Motability: is it true that the disability scheme is taking UK taxpayers for a ride?
-Understanding the rightwing backlash over the government scheme helping people with serious disabilities get cars

Motability：殘疾計劃真的在欺騙英國納稅人嗎？
——理解右翼人士對政府幫助嚴重殘疾人士獲得汽車計劃的強烈反對
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處



(The Motability scheme has been unfairly portrayed as an example of con artists milking the taxpayer.)

（Motability計劃被不公平地描繪成騙子從納稅人身上榨取錢財?shù)睦印＃?br /> 新聞：

Motability really ought to be a boring subject: a government scheme helping people with serious disabilities get a car by using a portion of their benefits to pay for the lease. But over the past week, anyone who had never heard of Motability would have got a more lurid impression.

Motability真的應該是一個無聊的話題：一個政府計劃幫助有嚴重殘疾的人獲得一輛車，用他們的一部分福利來支付租賃費。但在過去的一周里，任何從未聽說過Motability的人都會對此有一個更加聳人聽聞的印象。

First reported in the Daily Mail, and then in a string of follow-up stories, Motability was portrayed not as a useful mechanism for helping people with disabilities but an outrageous example of con artists milking the taxpayer.

《每日郵報》首先報道了這一消息，隨后又有一系列后續(xù)報道稱，Motability并沒有被描繪成一個幫助殘疾人的有用機制，而是一個騙子從納稅人身上榨取錢財?shù)臒o恥例子。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處


The claim is that many Motability customers do not really need a car at all: that, in the words of the shadow welfare secretary, Helen Whately, this is “a classic case of a well-intentioned initiative that has got way out of hand”. So how much of that is true?

他們聲稱，許多Motability客戶根本就不需要一輛車：用影子福利大臣海倫·惠特利的話來說，這是“一項本意良好的倡議失控的典型案例”。那么這其中有多少是真的呢？

How does the Motability scheme work?
As a parliamentary report noted last week, 29% of disabled adults do not have access to a car, against 16% of non-disabled adults. They are more likely to be struggling financially, and to need help from a family member or carer to travel. The Motability scheme is intended to help mitigate those problems.

Motability計劃如何運作？
上周的一份議會報告指出，29%的殘疾成年人沒有車，而非殘疾成年人的這一比例為16%。他們更有可能在經(jīng)濟上掙扎，需要家庭成員或照顧者的幫助才能旅行。Motability計劃旨在幫助緩解這些問題。

“Disabled people face so many barriers in accessing transport,” said Dr Mark Carew, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine’s International Centre for Evidence in Disability. (He co-wrote a report that received funding from Motability in 2023.) “Whether it’s train stations that aren’t wheelchair accessible, or no ramp available when you’ve booked it, or other travellers refusing to get out of the wheelchair space – there are lots of reasons Motability is important.”

倫敦衛(wèi)生和熱帶醫(yī)學學院國際殘疾證據(jù)中心的馬克·卡魯博士說：“殘疾人在乘坐交通工具方面面臨很多障礙?！保ㄋ麉⑴c撰寫了一份報告，該報告于2023年獲得了Motability的資助。）“無論是火車站沒有輪椅通道，還是你預訂了坡道后沒有坡道可用，或者其他旅客拒絕離開輪椅空間——Motability很重要的原因有很多?！?/b>

The scheme is run by a private company, overseen by a charitable foundation, that buys new cars then leases them to claimants for three years before selling them on. The payments come from government benefits, usually a portion of the personal independence payment, the main working-age benefit for people with disabilities. The recent scrutiny is based partly on the remarkable growth in eligibility – with the customer base rising by about 200,000 in two years, to 815,000.

Motability計劃由一家私人公司運營，由一家慈善基金會監(jiān)督。該計劃購買新車，然后將其租給申請人三年，然后再出售。這些款項來自政府福利，通常是個人獨立金的一部分，這是殘疾人的主要工作年齡福利。最近的審查部分是基于批準的顯著增長——客戶基礎在兩年內(nèi)增加了約20萬人，達到81.5萬人。

There have been reasonable criticisms over high executive pay and warnings that Motability is sitting on excessive reserves – ￡4bn in September last year. But the money made from used cars goes back into the scheme, not to shareholders – and, all in all, Carew says, “it clearly delivers value for the taxpayer.

人們對該計劃高管薪酬過高提出了合理的批評，并警告稱，Motability坐實了過多的資金儲備——去年9月為40億英鎊。但從二手車中賺到的錢又回到了該計劃中，而不是給股東——總之，卡魯說，“這顯然為納稅人帶來了價值?！?/b>

“But it’s not just about that. People with disabilities aren’t aliens – we’re the friends and family of everyone else. This is a powerful way for them to make choices that go some way to level the playing field.”

