Disability Allowance For Katy Price's Son

[jd_1984]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/katie-prices-representatives-release-statement-5053334

£40m in the bank and the state fund her son's transport to and from school with specialist nurses (1.5 hrs each way). It is argued that Harvey must go to this school. This was done because Harvey has a Statement of Special Educational Needs because of his disabilities. Within this Statement it includes the name of the school Harvey must attend.

Katy Price pays her taxes, so is her net worth irrelevant and should she receive the benefits that other mothers in her situation could apply for?

[murraymints]

if she has paid her contributions and this is a non means tested benefit then she is as entitled to this as anyone is

[factor-fiction]

It's the same argument as saying should they get free health care, free schooling, etc. We give that to people who contribute nothing in the way of taxes and it should be available to those who pay a lot in taxes to support the less fortunate.
There was a long thread on this yesterday so you may find the points have been covered fully so you won't get loads of replies

[mrs_overall]

She isn't receiving the benefit, it is for her son

[murraymints]

quite right great international super model ! xxx ....

[mrs_overall]

Thank you murraymints.
I am always right. I once thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken ;-)

[-Talbot-]

You were wrong about being wrong. So you were once wrong right?

[joggerjayne]

It's not Katie Price's responsibility to support everyone else (although, as she lives in the UK, and pays a lot in tax on her high income, she does a LOT more towards supporting everyone else than people like Lewis "keep it all for myself" Hamilton).

It's very difficult to separate personal financial circumstances from state entitlements.

If you did then, logically, you would have to end up with a system where people could opt out.

For instance ...

If a person has private medical insurance, three cars, a private pension, and sends their children to private school ... why should they pay towards the NHS, public transport, state pensions, and the education budget, when they are never going to use any of them.

Should there be a tax option where you just contribute towards Defence and Culture?

Clearly not. The system is, if you pay IN, you CAN (if you wish) take out.

[Svejk]

I don't know. One of the biggest race-horse owners in the country gets £160 a week sick money(or whatever the term is nowadays) When questioned about it he said he was entitled to it and gave it away to another family member anyway. Why would multi-millionaires apply for benefits even if they are entitled to them. I don't like it.

[scorpiojo]

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1396569.html

[-Talbot-]

Maybe what should be questioned is the £1000 for 3 hours work.

[mrs_overall]

Sweaty, Employment & Support Allowance (ESA) is the name for "sick money." It is means tested and there is no way on earth a multi millionaire could claim it.
Disability Living Allowance is NOT means tested, so if he is disabled, he could be claiming this.

[joggerjayne]

// Why would multi-millionaires apply for benefits even if they are entitled to them //

Good point.

And, by the same token, why should they contribute to the benefit system if they are never going to need it.

Let them opt out.

Leave the benefit system, both paying in and taking out, to the people who actually use it.

[mrs_overall]

Talbot - I wasn't wrong, I was mistaken, so that means I was right. Simple! (BTW don't ever try to fathom female logic lol)

[Svejk]

Don't know what it was called and while I can see the arguments for Universal Benefits it still gets on my toot. I wonder does Paul McCartney get his 'heating allowance'(or whatever it's called)

[mccfluff]

she probably pays more in taxes that most of us will pay in a lifetime combined. i doubt she has £40m in the bank that will inc property/assets etc,
the benefit isn't for her its for her son she is imo more than entitled to it

[mrs_overall]

Multi millionaires have paid their taxes like the rest of us and they are entitled to DLA regardless of their income.
It doesn't sit comfortably with me

[joggerjayne]

It's like insurance, isn't it?

If you're wealthy, you still have to have car insurance.

Suggesting that wealthy people shouldn't be entitled to benefits is like saying they have to insure their cars, but shouldn't be allowed to claim on their policy.

And they'd be forgiven for thinking ... hello! who paid all the money in there in the first place !!!

[mccfluff]

right, so you have to pay in, but you shouldn't be allowed to benefit. in that case we should have an "opt out" clause

it doesn't work like that

[Svejk]

I can see that, jj. I just don't know why rich people claim benefits. And if there's any truth in the £1,000 per 3 hours figure, someone, somewhere along the line is abusing the system.

[jd_1984]

My feeling is that she is of course, entitled as a tax payer and I have admiration for her doing the best for her disabled child, many of us take for granted having perfectly healthy children.
But it just doesn't sit right with me. Do all children with similar disabilities get offered this school in London? She chooses to live 1.5 hrs away from the school and therefore the travel costs are very high. Where is Harvey when she is in the BB house or jetting off with her "current" partner 6 times a year on holiday? Do you not think that Dwight Yorke, the father, gets stung every month for child support from her?
She will take every benefit she can whilst earning £500,000 to SIT IN A HOUSE for two weeks.
I feel like I am ranting, perhaps it her that I don't like!
I would only wish the best for her son