Bottom line:
Motability wasn’t a “subsidy for Mercedes”.
It was a way to convert an existing benefit into independence.

Reeves’ changes don’t stop luxury cars, they make essential mobility more expensive for everyone who needs it.

🧵/End

The Treasury might raise £300m.
But it raises it by increasing the cost of being disabled.

This isn’t tackling misuse, which is already minimal.
It’s shifting costs from the state onto disabled people.

4. The poorest get hit twice.
• higher insurance cost (via IPT)
• higher upfront cost (VAT on APs)

For many, the “choice” isn’t between luxury and budget — it’s between mobility or no mobility.

3. Reduced choice = reduced independence.
As both APs and insurance costs rise, people will be pushed into smaller or unsuitable vehicles.

Some will be priced out of the scheme entirely.
Others will rely on carers, taxis, or family to get around.

This is the exact opposite of Motability’s purpose.

And those higher APs aren’t for “luxury”.
They’re for cars with:

• room for wheelchairs
• space for adaptations
• space for mobility aids
• space for medical equipment

Taxing APs is effectively taxing disability-related needs.

2. VAT on Advance Payments.
Advance Payments (APs) are the upfront costs people pay if they need a car larger or more suitable than the standard allowance covers.

They’re currently VAT-free. Reeves wants to add 20% VAT.

A £1,000 AP → £1,200
£2,500 → £3,000
£4,000 → £4,800

1. Insurance will now cost more.
Motability leases include insurance, which is currently taxed at a reduced rate through Insurance Premium Tax.

If IPT is increased or exemptions removed, every Motability user pays more, because insurance is mandatory in the lease.

Hitting even the lowest-cost cars

if someone chooses a merc, they pay a large “advance payment” out of their own pocket, on top of surrendering their mobility benefit.
motability isn’t losing money. taxpayers aren’t topping up luxury cars. the scheme costs the public £0, cause the lease is paid entirely from the claimant’s benefit.

the argument i keep getting is.. 'it's our tax payers money that funds your lifestyle'. like having a disability is a lifestyle!!

If you are eligible for the mobility component of PIP, you can spend *your own money* topping that up to have a great accessible car. Critics should ask: Why are you against this? What it is about disabled people that makes you believe it’s wrong to have nice things they paid for themselves?

The dentist said, “You do not know
This tooth would only further grow.
Hear my words that I might teach you,”
As he wrenched the stubborn tooth out by the root.
And the blood in the basin, like silent raindrops fell,
And echoes swelled
Through the wells of silence.

And in the lidocaine glare I saw
Ten thousand fingers, maybe more.
Tubes were humming without speaking,
Mirrors reflecting off the ceiling
Nurses scribbling notes while the dentist raised the chair,
But no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence.

In restless dreams I reach the phone,
Then pace the streets of cobblestone.
An after-hours nurse says, “Come in quick.”
I grip the chair arm with a knotted fist.
When my eyes are hit by the glare of the surgeon’s light,
The drill in sight,
And I embrace the sound of silence.

tell you who it wont be - the rich!

you're literally trolling now.

wasnt sure what i was looking at for a minute there.

yeah two great albums of 89.

extensive and thought-provoking. 👏

can you answer my question? why are you posting these articles about dog breeds? you're encouraging people to by certain breeds.. why?