred to as welfare reforms or whatever softer words make people happy, that message would have been so much harsher as they have lost Reeves's headroom of £9.9 Billion in increased borrowing costs. That would have resulted in either further borrowing at increased borrowing costs, or taxing workers. Roll over and take it now, forget about it before the next election, when they fanfare their economic management to deliver on the strict fiscal rules...Not all successful businesses, Starbucks, Amazon to name just two. And what's the point in having a majority if its difficult to push through legislation, it's not difficult, it might not be what the government wants but don't pretend its difficult. Difficult is doing the things they've already done to the less well off, pensioners, farmers etc but they still did it. Mrs x Those companies definitely pay their taxes. The tax system may allow them to offset money, invest in R&D and any number of incentives that all successive governments have allowed. The UK has one of the most complex tax systems in the world, it just isn't easy to unpick it at a corporate level, and if we did we would see large employers pull out of the UK over the many years it would take to reform it. It is a balancing act, the government need businesses to generate capital, to spend that capital on pay, goods, corporation taxes, VAT and many others to get their share. Many people don’t realise that big business contributes to the economy in many ways beyond corporation tax. It’s easy to say, “just tax them more”, but the consequences of that are rarely taken into account. The rub with the pensioners, farmers etc is they are easy to target, the pensioners receive money from the government, easy to change that. Laws for registering death pick up the farmers, easy touch as it is a well trodden path. And that is why it is easier to take money from recipients of benefits. It's bollocks saying that big corporations bring more than just paying tax. What do they bring that another corporation wouldn't. Nature abhorrent a vacumn and if one business leaves or fails it's replaced by one that doesn't.. Starbucks were paying fuck all tax here, using the excuse they were registered in the Caymans or some other such tax haven and paid tax there. That's just bollocks, I know they can but the system should be changed so that if you sell anything here, products or services, then you should pay tax on all that. It's simple and if you use the example of scaring companies out of the UK that's hogwash too. Tell Starbucks to fuck off if they don't like it, Costa will seize the opportunity and if they don't someone else will. Mrs x" They are not breaking the law... We allow these loopholes, and successive governments (Labour & Conservative) haven’t closed them because they attract investment (companies prefer stable, low tax environments). They still need to pay a lot of taxes, this is the balancing act of an economy and not to be confused with a single individual. Again this wondering into tax and corps. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yet they never seem to go after big corporations for tax, rather the none payment of tax. It just seems mean, Mrs x Possibly because the tax rules and places to hide wealth and avoid said tax are expensive and difficult to unravel plus in the place where such cuts are made no one wants to shit on their own and their friends doorsteps.. Easier to target a section of society that 'some' people think already have it 'too easy', and who can't do much about it.. Not saying at all that it's fair, absolutely not .. Some people are fucking socks then, thinking the disabled have it 'too easy', that's the problem right there. Mrs x They are but for some it's easier to swallow the hype and the line the media put out be it, judges, benefit 'scroungers', the feckless workshy, immigrants etc than actually finding out what's going on.. Funny enough theres less print space given to tax evasion/avoidance and the like by many aspects of our media.. I agree with that but it cannot be hard for the HMRC to have a quick look and see these successful corporations have not paid tax here. It's got to be simple to legislate if you sell your products or services in this country you must pay tax on it. It's a simple concept really, it's not a wealth tax its just fair and right, Mrs x Successful businesses are paying taxes here, to change the tax rules and policies would bring hell on the government and take years to finalise, with loses to jobs and taxes as a result. There would also be a huge push on the government that would bring front and centre the £5 billion being creamed off is to underpin the fiscal rules Reeves put in place and to adjust the coffers due to the increase in borrowing that came off the back of the budget. Why has it been done now? To soften the impact of the spring statement, without the 5 billion, which will be referred to as welfare reforms or whatever softer words make people happy, that message would have been so much harsher as they have lost Reeves's headroom of £9.9 Billion in increased borrowing costs. That would have resulted in either further borrowing at increased borrowing costs, or taxing workers. Roll over and take it now, forget about it before the next election, when they fanfare their economic management to deliver on the strict fiscal rules...Not all successful businesses, Starbucks, Amazon to name just two. And what's the point in having a majority if its difficult to push through legislation, it's not