We have a zero-tolerance policy for racism, hate speech, and abusive behavior. Offenders will be banned without warning.
Our sub has participation requirements. If your account is too new, is not email verified, or doesn't meet certain undisclosed karma criteria, your posts or comments will not be displayed.
Please report any rule-breaking content to help us maintain community standards.
Nice to see our taxes being spend to well. Got to wonder how this role is more complex than being the PM (The UK Prime Minister's official salary is around £172,000 annually)
Motability isn't part of the government, and they have zero influence on how much money is paid by the government towards the benefit that's used to pay them.
This is what I dislike about government outsourcing its work to charities. We’re still paying for it as if it was a government department but there’s no accountability for how these organisations are run
I understand this complaint for a lot of benefits, but I think you don’t understand the motability situation very well. This isn’t benefits like what people get for just being unable to get a job etc. this is for disabled people unable to work, they will get 350 a month and if they choose they can trade that for a car, even if the disabled people only got cars worth 200 a month that would just mean 150 is put in their pocket instead.
Now you can complain and rightfully so about all the people getting it for non-physical disabilities like ‘mental health’ and depression because a lot of people obviously game the system to get that, but for very obvious physical disabilities like being wheelchair bound etc the money should genuinely be there and I don’t think many would complain about that
Taxes are so high because idiots in the 80s voted to dismantle Britain. Doubling down on more Right Wing attitudes won't fix the mess the Right Wing attitudes created.
This sounds like one of the more complicated organisations.
Sourcing cars, converting them to a whole range of mobility issues, leasing them out with partial public money involved adding complexity, then at the end of the lease disposing of them when their modifications are largely worthless to the wider public.
Throw in the politics of providing disabled people vehicles, which for some reason makes them hated while they have literally nothing to do with the testing.
Should a business leader be paid this much, nope. But relative to others this one is underpaid.
Motability is a charity.
Motability has no say in how much is awarded to claimants in receipt of enhanced mobility PIP's or DLA.
Motability receives no additional funding from government
So please explain how his pay contributes to the benefits budget.
if his salary is out of line with performance of the motability, or of those in similar positions you'd have a point.
But if the charity believes it's getting good value for the salary he's being paid, that his management is both improving what the charity can offer and it's robustness against a changing market then it's a good investment.
Its a 'charity' funded by the government, he sits on his arse while the government throws money at him, he doesn't produce anything apart from profit which is from the tax payer. Yes its an important service but its milked by business...I.e. car dealers, parts suppliers ect....was speaking to a manager recently and he said Kwik Fit turn over 50 million on motability alone...no wonder when they always supply top range tyres, brakes ect when not required....its yet another gravy train for some while remaining a lifeline for others.
Is it £200k more complex though? Really? 99% of people in the uk would be absolutely unapologetically ecstatic if there annual wage was nearly a 200k never mind it being increased by 200k to nearly a million quid.
I'm not sure you understand what the role involves. It's a hugely complicated operation - it has to manage fleets, control residual value risk, partner for financing the vehicles, remarket the cars, price the scheme, organise maintenance.
You could say that about any job - there is a reason companies pay high salaries for the right people rather than less for someone who 'could still do the job' though.
I expect that it was a bit of a struggle before. Only earning £748k must really have you wondering whether it is worth going to work for those three days a week.
Is the scale and complexity of the role something that takes 10 to 15 people to achieve? If so fine, if not, then these greedy cunts are just taking the piss.
Can’t fit a wheelchair in the back let alone the drivers seat. Can’t travel with a carer to attend appointments, can’t do things like take children to school in those.
Believe me the people getting the luxury upgrades are paying NI and substantial income tax.
And again nobody is getting free luxury cars from the government. Again, substantial extra payment.
Because again, PIP isn’t means tested. It’s not an out of work or unable to work benefit. It’s designed to counter the extra daily expenses that come with being disabled.
And it’s a benefit that is in all our interests, disability is a club anyone might join at any time.
Nah disagree, remove luxury cars from the scheme completely and go even further to make “the motability car” a standard non-brand model, build a factory in the UK to build them and use it to create jobs instead of shovelling billions in taxpayers cash into the profits of Mercedes, BMW, Audi and Lexus every year.
If there is such an extreme level of demand because the population are so disabled that 20% of all new cars are Motability then we should be building them ourselves to cut costs and increase employment.
The history of invalid carriages is very interesting in the UK. There were electric ones in 1930. And the other early ones ran on little 2 stroke engines. One person from the UK even travelled all the way to climb a Swiss Alp and returned, solo and then his daughter or grand daughter rode in his foot steps and recreated a route as close as possible in the same little 3 wheeled 2 stroke Argson. I found about that earlier this week as one had popped up for sale but doesn't have a serial number so it would be a pain to register it a historic road vehicle.
