free xtra benefits???

mitchaa

cheap_charlie wrote: »

I just find it interesting that person protesting the loudest on this thread doesn't have children ;-)

Are you referring to me?

lighton

mitchaa wrote: »

Are you referring to me?

I think mitchaa has a 8 month old baby

mitchaa

I do yes

cheap_charlie

Well I take that back but given the fact you are 25 and have no children of school age then I still question your knowledge on this subject.

As a single parent on benefits through no choice of my own (my husband died) I find some of your comments on this thread ignorant to say the least.

bestpud

mitchaa wrote: »

Still like i said before, the amounts received in benefits EVEN IF YOU ARE PAYING A COMPULSORY £300 PER YEAR is more than enough.

That's what I was saying too mitchaa - I was actually agreeing with you!

However, secondary uniform is not so cheap in other areas - your area is really not the norm!

However, we all know it is coming and we can all budget for it so I see no reason why parents cannot afford it as such. I just feel it is perhaps more expensive than it needs to be and it isn't something that should be a big struggle for any of us, working or not iyswim?

I am not on IS now but have been in the past, when it was far less generous than it is now and we did manage. We ran a small car but did not smoke, drink, buy new clothes, go out etc, but we got by and the bills were all paid. We felt lucky we could keep the car on the road and I still believe that IS should only provide essentials, and to run a car as we did, there has to be severe cuts elsewhere (which we did!) I can honestly say our children did not go without anything they needed.

I wouldn't put it quite as bluntly and I wouldn't generalise quite so much, but I can see what you are saying.

Lovaabargain

mitchaa wrote: »

No idea what pants are, but again if you are a boy 1 pair of school trousers can easily last 1 year.

Have to disagree with on this, you need at least 2 pairs of trousers as boys being boys will always come home covered in mud, paint, grass stains etc.. & it's not always possible to have them washed & dried ready for the next morning.
Also they do have growth spurts so it is very unlikely that the same pair of trousers that fitted in Sept will still fit them at Christmas let alone the following July.
Believe me I know as I have 4 boys ranging in ages from 6 to 17.:rolleyes:

mitchaa

cheap_charlie wrote: »

Well I take that back but given the fact you are 25 and have no children of school age then I still question your knowledge on this subject.

As a single parent on benefits through no choice of my own (my husband died) I find some of your comments on this thread ignorant to say the least.

I dont find them harsh at all if im being honest.

What do you find harsh? That CB and CTC should be spent on the children as opposed to parent expenses (Sky/Mobile Ph etc)

I dont see where i have been harsh if im honest, im just merely stating that the child welfare system is very very generous and people should certainly not be moaning about it. It more than covers the costs.

I am 25, not 55. I was at school only 8yrs ago myself. I have cousins, nephews and nieces that are still at school and know what they wear as i see them regularly.

I'm sorry to hear about your loss, i was just merely stating that with the current benefits system, if the money is correctly budgeted then there should be no issue as to the affordability of schooling.

Im sorry if that upset you, yes i admit at times im a little blunt.

cheap_charlie

You are entitled to your opinion but there are parts of the forum designed for that - this is not the place.

Do not try to suggest you don't know that given how long you have been a member here.

You should try walking in a person's shoes before passing judgement or being "blunt" - you never know what is around the corner in life and won't enjoy it if the boot is on the other foot.

ETA - and I didn't say your comments were "harsh" - I said they were ignorant, and I will add they come from a somewhat ill-informed point of view IMO.

mitchaa

cheap_charlie wrote: »

ETA - and I didn't say your comments were "harsh" - I said they were ignorant, and I will add they come from a somewhat ill-informed point of view IMO.

Well that is debatable;)

Child related income should be spent on exactly that, i don't know what is ill informed about that:rolleyes:

It's when people spend this income elsewhere that people jump on the child poverty bandwagon.

I'll leave it at that as there's no point in arguing about it, we all have our opinions so we will agree to disagree okay

Over and out.

cheap_charlie

I will end my input on this thread by saying that child related income sometimes cannot cover every child related expense - to suggest its being spent on Sky TV or something else IS ignorant.

It is also ignorant to suggest that because schools in your local area do not have strict uniform policies doesn't mean everywhere is the same.

This forum isn't just for people in Northeast Scotland.