difficult, it might not be what the government wants but don't pretend its difficult. Difficult is doing the things they've already done to the less well off, pensioners, farmers etc but they still did it. Mrs x Those companies definitely pay their taxes. The tax system may allow them to offset money, invest in R&D and any number of incentives that all successive governments have allowed. The UK has one of the most complex tax systems in the world, it just isn't easy to unpick it at a corporate level, and if we did we would see large employers pull out of the UK over the many years it would take to reform it. It is a balancing act, the government need businesses to generate capital, to spend that capital on pay, goods, corporation taxes, VAT and many others to get their share. Many people don’t realise that big business contributes to the economy in many ways beyond corporation tax. It’s easy to say, “just tax them more”, but the consequences of that are rarely taken into account. The rub with the pensioners, farmers etc is they are easy to target, the pensioners receive money from the government, easy to change that. Laws for registering death pick up the farmers, easy touch as it is a well trodden path. And that is why it is easier to take money from recipients of benefits. It's bollocks saying that big corporations bring more than just paying tax. What do they bring that another corporation wouldn't. Nature abhorrent a vacumn and if one business leaves or fails it's replaced by one that doesn't.. Starbucks were paying fuck all tax here, using the excuse they were registered in the Caymans or some other such tax haven and paid tax there. That's just bollocks, I know they can but the system should be changed so that if you sell anything here, products or services, then you should pay tax on all that. It's simple and if you use the example of scaring companies out of the UK that's hogwash too. Tell Starbucks to fuck off if they don't like it, Costa will seize the opportunity and if they don't someone else will. Mrs x They are not breaking the law... We allow these loopholes, and successive governments (Labour & Conservative) haven’t closed them because they attract investment (companies prefer stable, low tax environments). They still need to pay a lot of taxes, this is the balancing act of an economy and not to be confused with a single individual. Again this wondering into tax and corps. " I know that they are not breaking the law, just that the law needs changing. If companies don't like it then let them deal with it. Someone will always take advantage of a gap in the market and this has always happened, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"large employers pull out .... this allows new inovative players to step into the void. let them go, as they pay no tax anway they won't be missed. short term pain for long term stability and far more gain.This 👍 Mrs x I'm sorry but that isn't correct, a common misconception that there is always another to take the place. This is going away from OP, however it goes to show how the government are taking £5 billion off those they can easily manipulate. " Name one that's disappeared that hasn't been replaced. It may not assume the same business model but something will always fill the void. Mrscx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"large employers pull out .... this allows new inovative players to step into the void. let them go, as they pay no tax anway they won't be missed. short term pain for long term stability and far more gain.This 👍 Mrs x I'm sorry but that isn't correct, a common misconception that there is always another to take the place. This is going away from OP, however it goes to show how the government are taking £5 billion off those they can easily manipulate. Name one that's disappeared that hasn't been replaced. It may not assume the same business model but something will always fill the void. Mrscx" We don't need replacement, we need increases and growth! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"large employers pull out .... this allows new inovative players to step into the void. let them go, as they pay no tax anway they won't be missed. short term pain for long term stability and far more gain.This 👍 Mrs x I'm sorry but that isn't correct, a common misconception that there is always another to take the place. This is going away from OP, however it goes to show how the government are taking £5 billion off those they can easily manipulate. Name one that's disappeared that hasn't been replaced. It may not assume the same business model but something will always fill the void. Mrscx We don't need replacement, we need increases and growth! " Growth? Haha some of these tuckers pay no tax, how's that helping with growth. An increase of nothing on nothing is nothing, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'd love to know where all these accessible, flexible jobs are coming from! I've just been "disciplined" for my absence in late 2024. Due to hospitalisation etc. "Madness. Oh and all these jobs that say they are committed to diversity and inclusion and welcome applications from disabled etc. Tell them you have a disability, they don't want to know. Accessible and flexible my arse. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"large employers pull out .... this allows new inovative players to step into the void. let them go, as they pay no tax anway they won't be missed. short term pain for long term stability and far more gain.This 👍 Mrs x I'm sorry but that isn't correct, a common misconception that there is always another to take the place. This is going away from OP, however it goes to show how the government are taking £5 billion off those they can easily manipulate. Name one that's disappeared that hasn't been replaced. It may not assume the same business model but something will always fill the void. Mrscx We don't need replacement, we need increases and growth! Growth? Haha some of these tuckers pay no tax, how's that helping with growth. An increase of nothing on nothing is nothing, Mrs x" 'No tax' ? They don't pay NI or Vat or Business Tax, their employees don't pay any tax ?? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"large employers pull out .... this allows new inovative players to step into the void. let them go, as they pay no tax anway they won't be missed. short term pain for long term stability and far more gain.This 👍 Mrs x I'm sorry but that isn't correct, a common misconception that there is always another to take the place. This is going away from OP, however it goes to show how the government are taking £5 billion off those they can easily manipulate. Name one that's disappeared that hasn't been replaced. It may not assume the same business model but something will always fill the void. Mrscx We don't need replacement, we need increases and growth! Growth? Haha some of these tuckers pay no tax, how's that helping with growth. An increase of nothing on nothing is nothing, Mrs x 'No tax' ? They don't pay NI or Vat or Business Tax, their employees don't pay any tax ??" Starbucks paid tax in a tax haven, you must remember this story, it wasn't to long ago. Sure there's something similar with Amazon but I'd have to look it up. As for those taxes you mentioned, they may have done but so do all the businesses that pay tax here in the UK, so just becausecthey pay NI and such we shouldn't be grateful that they do so, it's not for our benefit it's purely for theirs, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"large employers pull out .... this allows new inovative players to step into the void. let them go, as they pay no tax anway they won't be missed. short term pain for long term stability and far more gain.This 👍 Mrs x I'm sorry but that isn't correct, a common misconception that there is always another to take the place. This is going away from OP, however it goes to show how the government are taking £5 billion off those they can easily manipulate. " yours is the misconception .... as they say, 'it's the economy stupid' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Starbucks paid tax in a tax haven, you must remember this story, it wasn't to long ago. Sure there's something similar with Amazon but I'd have to look it up." Amazon pay (almost) no tax in the UK because they spend all their profits on expansion, new equipment, and creating new jobs. That's a good thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Amazon’s main UK division has paid corporation tax for the first time since 2020 after the end of a “super-deduction” tax break introduced by Rishi Sunak.' This was published in 2024. One of the richest companies, owned by the richest guy on the planet and they paid no corporation tax, fantastic, Mrs x" ‘Fresh questions have been raised over Amazon’s tax planning after its latest corporate filings in Luxembourg revealed that the company collected record sales income of €44bn (£38bn) in Europe last year but did not have to pay any corporation tax to the Grand Duchy.’ Full article explaining the alleged avoidance practices - guardian article 4 May 2021 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Amazon’s main UK division has paid corporation tax for the first time since 2020 after the end of a “super-deduction” tax break introduced by Rishi Sunak.' This was published in 2024. One of the richest companies, owned by the richest guy on the planet and they paid no corporation tax, fantastic, Mrs x ‘Fresh questions have been raised over Amazon’s tax planning after its latest corporate filings in Luxembourg revealed that the company collected record sales income of €44bn (£38bn) in Europe last year but did not have to pay any corporation tax to the Grand Duchy.’ Full article explaining the alleged avoidance practices - guardian article 4 May 2021 " But leave him alone and go grab disability allowance from those that really need it, it stinks. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'd love to know where all these accessible, flexible jobs are coming from! I've just been "disciplined" for my absence in late 2024. Due to hospitalisation etc.
Madness.
Oh and all these jobs that say they are committed to diversity and inclusion and welcome applications from disabled etc. Tell them you have a disability, they don't want to know. Accessible and flexible my arse."8 years on, and I'm still having the same discussion about doors. Doors that could vary easily be made automatic/push button. Oh well | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'd love to know where all these accessible, flexible jobs are coming from! I've just been "disciplined" for my absence in late 2024. Due to hospitalisation etc.
Madness.
Oh and all these jobs that say they are committed to diversity and inclusion and welcome applications from disabled etc. Tell them you have a disability, they don't want to know. Accessible and flexible my arse.
8 years on, and I'm still having the same discussion about doors. Doors that could vary easily be made automatic/push button.