There’s so much misinfo about how the motability scheme works…disabled people get 350 a month, or a motability car, now motability as a company get the best possible deal for 350, which when negotiating such a large amount of cars ends up being a very good deal. Now even if the people complaining like you who say they can drive a little Cora’s, so say it cost only 250 a month, the disabled person would then just get a car plus 100 a month cash i’m hand, it doesn’t make a difference to the tax payer, people don’t seem to understand this part
I mean, my family personally has a Ford Puma. And, as far as I'm aware , the lower luxury brands like Mercedes & audi are the most expensive vehicles on the motorbility scheme. (Note - in fact, near all luxury brands are actually removed from the scheme now)
Personally, my family could never manage to have £1000 at one time , £500 is a challenge. So the real question should be, what is the percentage of luxury brands in the wider motorbiliity scheme. I'd assume that your emotive reaction falls short as an argument beyond the actual idea, as a statement, of those brands being included in motorbillity.
My family went from(in my living memory, I'm 17):
Vauxhall cars up till 2018,
2018- 2023? : got a Mercedes since brother needed a larger car, because difficulties getting in, was messed around with by mitsubishi , and the Mercedes was same price , £400(was on a deal) , so, logically, went through them. The Mercedes guys were incredibly nice to my family & specifically my brother.
2023 - present : Ford Puma , since extension was maximised on the Mercedes. Normally , the Puma would be £100, but for the moneyback from long-lease(?) got £700 off, so got it for £300. Essentially, to my understanding, keeping your vehicle on longer lease reduces costs of the motorbility scheme.
I'll forsake the wish to backhand you for the comment about people with cerebral palsy, and address the actual greater conversation. The primary function of motorbility is to enable the disabled / physically limited access to the daily functions of life. In this, I believe no one has appropriate right to complain about, given various benefits they themselves have(NHS, and various other schemes, motorbility is but an extension of this logic of governance). There are economic benefits to motorbility, such as increasing the local economy by enabling sectors of the population to actively engage with the economy better. Along with reduction of costs for the NHS, primarily mental health. People locked inside all day caused by their disability tend to have incredibly dangerous declines. My brother(cerebral palsy in question) is practically Eyeor because of his limitations.
The argument for the upper limit of quality of car, of which I hope is your actual argument, and source of that snide remark, is a valid one. As an ex beneficiary of their inclusion , I am naturally inclined to defend their case. For a start, its definitely a moral boost for people who need it. Disabled people have the highest rates in the population of mental ill health, and having nice things , little things to brag about, do help , however small. Also , better quality does seemingly have some small health benefits via better ergonomics , which could be argued slightly reduces the impact of long term health issues, like back pain, which inevitably damages the NHS' coffers.
Now, in relation to the tax payer, which, hopefully we agree, is the primary focus regarding luxury vehicles is, for a start , yet again, it stimulates economic growth. In a word where (somewhat) arbitrary & easily misinforming metrics such as GDP impact business decisions of billion pound consequences, economic stimulation is paramount. And this achieves that. One could argue that it also creates jobs(increased orders lead to national investment, investment leads to jobs, job income then gets spent and stimulates the economy).
Doing a quick search, average larger motorbility cars cost between £26,000 and £30,000. These luxury cars tend to cost around £35,000. So , in the lower scheme of things, they aren't actually such a gargantuan increase in expenditure that some people tend to make them out to be, yes, it is by no insignificant margin, an increase, but it is no an exorbitant one.
To conclude, as someone living with someone who is crippled for life, and as someone who themselves has a life long disability(which does not limit my physical functions for the most part luckily, though Hirschsprung's is a right b*stard) , a lot of this outrage seems more akin to scapegoat ism towards the disabled, or outright misfire at the wrong targets.
People utilised luxury cars within the scheme because they were financially obtainable at times, and , they were treated FAR better by those luxury brands than by standard brands. Why would you chose a standard brand when you can get a luxury brand who actually care about their customers, for the same price? AND, their entire utilisation of such option entirely depends upon if they have the financial capacity to use it, which , I would assume the majority , doesn't. For a group of people who typically have far lower quality of life than the average person, live shorter lives, experience mental pains at a far higher rate than the rest of the population, there's a benefit in actually letting them have something nice for once.
Finally, I for one think the entire source of your argument is less sourced from what you talk of, but more actually the people who use the scheme. There's always talk of people who are on the motorbility scheme for minor issues they experience , and I think that, is your actual source of outrage. And personally , I would assume the majority of this media circulating the topic is intentionally using it for outrage, because its entirely beneficial for their profiteers & sponsors to cause it.
