Tories giving the disabled another kicking

More Tory madness...

p40ZDAQ.jpg


I have to wonder are they all this out-of-touch?

To quote Kevin Bridges "Oh you're disabled from the neck down? we don't give a **** mate, there will be a farm out there looking for a scarecrow" :)
 
That was a brilliant story :D

The memoirs said everyone around the table just looked at him in amazed silence, lol, then sniggers when they realised he was being serious.

So, get pensioners to replace immigrants doing the menial manual labour, but how to combat the issue of rising wage costs for the employer....make pensioners exempt from the min wage law....brilliant! :D
 
Dolph said:
Given that accountability increases exponentially (each layer accountable for everyone underneath them), why would pay not reflect this?
Click to expand...

I'd say it was the opposite way around, when the **** hits the fan the ones at the top are the ones who walk away unscathed whereas the people at the bottom get fired.
 
How would these PIP changes effect a disabled person who has struggled and pursued the ideal of getting to work? For example, I know a couple of people who are disabled and can only get to work because they have been given a mobility vehicle? The nature of their disability means they can only work part time, meaning that if their vehicle is taken away they wouldn't be able to work
 
robfosters said:
Seems like you may support the Motability scheme in general, but angered by the amount of undeserving people that get it.

Am I right?

I've noticed that the way people view cars shapes their attitude towards the motability scheme. A friend of mine is a real car fan, earns a lot and has a nice BMW M4. He hates motability and thinks its a disgrace that it exists.

But then I know others who view cars simply as tools to get from A to B. Their view is a lot more relaxed on the scheme and in the main supportive. It raises suspicions that criticism of the motability scheme is partly fuelled by a twisted form of jealousy.
Click to expand...

I have nothing against any type of scheme to help people out who genuinely need assistance, I am 100% against abuse of said system and overpayments of any kind though.
 
ethan said:
How would these PIP changes effect a disabled person who has struggled and pursued the ideal of getting to work? For example, I know a couple of people who are disabled and can only get to work because they have been given a mobility vehicle? The nature of their disability means they can only work part time, meaning that if their vehicle is taken away they wouldn't be able to work
Click to expand...

Well do they qualify for two points currently in th one area subjct to change, that will drop to one point?
And will this ine piint drop make them fall inti the lower level, or not qualify for the lower level at all?
You have asked, but it is quite simple. Do they drop a level? It isn't a massive change, it is a single point change in one area.
 
Tbh I'm out of my depth here as I simply do not know enough about the changes, at least until I have the chance to peruse (them). Regardless of this I imagine any point differential that placed either of them without their vehicles, would have a devastating effect on their independence, including usefulness to their employer.
 
ethan said:
How would these PIP changes effect a disabled person who has struggled and pursued the ideal of getting to work? For example, I know a couple of people who are disabled and can only get to work because they have been given a mobility vehicle? The nature of their disability means they can only work part time, meaning that if their vehicle is taken away they wouldn't be able to work
Click to expand...

Do they use the car as an aid to going to the toilet or getting dressed?
 
Tefal said:
Do they use the car as an aid to going to the toilet or getting dressed?
Click to expand...

It promotes their independence by enabling them to get to the shops and go to work and visit relatives etc which they wouldn't necessarily be able to do without it. The other person I know is driven to work by a relative when the person is able though works from home 90% of the time due to the nature of the illness. I'm unsure of your point and so have probably misunderstood its meaning.
 
Last edited:
ethan said:
It promotes their independence by enabling them to get to the shops and go to work and visit relatives etc which they wouldn't necessarily be able to do without it. The other person I know is driven to work by a relative when the person is able though works from home 90% of the time due to the nature of the illness. I'm unsure of your point and so have probably misunderstood its meaning.
Click to expand...

Thats the catagory thats being reassessed.
 
Dolph said:
Haven't you opposed every action to reducation the deficit by curtailing spending?
Click to expand...

How many years have we had the debate now that cutting spending is not the only way to reduce the deficit? :)

It will be interesting to see once he has cut Government spending by 50% if the deficit is gone in 4 years time and how much better off society will be
 
Dolph said:
Given that accountability increases exponentially (each layer accountable for everyone underneath them), why would pay not reflect this?
Click to expand...
Do you actually believe this?.

Company does well - huge bonus at the top, the result of "astute decision making" in upper management'.
Company does badly - huge job losses at the bottom, the result of underline market conditions.

The Mad Rapper said:
Poor people always make that argument.
Click to expand...
It's actually more of a case of understanding that tax is required for the running of the nation, infrastructure, maintain a healthy population, relatively crime free society & a pool of educated available workers.

Not everybody who accepts this fact is poor.
 
Last edited:
elmarko said:
Do you actually believe this?.

Company does well - huge bonus at the top, the result of "astute decision making" in upper management'.
Company does badly - huge job losses at the bottom, the result of underline market conditions.

It's actually more of a case of understanding that tax is required for the running of the nation & to maintain a healthy population of educated available workers.

Not everybody who accepts this fact is poor.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe that. Most of the people at the top also waive their rights to the employment laws that protect people at the bottom through severance rules, and if there is a monumental screw up lower down, it often causes those instant severance clauses in a way that could never happen to those lower down.
 
Freakbro said:
How many years have we had the debate now that cutting spending is not the only way to reduce the deficit? :)

It will be interesting to see once he has cut Government spending by 50% if the deficit is gone in 4 years time and how much better off society will be
Click to expand...

But it is the most successful, because raising the total amount paid in tax is rarely what happens when governments tax more... (look at the proportion of income paid in tax for the UK over say the last 50 years)

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=REV

Moving the tax take around doesn't increase it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom