Reply to: Zero risk Britain...

[Ardesco]

What these people don't realise is that they will be screwed when they become a pensioner.

The basic state pension when you haven't made enough NI contributions is not a lot and there will be no tax credits etc or money for the kids.

The majority of the population are going to be screwed when they are pensioners if they don't have an alternative income source....

[freakydancer]

Now there is a smoking ban, there is zero risk of any non smokers dying.

[Gibbon]

What these people don't realise is that they will be screwed when they become a pensioner.

The basic state pension when you haven't made enough NI contributions is not a lot and there will be no tax credits etc or money for the kids.

[Euro-commuter]

...
I think a lot of people are also constantly surprised at how much you can actually get from the state.
...

and how little you can get for many a hard-working job.

At the bottom of that is not an over-generous state, but a mean employer. In a sense it is the employer who is being subsidised by the taxpayer, by having part of the employee's income paid for them.

[hyperD]

You are right in the fact that she is legally obtaining these funds due to government policy, but as most of the posters stated, they are not blaming her for this fact.

What some have done is question her continued expenses if she is in debt, such as hairdressing, two cars, mobile phones, two cars and food budget.

I think a lot of people are also constantly surprised at how much you can actually get from the state. Most of us assume that it is around a miserly £76/week as is often the figure wailed by the benefactors when accused of being "lazy and work-shy".

The backlash the OP received was not directed personally but as a result of people being surprised and then angered at this. I mean there are plenty of professional people working with salaries up to £25,000/year struggling to make that kind of income without even contemplating looking at the property ladder, let alone kids.

My point was the type of message this setup was sending: running a business with this risk adverse support does not make you think, develop and operate the business in the means required to make it stronger and more competitive.

Socially, as we’ve seen in the media, welfare is creating generations of an atrophied workface tied to the state and nurtured by the taxpayer. When faced with the two distinct paths of employment or state welfare, it seems harder each year to justify the work, indebtedness and toil and develop the basic attributes to enter the workforce, as these are certainly not the ones encouraged by the government’s actions.

[Zorba]

Having said that, that board looks like an excellent candidate for a CUK holiday...

[ASB]

Also, there are genuine reasons for her approach. She can't have a job (as opposed to being self-employed) because she can't work regular hours, due to children and (if I remember correctly) medical appointments - she's apparently recovering from a four year severe brain disease.

The DLA rate she quotes appears to be a combination of middle rate care and higher rate mobility. It could be highest care and lower mobility. These aren't the easiest things to get.

She doesn't mention a carers allowance (it's 87 quid and only if > 35 hours). If it's her partner working then even the little income showing will disqualify. It does seem to me she is at least trying.

[r0bly0ns]

Some people have suggested that partner doesn't need his own car and could look after the children, but would she have a partner if she had imposed those conditions on prospective candidates? Partner is not husband or father of children, so I think these arguments are questionable.

Conditions?
Candidates?

This is a relationship, not a job!
When was the last time you 'interviewed' a 'candidate' for the 'job' of partner?

I think that I understand what you are saying, that the partner has no
responisibilites to her or the children and might leave if he can't have a car.

However he is contributing nothing to the family, in fact he is hindering them by not working when they are in such financial difficulties, he is just a drain on the family and the finances and they would probabally be better off without him!

[IR35 Avoider]

I did go onto the other forum and read the whole thread.

She doesn't deserve abuse as she's not bending or breaking any rules. As far as I'm concerned there is no difference in claiming the maximum benefits the law allows and paying the minimum tax the law allows, which we all try to do.

If you don't like what she's entitled to, blame the government.

Also, there are genuine reasons for her approach. She can't have a job (as opposed to being self-employed) because she can't work regular hours, due to children and (if I remember correctly) medical appointments - she's apparently recovering from a four year severe brain disease.

Some people have suggested that partner doesn't need his own car and could look after the children, but would she have a partner if she had imposed those conditions on prospective candidates? Partner is not husband or father of children, so I think these arguments are questionable.

[Old Greg]

What about smiting them in battle and ploughing salt into their fields?

I always liked the more direct approach (taking all the women into bondage as well but that goes without saying...)

BTW - good to see someone get in touch with their inner fundamentalist. Keep up the good work

Sorry to disappoint but the ploughing the salt into the fields is not bibilical which makes you a damned heretic and I'm afraid we'll have to burn you at the stake. Let's put the fun back into fundamentalist.

[Let-Me-In]

Disposable income = £68.58

So the scrounging wh*re only earns £388 salary but the house has 2 cars, mobiles, Internet, £30 a month on hairdressers etc...

She needs to get off her lazy ass and get a real job and stop relying on the state...at the very least she could go on the game and earn some cash...

[hyperD]

OP deleted original post due to the grief she was given (hardly surprising).

Here it is anyhow:

Hi all,

Can you take a look through my i & e and see if it is ok please. Creditors want an update. The figures shown are for me, my partner, and 2 kids aged 8 and 6.
I work, other half doesn't.

INCOME P/M

Child Benefit 130.86
Working Tax Credit 461.54
Child Tax Credit 338.00
Wages 388.09
DLA 269.10
TOTAL 1587.59 PM

EXPENDITURE

TV Licence 11.61
Rent 163.11
Council Tax 42.44
Water Rates 29.01
Gas 45.00
Electric 45.00
Tax Credit Overpayment 14.00
Telephone 35.00
Internet 19.99
Car Insurance 112.10
School Meals 65.00
Hairdressing 30.00
Clothes 60.00
Car Tax 27.08
Car Service/repairs 40.00
Petrol 140.00
Glasses 16.67
Mobile Phone 21.67
Food/housekeeping 520.00
Pets 15.00
School Trips 10.00
Kids Activities 56.33

TOTAL £1519.01

Disposable income = £68.58

What do you think?
Thanks.

[vetran]

Its only fair!

[Sockpuppet]

So glad that I am not paying tax in any way shape of form.

Managing the expenses right so I am set to make no profit! Har har.

[Rantor]

Fair enough - but don't stretch to killing their first-born sons. 'Vengeance is mine' saith the Lord

What about smiting them in battle and ploughing salt into their fields?

I always liked the more direct approach (taking all the women into bondage as well but that goes without saying...)

BTW - good to see someone get in touch with their inner fundamentalist. Keep up the good work