Oh well "*VERY easily. FFS. In my defence, I'm off my tits on the morphine  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"large employers pull out .... this allows new inovative players to step into the void. let them go, as they pay no tax anway they won't be missed. short term pain for long term stability and far more gain.This 👍 Mrs x I'm sorry but that isn't correct, a common misconception that there is always another to take the place. This is going away from OP, however it goes to show how the government are taking £5 billion off those they can easily manipulate. Name one that's disappeared that hasn't been replaced. It may not assume the same business model but something will always fill the void. Mrscx We don't need replacement, we need increases and growth! Growth? Haha some of these tuckers pay no tax, how's that helping with growth. An increase of nothing on nothing is nothing, Mrs x 'No tax' ? They don't pay NI or Vat or Business Tax, their employees don't pay any tax ??Starbucks paid tax in a tax haven, you must remember this story, it wasn't to long ago. Sure there's something similar with Amazon but I'd have to look it up. As for those taxes you mentioned, they may have done but so do all the businesses that pay tax here in the UK, so just becausecthey pay NI and such we shouldn't be grateful that they do so, it's not for our benefit it's purely for theirs, Mrs x" It is for yours and every customers benefit... Economics is a multifaceted subject. You are also trying to provide a solution to a problem that is 100% the government's to fix, as it is their mismanagement that has led to this position. Don't let that change your focus, as I said earlier they hit now, wait for the noise to be forgotten, and hen project fiscal compliance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if you let a system get out of hand it's very difficult to reign it back in - Also over one million foreign nationals are claiming benefits totally over 7.5 BILLION pounds a year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! " How does this relate to PIP, please? Or other disability benefits? People who are not legally settled here or naturalised citizens etc do not have recourse to benefits. If someone is legally settled or naturalised then they have the same rights as any other Brit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if you let a system get out of hand it's very difficult to reign it back in - Also over one million foreign nationals are claiming benefits totally over 7.5 BILLION pounds a year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How does this relate to PIP, please? Or other disability benefits? People who are not legally settled here or naturalised citizens etc do not have recourse to benefits. If someone is legally settled or naturalised then they have the same rights as any other Brit. " Fraud, a massive benifit fraud case recently involving a euro gang sapped millions. Made me wonder are legal foreign claimants syphoning benefits out of the country, in particular to Hamas, Hezbollah and Isis and their sympathisers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think that Labour needs to make changes to the benefits system. I think one of the more palatable ways of looking at the disability benefits is to say those that can provide medical evidence of a certain condition takes preference over self diagnosis. It's hard to 'fake' medical tests, x-rays, ct scans, MRIs, blood tests etc. Eligibility should be dependant upon this and not someone just saying they have a condition because they 'feel' they have something. If evidence is available then you should just be able to supply this and then not need an assessment, it could all be corroborated through medical reports. If you have no actual medical evidence then go through an assessment process. It's only like 'means tested' benefits were you have to supply evidence of income when asked to. It's already distressing enough being disabled without having to prove it over and over again, your medical records already show this. This should be so easy to implement, whatever government is in power should do this. Mrs x You cannot currently claim PIP or any other sickness or disability related benefit without evidence from actual medical diagnosis. This idea that people are self diagnosing and then rinsing the State for thousands of pounds is simply bulls***. " It's not bullshit. The main way people fraudulently claim pip is via mental health. Usually by going to there GP and claiming they are suicidal.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's not bullshit. The main way people fraudulently claim pip is via mental health. Usually by going to there GP and claiming they are suicidal.." Where did you get this information? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yet they never seem to go after big corporations for tax, rather the none payment of tax. It just seems mean, Mrs x Possibly because the tax rules and places to hide wealth and avoid said tax are expensive and difficult to unravel plus in the place where such cuts are made no one wants to shit on their own and their friends doorsteps.. Easier to target a section of society that 'some' people think already have it 'too easy', and who can't do much about it.. Not saying at all that it's fair, absolutely not .. Some people are fucking socks then, thinking the disabled have it 'too easy', that's the problem right there. Mrs x They are but for some it's easier to swallow the hype and the line the media put out be it, judges, benefit 'scroungers', the feckless workshy, immigrants etc than actually finding out what's going on.. Funny enough theres less print space given to tax evasion/avoidance and the like by many aspects of our media.. I agree with that but it cannot be hard for the HMRC to have a quick look and see these successful corporations have not paid tax here. It's got to be simple