There is an argument for addressing the people who leak through the cracks regarding benefits, who really shouldn't be receiving them, or , are intentionally putting themselves in situations to cause their need of them. However, all the current attitude does is create a larger stigma towards benefits, which is notoriously difficult for actual disabled people to obtain.
MPs routinely argue they need to be paid accordingly to attract the best possible candidate. Same logic, plus they are in a capitalist society so all of it's ingrained. Nothing wrong with that per se, it's just we seem outraged at this being excessive but when MPs have received pay rises year after year it seems fine.
A non means tested benefit. It’s like complaining about children’s car seat manufacturers leaching of taxpayers money because of children’s allowance. Or worthers originals through the state pension.
Many people on the high rate mobility pip rate work. For many, this benefit enables them to work.
It’s like complaining about children’s car seat manufacturers leaching of taxpayers money because of children’s allowance. Or worthers originals through the state pension.
Are car seats and worthers only available to benefits claimants?
No.
Are car seats and worthers subsidised by the taxpayer to make them more affordable to people on benefits?
No.
So basically then it's not the same thing at all, is it.
Much prefer people are paid via income and pay tax on that, than the money going to a private company with shareholders who the majority of are not in the UK.
There's a million £s cut from the benefits bill already if you give his job to someone looking for work and pay them minimum wage. Should really be filling roles within the motability scheme with the disabled people that are going to save the economy for us, anyway.
Makes sense that all of these readily available accessible roles the media and government keep alluding to, would be within a scheme for disabled people. :/
So what? he is running a business. Vehicles are paid for out of peoples benefits that they would otherwise get cash for. So if a disabled person bought a new TV does that mean that Currys shouldnt pay market rates for their CEO's?
You should see all the comments in the Daily Mail on this today. People genuinely believe their taxes are paying this guy’s salary. The media is doing a fine job of creating division.
Motability is an independent company, paying their ceo a salary that sits within the average range for comparable companies. By all means call for the reform of PIP, that is the issue, not the existence of Motability, which provides a vital lifeline for disabled people, many of whom would be housebound or unable to work without it.
The gov funds PIP, which the claimant receives regardless of whether they join Motability or not. The gov is vastly reining back scheme subsidies next year, with VAT exemptions on advance payments and IPT set to end, you’ll be glad to know. I don’t disagree it’s a ridiculous salary, but again, it does sit in the average range. My taxes subsidise loads of things I don’t agree with, but there we are.
If the terms are made comparable to what I can get as a non-claimant, then I have no issue with the scheme continuing to exist - as at that point you're right that it's just people spending their bennies on what they want to spend them on.
Equally, Motability should not be able to weild an effective monopoly on being able to lease cars to the disabled. They should be able to shop around the same as I can.
The reality is I expect if you made the terms similar to other schemes, Motability would no longer be competitive.
My taxes subsidise loads of things I don’t agree with, but there we are.
You might be content to sit around paying for this shite, but I'm not.
Mobility isn't a government arm. It's a not for profit company that is owned by UK banks.
Mobility gets ZERO government funding it uses people's Pip payment for cars/ wheelchairs ect. Of course you can argue that the pip finds the company but not more than Universal Credit pays for Tesco's chairman's salary.
He is running the UKs largest car leasing company.
The company itself makes no money but the finance is provided by the banks that own it and they do make money. If you compare his compensation to say Lex auto lease head of it's comparable.
If universal credit disappeared tomorrow Tesco would have no workers, like 70% of the staff at Tesco will be claiming universal credit ect. All high volume, low profit margin companies are essentially receiving tax subsidies due to too low pay.
It is the largest fleet operator in Europe.\3]) In 2024, the scheme accounted for around 1 in 5 new cars purchased in the UK,\4]) with 815,000 people on the scheme, up 15% on the previous year.\5]) More than 20 manufacturers currently offer cars through the scheme.
That's incredible, one in 5 cars are given out free by the government. We are completely doomed, no wonder 8m people aren't working. Our national debt will balloon under labour and we will be paying off this madness for generations.
My ‘free’ car (small hatchback) costs me £330 a month, plus there was an advance payment of £1700 if memory serves, and after three years I give it back and don’t have a car. It’s tricky getting finance for a car when you’re on benefits so this is a literal lifeline. If I didn’t lease the car, I’d still get my ‘free’ money so I suppose I could get taxis instead (can’t use buses), but that would be so expensive I’d be stuck at home most of the time. Do I not deserve some freedom and normality, and being on a more equal footing in society? How about you try out my MS and see how it works, I’d gladly give it up, be working and be able to buy my own car.
