Trying to get my head around it

lostinrates

zygurat789 wrote: »

But I still don't understand.
Or did you mean JOINT income?
Even so how does a couple grossing over £40K receive HB?

I'm sorry, I'm still not being clear!

DH is a higher tax payer. We receive no form of benefit or state support what so ever.

Other person I was talking about receives HB as part of an income made up of benefits and ''beneficence''. It appears from privte with lemonjelly that this might not have been picked up on through official channels and is not correct, or that it just might have been detected now and therefore will be resolved.

ETA the rpoblem with reporting people is two fold, firstly, one needs to know how much they do get, a pretty darn rare occurance, and secondly, one needs to know what they should get! I see to have passed the first on this case, but not the second! It also seems that it confusers some claimants, as we here underclaiming is not unheard of.

SingleSue

Just want to clarify something as there seems to be a misconception.

You can get DLA but not the car.....only those receiving high rate mobility will be eligable for it.

If, for example, you get high rate care but low rate mobility, you will not be eligable for a car, car tax etc.

If you get high rate mobility and low rate care, you can.

The importance is the level of the mobility component of DLA.

In response to the poster (sorry, forgot to take note of the name), who said my ex husband should be responsible...he does pays maintenance towards his children, not the earth I grant you (and until the rules change I only get to keep a small part of it, the rest goes into the general benefit coffers) but he does his best financially.

The job market is neither as good or pays as well up where he is as it is down here (went from 40k+ to minimum wage after a struggle to get something).

Thanks for all the messages....must admit, this site (and PN's one) have been a godsend in recent times with some very supportive posters, without them, I think I would have gone down into the dark recesses of depression again.

lostinrates

SingleSue wrote: »

Thanks for all the messages....must admit, this site (and PN's one) have been a godsend in recent times with some very supportive posters, without them, I think I would have gone down into the dark recesses of depression again.

I'm so glad people are supportive nd that you are coping well, under the most tremendous load ATM.

Pobby

Going back to my original post which is benefits as a life style choice. It can get my back up as I am disabled and had to leave higher education for a 10 and a half month hospital stay many moons ago. My memory fails me but I was offered what I think was a green card which would put me on the benefit of the time with no pressure to find work. Although it was likely that my condition could improve it was unlikely that I would be 100%.

That`s how in fact it has turned out. The doctor who discussed this with me advised that I might have a go and not take up the offer of a free ride. This I did.

I returned to my parents home and had difficulty getting work. I did get just less than £4 a week from the state. It was an uncle who suggested that I might get a job at the company he worked for, and that was that. Since then, some 40 years later I have had, oh can`t remember, either 5 or 7 weeks of not working.

I am still disabled and nearly did give up 10 years ago and apply for invalidity when I was going through a bad flare up but didn`t, I am very glad that I soldiered on.

So you can see, I hope , that being a single mother, from choice, yet still having kids, should not be an option. I understand that in the case I have been talking about number three should have been a girl therefore getting larger home in possibly a nicer area.

Tbh, I don`t see that having a car or a massive plasma television is essential and I question a system, in this case, that obviously pays out too much.

It does need to change. How to change is beyond me. My only thought is that it should me made very clear that any further children will not be funded by the state.

A friend of mine worked for the csa when it was fairly new. A couple of stories she told me were funny if it wasn`t so serious. A woman was being interviewed about the fathers of her kids. She was asked about one child. Her answer was she had no idea as she was chucking up in the toilet at the time. Another also had no idea, the father kept his crash helmet on!

Emy1501

I work in a claimant environment in the private sector. The UK courts unlike our european friends believe that every claim should be treated as genuine as if it was not then you run the risk of genuine claims being thrown out. What I have found through this is that anything up to 75% of the claimants claims are exaggerated or false. You also find that the genuine claimant rarely knows or finds out what they are entitled to and often they feel embarrassed to claim as they feel people will look at them as they are trying to milk the system.

The above means that the non genuine claimant tends to milk the system whilst the genuine claimant does not always get what they are entitled to and ends up being tarnished with the same brush as the fraudlant/exaggerated claimant.

The benefit system comes across the same for me. The genuine claimants rarely know what they are entitled to and are embarressed to claim whilst non genuine milk the system for all it is worth.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Pobby wrote: »

It can get my back up as I am disabled and had to leave higher education for a 10 and a half month hospital stay many moons ago. My memory fails me but I was offered what I think was a green card which would put me on the benefit of the time with no pressure to find work. Although it was likely that my condition could improve it was unlikely that I would be 100%.

That`s how in fact it has turned out. The doctor who discussed this with me advised that I might have a go and not take up the offer of a free ride. This I did.

I returned to my parents home and had difficulty getting work. I did get just less than £4 a week from the state. It was an uncle who suggested that I might get a job at the company he worked for, and that was that. Since then, some 40 years later I have had, oh can`t remember, either 5 or 7 weeks of not working.

I am still disabled and nearly did give up 10 years ago and apply for invalidity when I was going through a bad flare up but didn`t, I am very glad that I soldiered on.

If you hadn't been fortunate enough to have a relative find you a job, there is every chance you would have had to live on benefits. Most people with disabilities suffer massive amounts of discrimination. I cannot understand how you can fail to have sympathy for other people who find themselves in this postion and would have them live on a pittance. Would you call this "a life style choice". Totally shocked!

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Pobby wrote: »

It does need to change. How to change is beyond me. My only thought is that it should me made very clear that any further children will not be funded by the state.

Leaving children in poverty helps no-one. children have no choice about the circumstances they are born into.

Pobby

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

If you hadn't been fortunate enough to have a relative find you a job, there is every chance you would have had to live on benefits. Most people with disabilities suffer massive amounts of discrimination. I cannot understand how you can fail to have sympathy for other people who find themselves in this postion and would have them live on a pittance. Would you call this "a life style choice". Totally shocked!

I didn`t say that people with genuine disabilities should live on a pittance. I think you misunderstood the point of my op. I said life style choices. I think you realise that.

Also the relative didn`t find me a job as I had to do an interview like anyone else. So kindly don`t twist my words or indeed make massive assumptions regarding what I think.

My wife is in the care industry so I do have some insight, all be it of second nature, of the very genuine claims that are made and rightly so.

Kids don`t ask to be born, totally agreed. So what are you suggesting?

That we should fund a " life style " choice from the adults that use children as a way to get an income from the state?

lostinrates

Pobby wrote: »

That we should fund a " life style " choice from the adults that use children as a way to get an income from the state?

OTOH Pobby, we have a different situation where we understand it requires two incomes to maintain a home in some parts of the country, and some people feel those children are being disserviced by no stay at home parent either.

I don't know that we can actually get into the head of any one when they get pregnant and determine motive.

as to the stories told of the horror stries of conception, the first at least sound like it could have been rape (are you abe to consent to sex while vomiting?).

I'm all about shades of grey today.

carolt

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Leaving children in poverty helps no-one. children have no choice about the circumstances they are born into.

It's naive in the extreme not to accept that if more children didn't also = more benefits, less (unwanted) children would be born in the first place, as people who view children just as a meal ticket would cease to have them.

We shouldn't be incentivising people like Karen Matthews to have 7 children by 5 different fathers.