to legislate if you sell your products or services in this country you must pay tax on it. It's a simple concept really, it's not a wealth tax its just fair and right, Mrs x Successful businesses are paying taxes here, to change the tax rules and policies would bring hell on the government and take years to finalise, with loses to jobs and taxes as a result. There would also be a huge push on the government that would bring front and centre the £5 billion being creamed off is to underpin the fiscal rules Reeves put in place and to adjust the coffers due to the increase in borrowing that came off the back of the budget. Why has it been done now? To soften the impact of the spring statement, without the 5 billion, which will be referred to as welfare reforms or whatever softer words make people happy, that message would have been so much harsher as they have lost Reeves's headroom of £9.9 Billion in increased borrowing costs. That would have resulted in either further borrowing at increased borrowing costs, or taxing workers. Roll over and take it now, forget about it before the next election, when they fanfare their economic management to deliver on the strict fiscal rules...Not all successful businesses, Starbucks, Amazon to name just two. And what's the point in having a majority if its difficult to push through legislation, it's not difficult, it might not be what the government wants but don't pretend its difficult. Difficult is doing the things they've already done to the less well off, pensioners, farmers etc but they still did it. Mrs x Those companies definitely pay their taxes. The tax system may allow them to offset money, invest in R&D and any number of incentives that all successive governments have allowed. The UK has one of the most complex tax systems in the world, it just isn't easy to unpick it at a corporate level, and if we did we would see large employers pull out of the UK over the many years it would take to reform it. It is a balancing act, the government need businesses to generate capital, to spend that capital on pay, goods, corporation taxes, VAT and many others to get their share. Many people don’t realise that big business contributes to the economy in many ways beyond corporation tax. It’s easy to say, “just tax them more”, but the consequences of that are rarely taken into account. The rub with the pensioners, farmers etc is they are easy to target, the pensioners receive money from the government, easy to change that. Laws for registering death pick up the farmers, easy touch as it is a well trodden path. And that is why it is easier to take money from recipients of benefits. It's bollocks saying that big corporations bring more than just paying tax. What do they bring that another corporation wouldn't. Nature abhorrent a vacumn and if one business leaves or fails it's replaced by one that doesn't.. Starbucks were paying fuck all tax here, using the excuse they were registered in the Caymans or some other such tax haven and paid tax there. That's just bollocks, I know they can but the system should be changed so that if you sell anything here, products or services, then you should pay tax on all that. It's simple and if you use the example of scaring companies out of the UK that's hogwash too. Tell Starbucks to fuck off if they don't like it, Costa will seize the opportunity and if they don't someone else will. Mrs x" That works perfectly for retailers who can't offshore there buisness (they need to be here to sell us the coffee) Doesn't work as well for other buisness models like large manufacturers who sell to global markets... They can just move and make there goods elsewhere taking the Jobs with them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yet they never seem to go after big corporations for tax, rather the none payment of tax. It just seems mean, Mrs x Possibly because the tax rules and places to hide wealth and avoid said tax are expensive and difficult to unravel plus in the place where such cuts are made no one wants to shit on their own and their friends doorsteps.. Easier to target a section of society that 'some' people think already have it 'too easy', and who can't do much about it.. Not saying at all that it's fair, absolutely not .. Some people are fucking socks then, thinking the disabled have it 'too easy', that's the problem right there. Mrs x They are but for some it's easier to swallow the hype and the line the media put out be it, judges, benefit 'scroungers', the feckless workshy, immigrants etc than actually finding out what's going on.. Funny enough theres less print space given to tax evasion/avoidance and the like by many aspects of our media.. I agree with that but it cannot be hard for the HMRC to have a quick look and see these successful corporations have not paid tax here. It's got to be simple to legislate if you sell your products or services in this country you must pay tax on it. It's a simple concept really, it's not a wealth tax its just fair and right, Mrs x Successful businesses are paying taxes here, to change the tax rules and policies would bring hell on the government and take years to finalise, with loses to jobs and taxes as a result. There would also be a huge push on the government that would bring front and centre the £5 billion being creamed off is to underpin the fiscal rules Reeves put in place and to adjust the coffers due to the increase in borrowing that came off the back of the budget. Why has it been done now? To soften the impact of the spring statement, without the 5 billion, which will be referred to as welfare reforms or whatever softer words make people happy, that message would have been so much harsher as they have lost Reeves's headroom of £9.9 Billion in increased borrowing costs. That would have resulted in either further borrowing at increased borrowing costs, or taxing workers. Roll over and take it now, forget about it before the next