“但不僅僅是這些。殘疾人不是外星人——我們是其他人的朋友和家人。這是一種強有力的方式，讓他們做出在某種程度上創(chuàng)造公平競爭環(huán)境的選擇?！?/b>

Why should people with disabilities get a new car for free on top of their benefits?
A common refrain in the coverage – “Do you want a free new car?” the Times’s Alice Thomson asked – but one which misses a central point: the Pip (personal independence payment) funding that goes to Motability is money customers would have been getting anyway.

為什么殘疾人在享受福利的同時還能免費得到一輛新車？
報道中經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)的一個問題是“你想要一輛免費的新車嗎？”《泰晤士報》的愛麗絲·湯姆森問道——但這句話忽略了一個核心問題：Motability獲得的Pip（個人獨立支付）資金是客戶本來就會得到的錢。

If they were not getting a car, they would have it to spend on something else. And if they want a more expensive car – perhaps needing a larger vehicle for essential equipment, perhaps shockingly able to have preferences despite also having a disability – they have to make a down payment of up to ￡8,000 themselves.

如果他們不買車，他們也會把這個錢花在其他東西上。如果他們想要一輛更貴的車——也許需要一輛更大的車來裝一些必要的設備，也許令人震驚的是，盡管他們有殘疾，他們也能有自己的偏好——他們必須自己支付高達8000英鎊的首付。

The cars are new, meanwhile, and retain a significant resale value at the end of the lease. Scrapping Motability would not save a penny from the benefits bill.

與此同時，這些車都是新的，在租期結束時還保留著很大的轉售價值。取消Motability不會從福利賬單上省下一分錢。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處


Shouldn’t prestige brands be excluded?
Another prominent claim: Motability is giving “subsidised BMWs” and “50-grand Mercs” to people who do not need them. And it’s true that if you search the Motability website, you can find premium cars.

難道不應該把名牌汽車排除在外嗎？
另一個突出的主張是：Motability將“補貼的寶馬”和“5萬美元的奔馳”送給那些不需要它們的人。的確，如果你在Motability網(wǎng)站上搜索，你可以找到高檔車。

But the vast majority are much more ordinary: economy brands make up 94% of Motability’s fleet. And there’s a ceiling of ￡45,000 on petrol and diesel cars (￡55,000 for electric), because cars costing more than that depreciate too fast to be viable.

但絕大多數(shù)都是普通得多的車型：經(jīng)濟型車型占Motability車隊的94%。汽油和柴油車的最高限額為4.5萬英鎊（電動汽車為5.5萬英鎊），因為超過這個限額的汽車貶值得太快，不可行。

The cost to the taxpayer of the more expensive models is exactly the same. The fact that the lease only lasts three years is, likewise, motivated by the fact that selling on older cars would mean a worse return. The cherrypicking coverage implies that disabled people should not get a choice: instead, they should exist in a state of constant gratitude, and piss off in their wonky three-wheeler.

對納稅人來說，更昂貴型號的成本是完全相同的。同樣，租期只有三年的原因是，受到出售舊車意味著更低的回報這一現(xiàn)實的驅動。這種故意挑選的報道暗示，殘疾人不應該有選擇：相反，他們應該生活在一種不斷感激的狀態(tài)中，坐著他們搖搖晃晃的三輪車滾一邊去。

But aren’t people who wet the bed or who have Munchausen syndrome taking advantage of the scheme?
This is perhaps the most misleading claim, visible in many variants. Cars are going to “bed-wetting boy racers”, said the Reform MP Richard Tice. In the Daily Mail, Richard Littlejohn asked: “Why should you get a free car simply because you’re fat?” And in the Daily Telegraph, Allison Pearson told us: “If I said I felt depressed or constipated … [the government] might give me a BMW.”

但是尿床的人和患有孟喬森綜合癥的人不是在利用這個計劃嗎？
這可能是最具誤導性的說法，在許多變體中都可以看到。改革黨議員理查德·泰斯說，汽車將流向“尿床男孩賽車手”。理查德·利特爾約翰在《每日郵報》上問道：“為什么僅僅因為你胖就可以得到一輛免費的車呢？”在《每日電訊報》上，艾莉森·皮爾遜告訴我們：“如果我說我感到沮喪或便秘……（政府）可能會給我一輛寶馬?！?/b>

These claims can be traced to the Daily Mail’s first article. “Pip ‘mobility’ claimants do not actually have to have a physical disability to qualify for a Motability vehicle,” it said. “Claimants with a mental health condition, such as anxiety, can also apply.” It cited approval rates for bedwetting, or enuresis (35%), ADHD (49%), obesity (77%), agoraphobia (66%), and Munchausen syndrome, a condition where the sufferer fakes a medical condition for attention (54%).