Cheers to the down voters who obviously think I should just stay home and shut up. If the mark of a society is how we treat our most vulnerable, you don’t come out of it well.
What part of THEY USE THEIR PIP don’t you understand? It’s not an additional payment from the taxpayer, the PIP receiver decides to use the money they are already going to get for their condition on a car via the Motability scheme, rather than use the cash for something else like taxis.
Yup. The taxpayer is not only paying out the huge amounts of money that people are then spending on this in the first place, they are also massively subsidising the scheme itself via tax breaks and preferential rules on things like insurance.
Attention r/uknews Community:
We have a zero-tolerance policy for racism, hate speech, and abusive behavior. Offenders will be banned without warning.
Our sub has participation requirements. If your account is too new, is not email verified, or doesn't meet certain undisclosed karma criteria, your posts or comments will not be displayed.
Please report any rule-breaking content to help us maintain community standards.
Thank you for your cooperation.
r/uknews Moderation Team
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Nice to see our taxes being spend to well. Got to wonder how this role is more complex than being the PM (The UK Prime Minister's official salary is around £172,000 annually)
Motability isn't part of the government, and they have zero influence on how much money is paid by the government towards the benefit that's used to pay them.
This is what I dislike about government outsourcing its work to charities. We’re still paying for it as if it was a government department but there’s no accountability for how these organisations are run
Except that no, we're not.
How much he is paid makes no difference to the tax payer.
The government pays everyone who gets the higher rate of mobility £77.05 per week.
If they want they can spend that money on a car from motability, or they can keep it to spend on other things.
But the government never provides more than that £77.05. Any extra is provided by the individual themselves, not directly from the government.
He could pay himself a billion a year, and charge everyone 10x more then they're currently paying.
But the government still wouldn't pay more.
77.05 per week is 333 per month tax free.
I get a a car allowance that 500 per month but taxed as income.
Therefore I get a similar amount for working a full time job.
I think the outrage is at the fact that the government is subsidising new and quite expensive cars.
The cherry on top is this blokes salary.
£333 which they would get no matter what.
Even if Motability didn't exist, the government would still be spending the exact same amount of money.
Y point is that we are starting to live in a country where work doesn’t pay
That has nothing to do with motability.
They don't decide who's eligible.
Yes it does they are taking the money
If they weren't, someone else would.
Claiments get this money and spend it how they want.
The organisations who they spend money at, aren't responsible for the benefit itself.
I understand this complaint for a lot of benefits, but I think you don’t understand the motability situation very well. This isn’t benefits like what people get for just being unable to get a job etc. this is for disabled people unable to work, they will get 350 a month and if they choose they can trade that for a car, even if the disabled people only got cars worth 200 a month that would just mean 150 is put in their pocket instead.
Now you can complain and rightfully so about all the people getting it for non-physical disabilities like ‘mental health’ and depression because a lot of people obviously game the system to get that, but for very obvious physical disabilities like being wheelchair bound etc the money should genuinely be there and I don’t think many would complain about that
Couldn’t agree more the issue is that the definition of disabled has expanded massively
The scheme is actually a net plus to the economy and supports a ton of jobs.
The government isn't subsidizing anything here. You need to research more rather than just being outraged at what others get.
Why not give everyone a free car?
Sure
Sounds like something to bring up with your boss rather than punching down.
Or the tax man. And taxes are so high because of the size of the welfare state
Taxes are so high because idiots in the 80s voted to dismantle Britain. Doubling down on more Right Wing attitudes won't fix the mess the Right Wing attitudes created.
Sure they are nothing to do with the highest welfare bill
UK spending on welfare has remained around 10% of GDP since the 80s.
So how much in real terms we're spending has remained pretty stable for a long time.
Andrews role doesn't come with brown paper bags when he leaves, his higher salary now offsets this.
I could scarcely imagine the outrage you would feign if the PM got a pay raise lol
Know how much the Thames Water CEO makes? £2.3 million. At least Motability is run well and isn't begging for more money all the time.
Complexity of the role , yeah right 😂
Wow nearly a million a year to dish out cars. Complex. 🤯 and they wonder why the benefits budget is out of control.
This sounds like one of the more complicated organisations.
Sourcing cars, converting them to a whole range of mobility issues, leasing them out with partial public money involved adding complexity, then at the end of the lease disposing of them when their modifications are largely worthless to the wider public.
Throw in the politics of providing disabled people vehicles, which for some reason makes them hated while they have literally nothing to do with the testing.
