" Dat`s another fine mees ya got me in "

Graham_Devon

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Can we have some vague figures attached to these?

We talked about it a while ago, I don't personally ask other people for their precise income of every income stream.

Not sure why you want precise figures. Mitchaa is the best for this though, as he knows his stuff.

You haven't caught me out, it's just this isn't the sort of thing I talk about, though she had added it up to 23k. I wasn't going to interegate her as you are doing here. But believe me, the 23k is a low figure for a single mother with 2 kids.

Harry_Powell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We talked about it a while ago, I don't personally ask other people for their precise income of every income stream.

Not sure why you want precise figures. Mitchaa is the best for this though, as he knows his stuff.

You haven't caught me out, it's just this isn't the sort of thing I talk about, though she had added it up to 23k. I wasn't going to interegate her as you are doing here. But believe me, the 23k is a low figure for a single mother with 2 kids.

I didn't ask for precise figures, I asked for vague figures.

Seems to me that you're just making this up as you go along. You roll out this 'single mother that I know' every so often yet are completely unable to supply anything other than the £23k income. How can I believe you that £23k 'is on the low side' if you refuse to provide even rudimentary figures? It's a little suspect Graham.

How you can mention 'what she is not paying' such as NI and income tax is beyond me. I mean if someone has zero income, how can they be taxed on it?

Graham_Devon

It's only a little suspect to you, if you wanna argue about it, argue about it.

I have nothing to prove.

Masomnia

Interesting article. What's with the American terminology, though? Even I know 'treasury bonds' are American government securities.

Graham_Devon

Just for DD...

A post from mitchaa, which makes the 23k look low....

----

Come on then, please explain as frankly you are talking rubbish.

CB = £20pw for 1st child and £13.20 for every child thereafter, so straight away you have £33.20

Evidence here...

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTax...fits/DG_073828

Lets move onto the very very rewarding CTC system. A couple out of work with no earned income will get £2235pa per child and an additional £545 for family element.

Evidence here.....

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/taxcredits.htm

£2235+£2235+£545 = £5015. £5015/52 = £96.44pw

So far that is £5,015 in CTC and £1,726 in CB or in weekly terms (£33.20+£96.44) £130pw in child related benefits. (£101pw????)

Then we have your out of work benefits? Couples JSA as you rightly put it is payable at £101pw. Evidence here...

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTax...rk/DG_10018757

You have already stated you receive CTB at £25pw which works out at £1300pa

Total so far = £13,293 or £255pw

£5015 in CTC
£1726 in CB
£5252 in JSA
£1300 in CTB

Do you live in a tent? If not, where do you live as you have clearly made no mention of housing benefit or LHA? Up my neck of the woods a 3bed LHA rate is going to cost around £200pw, so there is another £10.5k to add to the above.

What about milk tokens, free school dinners, prescriptions, dental???

£101pw my ar*e!!:mad:

I wish i was homed for free and had no council tax liability. I wish i could walk into my dentist and get my fillings for free.

Typical benefit claimant thinking that 1. If it doesn't hit the bank account, its not a benefit:rolleyes:

Ill tell you what matey, a lot of hard working families would love to have your level of disposable income left over after paying housing and council tax charges. (Proven above to be around £1,000 pm)

I cant wait to hear your counter argument:D Im still in shock that you believe all that you get is £101 pw:rotfl:

----

Now i have no idea where you live but as an example oneyee1, Aberdeen LHA for 3bed home = £173.08pw

http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/Benef...ha_jan2009.asp

£173.08 x 52 = £9,000pa

Add that onto the £13,300 i calculated earlier and there is a benefit bill of £22,300. (Not inc free dental, prescriptions, milk tokens, school dinners etc etc)

Now to earn £22,300 AFTER TAX you would be required to secure a job paying £30k to do so. That is a £30k job just to match the life of a couple on JSA.

No wonder the country is in the mess it is in. I suspect even if the above family were offered a £35k pa job they would probably refuse it and want to stay on benefits. (Taking into account work related costs, travelling expenses etc etc)

Its a shambles.

Harry_Powell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Rant at someone called DD?

But your 'pal' is a single Mum, so you will have to halve the amount you quoted because they were calculated for a couple. She won't receive JSA because she isn't job seeking, she is a SAHM. Everyone with children receives Child benefit (even premiership footballers) so that's not a benefit resulting from her 'lazyness'.

p.s. I'm not 'arguing' about it, I'm just seeking clarification of your statement. I don't think it's out of order to ask for details when someone supplies financial information such as you did. I have seen you ask many times for people to back up their statements.

chopperharris

wageslave wrote: »

It may be whopping but it is by no means an unachievable figure.
Rent, community tax, benefits for one adult and, for arguements sake, three children. If either the adult or one of the children has a disability, there's an allowance for that plus a carers allowance and quite often a mobility allowance too.
Free school meals, an allowance for school clothes, free prescriptions...........

Yeah Im married, pay council tax and only get my bins emptied , I dont have kids , nor do I get child allowance/tax credits etc....at some point the purse perception of whats right or fair changes.

The carers allowance and a unwaged benefit cannot be claimed together , ie you cannot claim job seekers , incap and get instead a carers allowance of what 40 quid a week....however its topped up to the same level in the way of income support , but hey it massages the unemplyment figures.

My sister and her man make a combined wage of over 40k , have pension plans and a mortgage.One car , three kids , claim all the tax credits and allowances technically better off than my wife and I are and we have paid off our mortgage ...yet they are always complaining of being skint.They dont smoke or drink , kids clothes today are so cheap compared to when we grew up together in a working single parent family ,one that never claimed a single benefit including for a handicapped brother.

Perhaps if todays child benefits were taken from the parents state pensions , or parents pensions paid for by the children themselves things could be a lot better than the current system.

Graham_Devon

Harry_Powell wrote: »

But your 'pal' is a single Mum, so you will have to halve the amount you quoted because they were calculated for a couple. She won't receive JSA because she isn't job seeking, she is a SAHM. Everyone with children receives Child benefit (even premiership footballers) so that's not a benefit resulting from her 'lazyness'.

p.s. I'm not 'arguing' about it, I'm just seeking clarification of your statement. I don't think it's out of order to ask for details when someone supplies financial information such as you did. I have seen you ask many times for people to back up their statements.

Wouldnt have to half it at all. Thats ridiculous. If you halved it, she wouldnt have a roof over her head. :rolleyes:

Shes 7k under that 30k couple. Thats about right.

I've not even suggested shes lazy.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We talked about it a while ago, I don't personally ask other people for their precise income of every income stream.

Not sure why you want precise figures. Mitchaa is the best for this though, as he knows his stuff.

You haven't caught me out, it's just this isn't the sort of thing I talk about, though she had added it up to 23k. I wasn't going to interegate her as you are doing here. But believe me, the 23k is a low figure for a single mother with 2 kids.

There will be some (on benefits) with well off BTL parents who rent them the house and then give back the rent under the counter, also subsidise and babysit the kids. It is alright for some

Harry_Powell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Wouldnt have to half it at all. Thats ridiculous. If you halved it, she wouldnt have a roof over her head. :rolleyes:

Shes 7k under that 30k couple. Thats about right.

I've not even suggested shes lazy.

Well, we'll never know whether it's halved or not because you don't seem to want to back up your statement with even guesstimates or vague figures.

If you're not saying she's lazy, what are you saying?