這些說法可以追溯到《每日郵報》的第一篇文章。它寫道：“Pip‘mobility’申請人實際上并不一定要有身體殘疾才有資格獲得機動車輛。有焦慮等心理健康問題的申請人也可以申請。”報道列舉了以下殘疾類型的申請通過率：尿床或遺尿癥（35%）、多動癥（49%）、肥胖（77%）、廣場恐怖癥（66%）和孟喬森綜合征（一種患者假裝生病以引起注意的疾?。?4%）。

But those figures cover any level of Pip, not the higher mobility payment needed for Motability. Yes, 54% of people who claimed Pip with Munchausen syndrome in October 2024 were accepted – but that amounted to six successful claimants. There were 41 with enuresis. Those figures tell us nothing about how many got the higher rate. But the scoring system would not typically put them in that category without a significant physical impairment.

但這些數(shù)字涵蓋了任何水平的Pip，不包括Motability所需的更高的流動性支付。是的，在2024年10月，聲稱Pip患有孟喬森綜合癥的人中有54%被批準了，但這總共有6人成功索賠。遺尿癥41例。這些數(shù)字并沒有告訴我們有多少人獲得了更高的費率。但如果沒有明顯的身體損傷，評分系統(tǒng)通常不會把他們歸入這一類。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處


There were likely more for some of the other categories, which have a much larger base – but what is certain is that the vast majority who get a car through Motability have a significant physical disability. “It’s very tough to qualify for Pip’s higher mobility award,” Carew said. “Plenty of people who struggle making journeys don’t qualify.”

其他一些類別可能會有更多，這些類別的基礎要大得多——但可以肯定的是，絕大多數(shù)通過Motability獲得汽車的人都有嚴重的身體殘疾?？斦f：“要獲得Pip的高靈活性獎勵是非常困難的。很多在行程中苦苦掙扎的人都不符合條件?！?/b>

Accompanying this legend is the idea that online “sickfluencers” are teaching people how to game the system. But these videos are often unreliable. The social media accounts of a teenager who posted about getting a car because he was autistic, which featured prominently in the outrage, carried enough information for Motability to look into his case: he turned out to have been rejected.

伴隨這一傳說的是這樣一種觀點，即在線“疾病影響者”正在教人們?nèi)绾闻c體制博弈。但這些視頻往往不可靠。一名青少年在社交媒體上發(fā)布了自己因為患有自閉癥而得到車的帖子，這是引發(fā)眾怒的主要原因。這些帖子提供的信息足以讓Motability調(diào)查他的情況：他被拒絕了。

So where did this story come from?
Allegations that Motability is infested with people making bogus claims have existed for many years. Part of the timeline is routine: first a fascinating Bloomberg piece focusing on Motability’s impact on the car market, then the Daily Mail, then everyone else.

那么這個故事是從哪里來的呢？
關于Motability充斥著虛假申請的指控已經(jīng)存在多年。時間表的一部分是例行的：首先是一篇引人入勝的彭博文章，聚焦于Motability對汽車市場的影響，然后是《每日郵報》，然后是其他所有人。

Before that, though, the story gained momentum in a stranger corner of the internet – through a couple of rightwing X accounts, @loftussteve and @maxtempers. The anonymous user behind Max Tempers has been banging the drum since at least December, when he suggested that claimants should only be allowed to drive a hideous old car with MOTABILITY written on it. A few weeks later, a post of his about grooming gangs was shared by Elon Musk, and became the ground zero of a whole other dodgy social media frenzy.

然而，在此之前，這個故事在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的一個陌生角落獲得了動力——通過兩個右翼的X賬戶，@loftussteve和@maxtempers。Max Tempers背后的匿名用戶至少從去年12月開始就一直在鼓吹，當時他建議只允許申請者駕駛一輛寫著MOTABILITY字樣的丑陋的舊車。幾周后，埃隆·馬斯克分享了他關于兒童誘奸團伙的帖子，并成為另一場狡猾的社交媒體狂潮的濫觴。

The Motability story got picked up by various accounts including Politics UK, a popular X news source, and later by prominent users such as GB News’s deputy political editor, Tom Harwood, who even borrowed Max Tempers’ idea for a car of shame. With crushing inevitability, after the Daily Mail piece, the health secretary, Wes Streeting told GB News the story showed why the welfare system needed reform.

Motability的故事被各種賬戶轉載，包括著名的X新聞來源Politics UK，后來又被一些知名用戶轉載，比如GB news的副政治編輯湯姆·哈伍德，他甚至借用了Max Tempers設計羞恥車的點子。在《每日郵報》的那篇報道之后，衛(wèi)生大臣韋斯·斯特里廷無可避免地告訴GB news，這個故事說明了為什么福利制度需要改革。