ftb low income?

leveller2911

You also say that "she,s not some charity case", what is wrong with accepting charity?, if you look the word up in the dictionary it will probably say "giving help to those in need" theres nothing wrong with that, and that is what it is.
When I was young I was given an "de-ioniser" paid for by the "lions club of Great Britain,it was expensive at the time and my parents couldn't afford one,that was charitable,I was grateful for it.
Your post seems typical of the PC brigade, trying to dis-credit any view that differs from yours.

Gwhiz

leveller does have a point. There are many people in this country who work their !!!!!! off yet cannot afford a house or a holiday. So when you see someone on benefits (even thought the benefits are justified) being able to do these things you have to ask yourself "is this right"?

Many people in this country do seem to believe that they are entitled to own a home, a car, a holiday, etc etc. which is wrong. These things are not rights, they are privileges. Not suggesting the OP is like this btw.

The welfare state was aimed at providing a decent level of support for those in need - it has most definitely gone way beyond that remit for many!

Zelie

Leveller tries (and fails) to be clever. Arguing that people in need should not be allocated more than s/he thinks is appropriate yet also trying to gain sympathy for their childhood ailments. Unfortunately s/he can't have it both ways.

Where does this attitude come from that anyone on benefits should be constantly harangued about the magnanimity of those bountiful taxpayers who "give" money to live on. Many people receiving benefits have also contributed to society and will do so again in the future. Let's not run away with the idea that benefits are some sort of gift which people like Leveller have the right to decide how they should be used. Would people whine if a pensioner went on holiday? No they wouldn't, even though their pension is "given" by the taxpayer. I find it especially baffling as Leveller admits to living in subsided housing yet spits vitriol at others who are considered deserving of more assistance. Is this jealousy? (No, don't bother to answer, I know you'll just orgasm with outraged denial and it will be too dull to read).

I'd have no concern if people had a legitimate target for this no doubt well-founded ire. But having a go at somebody who cannot work because they are caring for their disabled kids is despicable. What would people prefer Emmalita to do? Give her kids up for adoption so that she can work full time? The latest estimate I heard was that it costs around £22k a WEEK to look after children in care - and that's before even considering extra costs associated with looking after disabled children. But this would be preferable so that Emmalita could contribute a few thousand in tax per year?

Yes, there are people ripping off the benefits system. The OP does not appear to be one of them. But certain posters have conflated the idea of legitimate beneficiaries with fraudulant cases and attacked the former by reference to practices of the former.

suze_g

jojo9239 wrote: »

He is getting DLA his brother is 50 and hes 30

Ok, well the person getting DLA must be getting either the middle or higher rate of the CARE component.

The carer must not be earning over around £95 (ish) per week and must be caring for the person getting those rates of DLA care for at least 35 hours a week.

If the carer is on benefits then he won't get Carer's allowance though could get a top up on his benefits (around £27 per week -called a carers premium)

If the person on DLA lives alone he will get a severe disability premium, and therefore you cannot claim carers allowance, as the DLA claimant will stop getting that.

Don't know if that's any help for your friend.

leveller2911

Zelie wrote: »

Leveller tries (and fails) to be clever. Arguing that people in need should not be allocated more than s/he thinks is appropriate yet also trying to gain sympathy for their childhood ailments. Unfortunately s/he can't have it both ways.

Where does this attitude come from that anyone on benefits should be constantly harangued about the magnanimity of those bountiful taxpayers who "give" money to live on. Many people receiving benefits have also contributed to society and will do so again in the future. Let's not run away with the idea that benefits are some sort of gift which people like Leveller have the right to decide how they should be used. Would people whine if a pensioner went on holiday? No they wouldn't, even though their pension is "given" by the taxpayer. I find it especially baffling as Leveller admits to living in subsided housing yet spits vitriol at others who are considered deserving of more assistance. Is this jealousy? (No, don't bother to answer, I know you'll just orgasm with outraged denial and it will be too dull to read).

I'd have no concern if people had a legitimate target for this no doubt well-founded ire. But having a go at somebody who cannot work because they are caring for their disabled kids is despicable. What would people prefer Emmalita to do? Give her kids up for adoption so that she can work full time? The latest estimate I heard was that it costs around £22k a WEEK to look after children in care - and that's before even considering extra costs associated with looking after disabled children. But this would be preferable so that Emmalita could contribute a few thousand in tax per year?

Yes, there are people ripping off the benefits system. The OP does not appear to be one of them. But certain posters have conflated the idea of legitimate beneficiaries with fraudulant cases and attacked the former by reference to practices of the former.

I am not trying to gain sympathy from posting about my personal ailments(luckily I have almost grown out of them),I was showing that I have personal experience of poor health and not just hearsay.Im not trying to be clever at all. You still don't seem to want to answer my previous question Zelie,maybe because you don't have an answer?.
As for acussing me of "spitting vitriol" (language expressing bitterness and hatred) again, please state what part of my postings were "vitriol". I will leave it up to people who read the thread to make up there own minds as to whether I "spit bitterness and hatred.

Zelie

You think that nobody deserves help but you? You denigrate benefits claimants yet you state you also live in subsidised accomodation. Perhaps you'd like to post an SOA and allow everyone else to judge you as you judge those less well off? Or too chicken?

GrammarGirl

I don't really understand the argument here... the OP receives £25k in benefits and currently uses that money to pay rent. She wants to use the money to pay a mortgage, presumably to give her and her children more security and stability. Would her benefits be increased if she takes on a mortgage? I don't get it!

I think the OP has done a great job in saving up such a sizable deposit. I can completely understand why she wants to buy rather than continue renting - I'm a renter myself and have experienced first hand the insecurity that comes with renting, rather than owning, a house.

I have no advice to give because I know nothing about mortgages, but I wish the OP lots of luck and hope she finds a situation that works for her and her family.

chewmylegoff

Zelie wrote: »

What? You'd prefer disabled kids to get just enough to get by? You think that disabled kids deserve to live on the breadline? Don't deserve treats? Don't deserve holidays? Don't deserve a secure home? Oh puh-lease!

not on the breadline, but it's pretty silly when the benefits paid are high enough for the recipient to accumulate £30k in a bank account. alternatively, if she had the money before, it's pretty silly for £25kpa to be paid in benefits to someone who has £30k in a bank account.

GrammarGirl

The OP has already said she thinks the amount she receives is large, but that's what she's entitled to - why would she deny her children those funds, just because they're more than people expect? It is not her problem, it's the system we have. Fair play to her, I say. She's the model of someone who not only deserves but understands her benefits and what they should be used for - to better the life of her disabled children. What more needs to be said?

chewmylegoff

GrammarGirl wrote: »

The OP has already said she thinks the amount she receives is large, but that's what she's entitled to - why would she deny her children those funds, just because they're more than people expect? It is not her problem, it's the system we have. Fair play to her, I say. She's the model of someone who not only deserves but understands her benefits and what they should be used for - to better the life of her disabled children. What more needs to be said?

well, if she is accumulating that money in a bank account you wouldn't be denying her children anything by taking it away as it is clearly in excess of what is needed. what more needs to be said.