Should a business leader be paid this much, nope. But relative to others this one is underpaid.
Motability is a charity.
Motability has no say in how much is awarded to claimants in receipt of enhanced mobility PIP's or DLA.
Motability receives no additional funding from government
So please explain how his pay contributes to the benefits budget.
If it's "a charity" then his salary should be far, far lower.
Why?
if his salary is out of line with performance of the motability, or of those in similar positions you'd have a point.
But if the charity believes it's getting good value for the salary he's being paid, that his management is both improving what the charity can offer and it's robustness against a changing market then it's a good investment.
Motability is a charity not a part of government so his salary doesn’t have anything to do with benefits
Wow nearly a million a year to dish out cars. Complex. The charity is funded by?
Motability is essentially a fleet vehicle company at this point.
In many ways it resembles Capita more than the DWP as it occasionally makes a profit due to the bulk discounts they get.
If they leased vehicles for longer (perhaps 5-7 years), they would probably make money every year.
It's the largest car supplier in the UK.
Exactly.
They are basically PCP for PIP rather than a charity.
I’m sorry, are you asking how charity gets funded? 🤣
From government see my original comment.
You do realise that the “notability scheme” does not fund the charity right? That it is funding for a scheme run by the charity?
https://www.motabilityfoundation.org.uk/about-us/our-funding/
Its a 'charity' funded by the government, he sits on his arse while the government throws money at him, he doesn't produce anything apart from profit which is from the tax payer. Yes its an important service but its milked by business...I.e. car dealers, parts suppliers ect....was speaking to a manager recently and he said Kwik Fit turn over 50 million on motability alone...no wonder when they always supply top range tyres, brakes ect when not required....its yet another gravy train for some while remaining a lifeline for others.
Why is it a charity? Seems like a fleet operator.
Walks, talks and sounds like a car lease company.
It's a charity so shareholders can't pocket the money. Thats the purpose of all charities as far as business structure
Is it £200k more complex though? Really? 99% of people in the uk would be absolutely unapologetically ecstatic if there annual wage was nearly a 200k never mind it being increased by 200k to nearly a million quid.
They are laughing at us
What a joke, I’ll do the job for half that and do a much better job
No you wouldn’t. If you could you’d have a job like that.
You clearly don’t know all those jobs are about who you know and not what you know
Lets compare experience then? He has:
15 years in finance across multiple large corporations.
5 years as CFO and 2 years as financial controller at Autotrader.
CFO and CEO of Guardian Media.
Multiple NED roles.
You?
I see where you’re coming from, but let’s not pretend all of his experience is vital for carrying out this particular role.
I'm not sure you understand what the role involves. It's a hugely complicated operation - it has to manage fleets, control residual value risk, partner for financing the vehicles, remarket the cars, price the scheme, organise maintenance.
Yep, but I’ implying that someone who doesn’t have the same experience as him, maybe fewer years, different roles, could still do the job.
You could say that about any job - there is a reason companies pay high salaries for the right people rather than less for someone who 'could still do the job' though.
Yeah, don’t you find that weird though? Why pay more when you can get the same for less?
It's not the same. 'Could do the job' doesn't mean they could do it well.
What I find insane is there are so many potential CEOs that could do this job as well as him for £50K - yet no businesses that function like that.
Dunning Kruger I think.
Twice that
I expect that it was a bit of a struggle before. Only earning £748k must really have you wondering whether it is worth going to work for those three days a week.
Let’s pay him minimum wage!
Is the scale and complexity of the role something that takes 10 to 15 people to achieve? If so fine, if not, then these greedy cunts are just taking the piss.
Motorbility cars need to be a little Corsa, fiesta or focus like they used to be.
Or one of these? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invacar
Can’t fit a wheelchair in the back let alone the drivers seat. Can’t travel with a carer to attend appointments, can’t do things like take children to school in those.
Honda N-Box, job done.
No need for a brand new Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Lexus or Audi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_N-Box
People aren’t getting Audis etc out of benefits. They pay a substantial amount extra out of their own money.
I don’t disagree that luxury unadapted upgrades could be taxed.
Unfortunately right now they’ve started putting substantial deposits on most of the vehicles.
Extra? Why don’t they just pay the full amount then with £0 from the taxpayer like everyone else? Why do they deserve supremacy over everyone else?
Why do rich people get child benefit and state pensions, get to use the NHS, and state funded schooling for their children?
Rich people don’t get child benefit, that’s kind of the problem of the £100K tax cliff edge.
They get state pension because they paid enough National Insurance working year contributions.
Use the NHS because it’s free at point of use to all citizens. Same reason the police and army protect them.
