Too proud to sign on

Topov_3

bendix wrote: »

I wouldn't sign on. Never have. Never will.

Neither am I intersted in drawing any insulting state pension which, frankly, is currently less than I currently pay in NI contributions.

The state paid for my education and - because of my family background - I was one of the last to receive a full grant as a student. Thanks guy . . I appreciate it, but I think I've paid for it back by now, and I don't want anything else. I am an adult - I can take care of me and mine, alone.

Then you're a fool. To get the same value as the full state pension entitlement of £90.70 a week, or £4,716.40 a year, would cost £133,000 to purchase with a pension annuity. Today's average personal pension fund amounts to £40,000 at retirement. Are you saying that you will choose to put £133,000 of your own money into an annuity to replace the state pension and when you retire, you'll turn your nose up at an extra £4716.40 per year?

I didn't think so....

As far as your comments about benefits are concerned, are you really trying to convince us that you would prefer to have your savings depleted, your house reposessed, your children hungry and your family living in hostel because your too proud to accept benefits that you've paid for all your working life?

I didn't think so...

Topov_3

lostinrates wrote: »

I don't underdstand this. If people have paid in willingly and can afford not to take benefits why are they idiots? If one has need of them, one should claim, but if you don't, why should you?

signed,

Idiot

I seem to recall that you live with your mum & dad. I guess if I lived with my mum and dad, I'd not require state handouts either. I wouldn't need to because of the handout I received from my parents...

bo_drinker

huntersc wrote: »

Why? I don't understand the logic behind that...

Until recently many self employed in construction have gaps in work some people have savings and some do not. They know they will be starting a new job but not immediately. (Not the case now for many) So there are gaps with no pay, and obviously no holiday or sick pay to fall back on or redundancy when a job finishes but the difference is 3% in tax It was 5% until a while ago. I have heard how it's almost impossible for some to claim anything if they are out of work for a while(no real savings) but still expected to pay 20% tax and a % up front every year Yes it is their choice to be s/e but as I said previously they / we are treated like !!!!!!.

lostinrates

Topov wrote: »

I seem to recall that you live with your mum & dad. I guess if I lived with my mum and dad, I'd not require state handouts either. I wouldn't need to because of the handout I received from my parents...

Isn't it you who says we are rude in here?

Yes I live with my parents. DH also lodges in London, and before this we rented and we have been looking to buy for sometime. I receive no handout from my parents though, bar the potential loss of earnings of renting ut the room, which they really wouldn't want to do. I also wouldn't claim benefits I don't need if I lived elsewhere and don't see why NOT taking from the statewhen I don't need to is bad.

Topov_3

lostinrates wrote: »

Isn't it you who says we are rude in here?

Yes I live with my parents. DH also lodges in London, and before this we rented and we have been looking to buy for sometime. I receive no handout from my parents though, bar the potential loss of earnings of renting ut the room, which they really wouldn't want to do. I also wouldn't claim benefits I don't need if I lived elsewhere and don't see why NOT taking from the statewhen I don't need to is bad.

yes, im sure that the rent you pay to your parents is equivalent to what youd pay if you lived in your own flat.... :rolleyes:

which begs the question.. why, as a married couple, are you still living with your parents when it would be the same cost to live in a marital home...?

lostinrates

Topov wrote: »

yes, im sure that the rent you pay to your parents is equivalent to what youd pay if you lived in your own flat.... :rolleyes:

which begs the question.. why, as a married couple, are you still living with your parents when it would be the same cost to live in a marital home...?

No its not the same amount, we save the rest But we pay at least half the bills, and being here has been good for myparents, as for the first time they, or at least my mother, have had proper length holidays. Otherewise they are restricted by the commitmens of a large number of animals. For the time being its mutually beneficial. Itr works, for us. It wouldn't work for everybody I agree. But I'm not sure why it would bother anyone else?

I came back originally..from abroad..to look for a house, and I was travelling between countires to be with my husband where he was working, and to be here, where my doctor is. .

Topov_3

lostinrates wrote: »

No its not the same amount, we save the rest But we pay at least half the bills, and being here has been good for myparents, as for the first time they, or at least my mother, have had proper length holidays. Otherewise they are restricted by the commitmens of a large number of animals. For the time being its mutually beneficial. Itr works, for us. It wouldn't work for everybody I agree. But I'm not sure why it would bother anyone else?

I came back originally..from abroad..to look for a house, and I was travelling between countires to be with my husband where he was working, and to be here, where my doctor is. .

Then that takes us back to the original discussion. As an individual you know you will have the safety net of your OH or your parents. With such a solid safety net I can see how you would be happy to pour scorn on those who didn't have your advantages and have to rely of the state provided safety net instead.

If you lived alone and had no parents to bail you out, I'm sure you would be down the social the day after you were made redundant, even if you had savings to keep you going for a few weeks or not.

To be honest, I would be too proud to run back home to mummy and daddy if I got into financial difficulties due to job loss. I would prefer to claim whatever I was entitled to while I got back on my feet. Im an adult though and take care of myself, and so really find it strange that a married couple would chose to live with their parents. I mean, isnt the whole point of getting married to set up a new life with someone you love, not to live with your parents while your partner lives elsewhere?

[Deleted User]

Does know one else find it odd that before christmas james purnell and brown were stating almost daily that there were 500,000 vacancies,they seem strangely silent on the subject now.

tomterm8

woodbine wrote: »

Does know one else find it odd that before christmas james purnell and brown were stating almost daily that there were 500,000 vacancies,they seem strangely silent on the subject now.

I know someone who went for a McDonalds job two weeks ago, and the interviewer let out the fact that she was interviewing 15 other people for the job. It was just a burger flipping job.

lostinrates

Topov wrote: »

Then that takes us back to the original discussion. As an individual you know you will have the safety net of your OH or your parents. With such a solid safety net I can see how you would be happy to pour scorn on those who didn't have your advantages and have to rely of the state provided safety net instead.

If you lived alone and had no parents to bail you out, I'm sure you would be down the social the day after you were made redundant, even if you had savings to keep you going for a few weeks or not.

To be honest, I would be too proud to run back home to mummy and daddy if I got into financial difficulties due to job loss. I would prefer to claim whatever I was entitled to while I got back on my feet. Im an adult though and take care of myself, and so really find it strange that a married couple would chose to live with their parents. I mean, isnt the whole point of getting married to set up a new life with someone you love, not to live with your parents while your partner lives elsewhere?

Hang on a second, I didn't pour scorn on anyone. I said I didn't need to. I think If I need to I shouldn't take from people who do need to. That is quite different from saying I thnk people who need to are worthy of scorn. I was explaining that it wasn't only pride that could keep someone from claiming, it was not wanting to take what one doesn't need.