Mobilità: “Solo perché sono disabile, perché non posso guidare quello che voglio?”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8jrw21lx0xo
di alibix
Mobilità: “Solo perché sono disabile, perché non posso guidare quello che voglio?”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8jrw21lx0xo
di alibix
30 commenti
Because I’m not disabled and I can’t drive what I want either
I’m all for the scheme, but with reasonable limits. As long as it fits the purpose but a luxury BMW? That’s a bit of a piss take.
The scheme should be for very basic cars to help you get from A to B. It should not be for a BMW like she openly admits she got.
This is why people target the scheme, she literally openly admits she has a flashy car when most people cannot afford it, so yes, of course, it’s going to cause contention
It’s a bit of a weird situation, because it’s a scheme designed to provide people who might otherwise be unable to afford it, access to accessible cars. People who’re getting the “50000 luxury cars” (per the article) are in fact paying the difference over and above the cost it would be for a standard car from their own pocket. The scheme isn’t being used to give them more than it gives other people.
But, it kind of begs the question if you’re able to pay a “huge deposit” and additional costs for a BMW, why are you accessing this scheme in the first place?
It would be cheaper for the government and better for the planet if these claimants were just given a lump sum to purchase a car with.
A 2010 jazz does the same job as a brand new beemer, whilst being a fraction of the cost.
I read the article and am all for helping disabled people improve their independence. But surely they don’t need a luxury car to do so…
I can certainly see how people think it’s unfair and I do think there are some people who game the system. I know of two personally who do so.
I have no qualms about people selecting whatever vehicle they feel is best for them.
But they shouldn’t be in a wrapper of tax exemptions, remove the special exemptions and open motability to private competition, there’s no reason why others can’t provide the same service, they just have the monopoly right now due to the tax exemptions perversing the market.
It’s important not to confound the issue, I think it’s more important to consider the benefit system as a whole and whether qualifying criteria is set at the right level, and whether payments are linked to the cost of disabilities.
I know the benefits are duplicated and there’s about a dozen benefits linked to disabilities, so it’s also important that that there’s a simplification and many are merged and cut, there’s potential for billions just in efficiency savings alone.
The issue is that Motability cars are VAT and VED exempt.
If you pay the difference and get a more expensive car you get a considerably larger VAT exemption and don’t have to pay the luxury car VED.
The alternative to limiting the list of cars would be to charge the normal taxes on an amount over a certain level.
You can. People aren’t objecting to you driving what you want; they’re objecting that their taxes are paying for the car that you want. Particularly if they’d *also* like a luxury car, but can’t afford it for themselves. And also given that they also have to pay for a load of extras, like VAT, insurance and servicing, which Motability customers don’t have to pay out of their pocket for.
As a general rule, people don’t like seeing those on benefits having a better lifestyle (which would include having a nicer car) than those that pay for the benefits – you may not *agree* with that perspective, but we can acknowledge it’s a common sentiment, right?
The problem isn’t the BMWs – they are a symptom. While the BBC are properly baiting here, she’s paying extra for her car so its doesn’t cost the treasury anything. Given she is an amputee you can’t really argue with her getting some help towards her disability. It’s a bit like not giving anti seizure medication to someone with epilepsy; it’s a cost, they’ll likely survive without it but it’ll be pretty awful and they’ll struggle to get a job.
The issue remains people rinsing the system and getting free cars because their kid has autism or they have a anxiety and they’ve learnt how to game the system on TikTok. I don’t care if that car is a Dacia or whatever, that’s the waste that needs targeting.
You absolutely can. Just pay the VAT on the luxury element like non-disabled people do.
I wonder how quick the amount of applicants would drop if it could only be used for a basic car, like a smart car or something.
I know of at least 3 people who’ve abused this system.
Is the scheme a) making cars (with or without modifications) cheaper for disabled people or b) allowing disabled people to get a car when they wouldn’t be able to at all.
If it’s (a) then fair enough, if it’s (b) then someone who can pay for the premium upgrades probably doesn’t need the assistance.
I’m convinced that if the motability scheme didn’t exist in the UK we wouldn’t be pivoted to more jacked up hatchbacks pretending to be SUV’s.
The scheme is the purchaser of a huge number of new vehicles every year, for people who have mobility issues. The crossover segment is easier to get in to for these, and over time more and more cars are getting taller.