The education of children is defined to the child, not the parent, even if the parents died the child would still have a right to education.
Again, none of those are related to getting free luxury cars off the government.
Believe me the people getting the luxury upgrades are paying NI and substantial income tax.
And again nobody is getting free luxury cars from the government. Again, substantial extra payment.
Because again, PIP isn’t means tested. It’s not an out of work or unable to work benefit. It’s designed to counter the extra daily expenses that come with being disabled.
And it’s a benefit that is in all our interests, disability is a club anyone might join at any time.
Nah disagree, remove luxury cars from the scheme completely and go even further to make “the motability car” a standard non-brand model, build a factory in the UK to build them and use it to create jobs instead of shovelling billions in taxpayers cash into the profits of Mercedes, BMW, Audi and Lexus every year.
If there is such an extreme level of demand because the population are so disabled that 20% of all new cars are Motability then we should be building them ourselves to cut costs and increase employment.
The history of invalid carriages is very interesting in the UK. There were electric ones in 1930. And the other early ones ran on little 2 stroke engines. One person from the UK even travelled all the way to climb a Swiss Alp and returned, solo and then his daughter or grand daughter rode in his foot steps and recreated a route as close as possible in the same little 3 wheeled 2 stroke Argson. I found about that earlier this week as one had popped up for sale but doesn't have a serial number so it would be a pain to register it a historic road vehicle.
You are aware people in wheelchairs exist right? And people with things like cerebral palsy struggle to enter cars as is, let alone small hatchbacks.
Then they can have a Berlingo
Do they suddenly find it much less of a struggle if the car has a Mercedes, BMW, Lexus or Audi badge on the front of it?
There’s so much misinfo about how the motability scheme works…disabled people get 350 a month, or a motability car, now motability as a company get the best possible deal for 350, which when negotiating such a large amount of cars ends up being a very good deal. Now even if the people complaining like you who say they can drive a little Cora’s, so say it cost only 250 a month, the disabled person would then just get a car plus 100 a month cash i’m hand, it doesn’t make a difference to the tax payer, people don’t seem to understand this part
I mean, my family personally has a Ford Puma. And, as far as I'm aware , the lower luxury brands like Mercedes & audi are the most expensive vehicles on the motorbility scheme. (Note - in fact, near all luxury brands are actually removed from the scheme now)
Personally, my family could never manage to have £1000 at one time , £500 is a challenge. So the real question should be, what is the percentage of luxury brands in the wider motorbiliity scheme. I'd assume that your emotive reaction falls short as an argument beyond the actual idea, as a statement, of those brands being included in motorbillity.
My family went from(in my living memory, I'm 17):
Vauxhall cars up till 2018,
2018- 2023? : got a Mercedes since brother needed a larger car, because difficulties getting in, was messed around with by mitsubishi , and the Mercedes was same price , £400(was on a deal) , so, logically, went through them. The Mercedes guys were incredibly nice to my family & specifically my brother.
2023 - present : Ford Puma , since extension was maximised on the Mercedes. Normally , the Puma would be £100, but for the moneyback from long-lease(?) got £700 off, so got it for £300. Essentially, to my understanding, keeping your vehicle on longer lease reduces costs of the motorbility scheme.
I'll forsake the wish to backhand you for the comment about people with cerebral palsy, and address the actual greater conversation. The primary function of motorbility is to enable the disabled / physically limited access to the daily functions of life. In this, I believe no one has appropriate right to complain about, given various benefits they themselves have(NHS, and various other schemes, motorbility is but an extension of this logic of governance). There are economic benefits to motorbility, such as increasing the local economy by enabling sectors of the population to actively engage with the economy better. Along with reduction of costs for the NHS, primarily mental health. People locked inside all day caused by their disability tend to have incredibly dangerous declines. My brother(cerebral palsy in question) is practically Eyeor because of his limitations.
The argument for the upper limit of quality of car, of which I hope is your actual argument, and source of that snide remark, is a valid one. As an ex beneficiary of their inclusion , I am naturally inclined to defend their case. For a start, its definitely a moral boost for people who need it. Disabled people have the highest rates in the population of mental ill health, and having nice things , little things to brag about, do help , however small. Also , better quality does seemingly have some small health benefits via better ergonomics , which could be argued slightly reduces the impact of long term health issues, like back pain, which inevitably damages the NHS' coffers.
Now, in relation to the tax payer, which, hopefully we agree, is the primary focus regarding luxury vehicles is, for a start , yet again, it stimulates economic growth. In a word where (somewhat) arbitrary & easily misinforming metrics such as GDP impact business decisions of billion pound consequences, economic stimulation is paramount. And this achieves that. One could argue that it also creates jobs(increased orders lead to national investment, investment leads to jobs, job income then gets spent and stimulates the economy).