election, when they fanfare their economic management to deliver on the strict fiscal rules...Not all successful businesses, Starbucks, Amazon to name just two. And what's the point in having a majority if its difficult to push through legislation, it's not difficult, it might not be what the government wants but don't pretend its difficult. Difficult is doing the things they've already done to the less well off, pensioners, farmers etc but they still did it. Mrs x Those companies definitely pay their taxes. The tax system may allow them to offset money, invest in R&D and any number of incentives that all successive governments have allowed. The UK has one of the most complex tax systems in the world, it just isn't easy to unpick it at a corporate level, and if we did we would see large employers pull out of the UK over the many years it would take to reform it. It is a balancing act, the government need businesses to generate capital, to spend that capital on pay, goods, corporation taxes, VAT and many others to get their share. Many people don’t realise that big business contributes to the economy in many ways beyond corporation tax. It’s easy to say, “just tax them more”, but the consequences of that are rarely taken into account. The rub with the pensioners, farmers etc is they are easy to target, the pensioners receive money from the government, easy to change that. Laws for registering death pick up the farmers, easy touch as it is a well trodden path. And that is why it is easier to take money from recipients of benefits. It's bollocks saying that big corporations bring more than just paying tax. What do they bring that another corporation wouldn't. Nature abhorrent a vacumn and if one business leaves or fails it's replaced by one that doesn't.. Starbucks were paying fuck all tax here, using the excuse they were registered in the Caymans or some other such tax haven and paid tax there. That's just bollocks, I know they can but the system should be changed so that if you sell anything here, products or services, then you should pay tax on all that. It's simple and if you use the example of scaring companies out of the UK that's hogwash too. Tell Starbucks to fuck off if they don't like it, Costa will seize the opportunity and if they don't someone else will. Mrs x That works perfectly for retailers who can't offshore there buisness (they need to be here to sell us the coffee) Doesn't work as well for other buisness models like large manufacturers who sell to global markets... They can just move and make there goods elsewhere taking the Jobs with them." let them fucking go .... others will fill the void .... but they won't go .... nobody ever goes .... it's all just bullshit threats ... they won't go anywhere and leave an untapped revenue stream for their competitors. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems the magic money tree is still alive and well in some parts ! " 🤡🤡🤡 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems the magic money tree is still alive and well in some parts ! 🤡🤡🤡" Chill, Thrill, have a coffee ! Oh no, they've all shut down.🤣🤣🤣 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Chill, Thrill, have a coffee ! Oh no, they've all shut down.🤣🤣🤣" 💩💩💩 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Chill, Thrill, have a coffee ! Oh no, they've all shut down.🤣🤣🤣 💩💩💩" Blimey you're in a bad mood this morning, hope you've not fallen off the roof again. 😳 Take it east fella.🤞🤞 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/fraud-and-error-in-the-benefit-system-financial-year-2023-to-2024-estimates/fraud-and-error-in-the-benefit-system-financial-year-ending-fye-2024 Government figures on benefit fraud and error. Officially, (known) fraud is around 3.7% (~9bn), approximately double pre-COVID levels. Interestingly, FYE24 PIP is (as far as the government knows) quite low: "The Personal Independence Payment overpayment rate was at the lowest recorded level of 0.4% (£90m) in FYE 2024, compared with 1.1% (£200m) in FYE 2023, which was a statistically significant decrease."" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"large employers pull out .... this allows new inovative players to step into the void. let them go, as they pay no tax anway they won't be missed. short term pain for long term stability and far more gain.This 👍 Mrs x I'm sorry but that isn't correct, a common misconception that there is always another to take the place. This is going away from OP, however it goes to show how the government are taking £5 billion off those they can easily manipulate. Name one that's disappeared that hasn't been replaced. It may not assume the same business model but something will always fill the void. Mrscx" OK wollwoths was replaced by Amozon but its Amozon people are complaining about. G | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/fraud-and-error-in-the-benefit-system-financial-year-2023-to-2024-estimates/fraud-and-error-in-the-benefit-system-financial-year-ending-fye-2024 Government figures on benefit fraud and error. Officially, (known) fraud is around 3.7% (~9bn), approximately double pre-COVID levels. Interestingly, FYE24 PIP is (as far as the government knows) quite low: "The Personal Independence Payment overpayment rate was at the lowest recorded level of 0.4% (£90m) in FYE 2024, compared with 1.1% (£200m) in FYE 2023, which was a statistically significant decrease."" There is no real level of fraud in disability benefits and the government knows this. Tighten up the eligibility, I even agree with that but don't take away money from those that genuinely need it, that's shameful, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems the magic money tree is still alive and well in some parts ! 🤡🤡🤡 Chill, Thrill, have a coffee ! Oh no, they've all shut down.🤣🤣🤣" No they haven't, there'll just be more Costas or new coffee shops. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