Manufacturers seem to think we all want to buy these taller hatchbacks that aren’t any bigger on the inside, because they are selling 1000s of them.
And those of us that buy second hand, and don’t want a lifted Yaris or Micra are getting a smaller and smaller pool of cars to choose from.
I actually don’t mind if people need a modified car to be mobile. Losing a leg isn’t something this lady can just pretend, so how many people can scam that?
But I went to buy a used car earlier in the year, and the dealer told me there were loads of ex motability cars being sold. None of them had any modifications, they were just normal cars, some of them very new. I don’t see why society should pay for that.
If you need a wheelchair car, then of course, we can pay for that and it’s part of a decent society.
If you don’t need a special car, what’s the sense in us paying for it?
This government REALLY hates disabled people. Now if they could only channel that anger in to big corporations dodging billions in tax we might get somewhere.
Hang on – Motability has financial reserves of FOUR BILLION POUNDS? Jfc.
I see lots of people saying she shouldn’t get a fancy car. Are you all arguing that PIP should be means-tested?
Think it through before answering. All the way through.
Motability should be just basic cars, want a better car? Pay to upgradr
Absolute sham.
1. They should only be allowed to buy British built cars. This is our tax money, it should stay in the UK.
2. Someone on sufficient wages they can supplement their moto car lease should not be getting extra tax relief on their vehicle.
Remember, people will get a £77 per week PIP allowance for mobility, they are surrendering this for the car. so approx £300 a month, to lease a car for 3 years, which they will never own. If they want to pay 2/3/4K for a nicer car up front, that is up to them, I don’t see an issue with this at all. At the end of the lease that car will be sold on. The problem with motability is how people seem to think it is a free car, a car being something which a lot of people hold as some sort of status symbol and they don’t like that someone gets it for ‘free’ when they have to pay for it. The real problem is, Motability is poorly run, and needs to be changed itself to maximise the profit of the vehicles being sold on etc, not just thrown into auctions.
Years ago there were the infamous AC invalid carriages. An alternative/modern-day system could have manufacturers bidding for a fleet contract – a simple hatchback, saloon and maybe a small SUV/wheelchair adapted van. Obviously with CO2 limitations (if private buyers and company car users are penalised based on CO2 then government schemes should clearly lead the way).
I think some people aren’t aware that PIP isn’t means based, you could be a billionaire and still claim PIP.
So a Motability car can indeed be used to be a more productive member of society, do you know how hard it is getting the bus as a wheelchair user, it’s a f%cking chore, especially early on. So a car can make the difference between working or not working.
So if you’re working and paying tax why shouldn’t you be able to make a bigger down payment on a more suitable car for your needs (within reason)?
I’m a wheelchair user myself, I don’t use Motability but although I’m sure loads of people abuse the system, for many people it is a whole lot more than ‘free car’. So many aspects of being disabled are a whole lot more difficult than an able-bodied person can ever imagine. Doesn’t matter what your disabled friend or relative tells you, it’s way harder than that.
Drive something that gets you from A to B. I’ll pay less tax and spend it on what I want maybe a better car.
By the time you take into account the 8k she would have put down, and the loss of her high rate mobility your around 6.5k a year to lease this car for 3 years.
A nearly new bmw ix3 m sport Electric can be leased with a full service package inc breakdown for 430 ish a month.
Or 5k a year ish easy enough to afford the insurance, road tax will be free.
If she had done that with her money what then?
Cut the mobility allowance altogether?
Unless we want to means test one legged people?
Thank god for this scheme. You’re right, I don’t pay insurance or anything, and they’re more than happy for me to have a GT model. Makes a lot of people sulk for some reason
Maybe its time that all benefits, including pensions should be means tested?
For me, there is not a car in the world that would make up for being physically disabled. The world is so able-bodied centric that I have no problem with people getting help to make their lives easier. If she takes advantage of the service and uses her own money to top up and get a better car, that’s fine by me
Meh give them all a corsa or a moka job done. If the government is buying it then you should get zero say in what it is.
I wonder whether the move needs to be towards funding cars where someone needs adaptations but not otherwise.
A basic car is arguably a requirement for many people with or without a disability. If a car needs to be modified or large to accommodate other equipment that creates significant cost for the individual with a mobility scheme could mitigate for. If you’re able to drive a standard car, surely you need to be responsible for that like everyone else is.
I’m not sure having a disability means you’re entitled to a publicly funded car if your disability doesn’t stop you driving a regular car.