Doing a quick search, average larger motorbility cars cost between £26,000 and £30,000. These luxury cars tend to cost around £35,000. So , in the lower scheme of things, they aren't actually such a gargantuan increase in expenditure that some people tend to make them out to be, yes, it is by no insignificant margin, an increase, but it is no an exorbitant one.
To conclude, as someone living with someone who is crippled for life, and as someone who themselves has a life long disability(which does not limit my physical functions for the most part luckily, though Hirschsprung's is a right b*stard) , a lot of this outrage seems more akin to scapegoat ism towards the disabled, or outright misfire at the wrong targets.
People utilised luxury cars within the scheme because they were financially obtainable at times, and , they were treated FAR better by those luxury brands than by standard brands. Why would you chose a standard brand when you can get a luxury brand who actually care about their customers, for the same price? AND, their entire utilisation of such option entirely depends upon if they have the financial capacity to use it, which , I would assume the majority , doesn't. For a group of people who typically have far lower quality of life than the average person, live shorter lives, experience mental pains at a far higher rate than the rest of the population, there's a benefit in actually letting them have something nice for once.
Finally, I for one think the entire source of your argument is less sourced from what you talk of, but more actually the people who use the scheme. There's always talk of people who are on the motorbility scheme for minor issues they experience , and I think that, is your actual source of outrage. And personally , I would assume the majority of this media circulating the topic is intentionally using it for outrage, because its entirely beneficial for their profiteers & sponsors to cause it.
There is an argument for addressing the people who leak through the cracks regarding benefits, who really shouldn't be receiving them, or , are intentionally putting themselves in situations to cause their need of them. However, all the current attitude does is create a larger stigma towards benefits, which is notoriously difficult for actual disabled people to obtain.
We live in a capitalist society, so we shouldn’t be surprised when people behave like capitalists. It is what it is.
This isn't capitalism, this is socialism.
MPs routinely argue they need to be paid accordingly to attract the best possible candidate. Same logic, plus they are in a capitalist society so all of it's ingrained. Nothing wrong with that per se, it's just we seem outraged at this being excessive but when MPs have received pay rises year after year it seems fine.
What is Socialist about the CEO of a PLC getting an extra £200KPA?
Same thing that's wrong with migrant accommodation operator amassing a net worth of £1.015 billion from earning £4.8m a day on government contracts.
The part where the PLC in question's whole business model is based on handing out cars to benefits claimants.
A non means tested benefit. It’s like complaining about children’s car seat manufacturers leaching of taxpayers money because of children’s allowance. Or worthers originals through the state pension.
Many people on the high rate mobility pip rate work. For many, this benefit enables them to work.
Are car seats and worthers only available to benefits claimants?
No.
Are car seats and worthers subsidised by the taxpayer to make them more affordable to people on benefits?
No.
So basically then it's not the same thing at all, is it.
Why would someone without a child buy a child’s car seat?
The point is they can if they want to without paying more.
Just like I can buy Worthers Originals at the same price as a pensioner.
I cannot lease a car from Motability, or from another lease company for a comparable cost.
If you had a solid provable need for a car - reasons walking and public transport wouldn’t work for you - you could.
Funny that there's no "there's no public transport where I live" option to get a car subsidised by the taxpayer then.
Much prefer people are paid via income and pay tax on that, than the money going to a private company with shareholders who the majority of are not in the UK.
There's a million £s cut from the benefits bill already if you give his job to someone looking for work and pay them minimum wage. Should really be filling roles within the motability scheme with the disabled people that are going to save the economy for us, anyway.
Makes sense that all of these readily available accessible roles the media and government keep alluding to, would be within a scheme for disabled people. :/
The benefits bill doesn’t pay his salary.
Yeah it was obviously hyperbole. There are no swathes of accessible jobs for disabled people and they won't be saving the economy either. ; )
Remove pip and let me know how much money he makes then
Can’t pick on boat people so picking on their parents or grandparents.
So what? he is running a business. Vehicles are paid for out of peoples benefits that they would otherwise get cash for. So if a disabled person bought a new TV does that mean that Currys shouldnt pay market rates for their CEO's?
Stupid witch hunt
You should see all the comments in the Daily Mail on this today. People genuinely believe their taxes are paying this guy’s salary. The media is doing a fine job of creating division.
Their taxes are paying for his salary though lol.
The fact the money goes via someone with a dubious disability is neither here nor there really.
Motability is an independent company, paying their ceo a salary that sits within the average range for comparable companies. By all means call for the reform of PIP, that is the issue, not the existence of Motability, which provides a vital lifeline for disabled people, many of whom would be housebound or unable to work without it.
What a ridiculous position.
The taxpayer is massively subsidising this scheme, which is then able to pay its CEO a truly obscene salary off the back of those subsidies.
The gov funds PIP, which the claimant receives regardless of whether they join Motability or not. The gov is vastly reining back scheme subsidies next year, with VAT exemptions on advance payments and IPT set to end, you’ll be glad to know. I don’t disagree it’s a ridiculous salary, but again, it does sit in the average range. My taxes subsidise loads of things I don’t agree with, but there we are.
If the terms are made comparable to what I can get as a non-claimant, then I have no issue with the scheme continuing to exist - as at that point you're right that it's just people spending their bennies on what they want to spend them on.
Equally, Motability should not be able to weild an effective monopoly on being able to lease cars to the disabled. They should be able to shop around the same as I can.
The reality is I expect if you made the terms similar to other schemes, Motability would no longer be competitive.
You might be content to sit around paying for this shite, but I'm not.
Don’t disagree with you at all. Inequality breeds resentment.
If anyone is actually interested in how the scheme works. (Short version: the government is not giving out free cars):
Motability car scheme explained - Which? https://share.google/SPx4JxTc8YRdIbyx7
People should be able to spend their disability benefits as they see fit, no?
You'd have a point if the same terms were available to those not claiming benefits.
hopefully all the people who were up in arms about the 'luxury' cars will be out in force shortly?
Right?
Right?
Why do we care?
Mobility isn't a government arm. It's a not for profit company that is owned by UK banks.
Mobility gets ZERO government funding it uses people's Pip payment for cars/ wheelchairs ect. Of course you can argue that the pip finds the company but not more than Universal Credit pays for Tesco's chairman's salary.
He's making a pretty good profit though.
He is running the UKs largest car leasing company.
The company itself makes no money but the finance is provided by the banks that own it and they do make money. If you compare his compensation to say Lex auto lease head of it's comparable.
Motability only exists as a result of PIP.
Tesco still operates if Universal Credit disappeared tomorrow, because most people shopping there are employed.
If Motability disappeared, there would be no change to PIP, its paid to people regardless.
How much he is paid makes no difference to the taxpayer.
If universal credit disappeared tomorrow Tesco would have no workers, like 70% of the staff at Tesco will be claiming universal credit ect. All high volume, low profit margin companies are essentially receiving tax subsidies due to too low pay.
You're in the uknews subreddit, leave your "facts" at the door and just be angry.
Lmao let me guess you’ve got anxiety and back pain? 😂😂
No I work and have my own business.
Seems like a massive company? What should you pay someone running a business of this size?
That's incredible, one in 5 cars are given out free by the government. We are completely doomed, no wonder 8m people aren't working. Our national debt will balloon under labour and we will be paying off this madness for generations.
My ‘free’ car (small hatchback) costs me £330 a month, plus there was an advance payment of £1700 if memory serves, and after three years I give it back and don’t have a car. It’s tricky getting finance for a car when you’re on benefits so this is a literal lifeline. If I didn’t lease the car, I’d still get my ‘free’ money so I suppose I could get taxis instead (can’t use buses), but that would be so expensive I’d be stuck at home most of the time. Do I not deserve some freedom and normality, and being on a more equal footing in society? How about you try out my MS and see how it works, I’d gladly give it up, be working and be able to buy my own car.
Cheers to the down voters who obviously think I should just stay home and shut up. If the mark of a society is how we treat our most vulnerable, you don’t come out of it well.
So 20% of cars sold are subsided by the tax payer. Wonder what the % was in 1990.
What part of THEY USE THEIR PIP don’t you understand? It’s not an additional payment from the taxpayer, the PIP receiver decides to use the money they are already going to get for their condition on a car via the Motability scheme, rather than use the cash for something else like taxis.
“It’s not free money!!” “It’s money given to them from the government to spend on a vehicle, it’s not free”
That’s you lol 😆
It's amazing. It would be entertaining if I didn't have to live here
I'm not going to argue the rights or wrongs of PIP.
Whether it is is spent on a car or not, PIP is paid out. Some choose to use that PIP to fund a car.
Cool so I can lease a car on the same terms can I?
It appears not, tbh I wasn’t aware of the tax savings.
Awesome. So now you see where discrimination is.
Yup. The taxpayer is not only paying out the huge amounts of money that people are then spending on this in the first place, they are also massively subsidising the scheme itself via tax breaks and preferential rules on things like insurance.
The whole thing is rotten.