what would he be entitled too???

Jomo

speedster wrote: »

aye.

she's a stay at home mum.

kids are young and he's an old fashioned guy!!

breadwinner and all that.

sh1305 wrote: »

Is partner working a possiblity?

Seems not!

LauraFoster

To be fair, this is why thousands of people pay for Mortgage Payment protection.

Indie_Kid

speedster wrote: »

a generalisation, i admit.

it's just round here, there is a huge number of scroungers. british too, i hasten to add.

You know their full situation then?

alwaysonthego_2

INAPPROPRIATE POSTS


Hi, Martin’s asked me to post this in these circumstances: Sorry, your post had to be deleted as we had a couple of emails about it and site policy is to err on the side of caution (please see this rule).If you have any questions about this policy please email [EMAIL="%20abuse@moneysavingexpert.com"]abuse@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL]

[Deleted User]

speedster wrote: »

i think he is on interest only. mortgage co wont do anything as his figures now suck.

and yes, they should pay. he's paid in all his life, unlike the vikki pollards who start firing out kids at 15.

plus, if he loses his house, they'll have to rehouse him and pay for it anyway.

sorry but you`ve blown it now as far as i`m concerned,not on is it? commenting about groups of people who you only know from what the dialy mail tells you.

speedster

woodbine wrote: »

sorry but you`ve blown it now as far as i`m concerned,not on is it? commenting about groups of people who you only know from what the dialy mail tells you.

no. i cant stand the DM.

so, are you denying there is a benefit deficit caused by the sectors i mentioned??

why is it that say, a 16yr old girl who has just cost a fortune to educate and is now costing another fortune because she doesn't want to work, so fires out a couple of kids in rapid time. then gets all the benefits under the sun. yet a man who has paid in all his working life is entitled to fook all????

you should see the estate near me. they built it in the height of the boom but a lot were unsold, so the LA bought them and filled it up with vikki pollards.

therefore i don't really give a monkeys if you're done with me or not.

dookar

speedster wrote: »

no. i cant stand the DM.

so, are you denying there is a benefit deficit caused by the sectors i mentioned??

why is it that say, a 16yr old girl who has just cost a fortune to educate and is now costing another fortune because she doesn't want to work, so fires out a couple of kids in rapid time. then gets all the benefits under the sun. yet a man who has paid in all his working life is entitled to fook all????

you should see the estate near me. they built it in the height of the boom but a lot were unsold, so the LA bought them and filled it up with vikki pollards.

therefore i don't really give a monkeys if you're done with me or not.

Because the benefit system is not so shallow as you would like it to be.

Your chap who has been working all his life has also been paying a much reduced level of national insurance and could really have set some money aside. However, if he hasn't then he may still get means tested benefits.

A 16 year old girl has not had the opportunity to build up NICs or savings and so may claim means tested benefits.

It's really quite simple.

GlasweJen

Your mate took on a mortgage he can't afford, his job went tits up. He's too proud to allow his wife to work but still wants other tax payers (who will pay the higher level of NI) to bail him out.

And then you've the cheek to slag off teenage mothers, what about the teenage fathers who do !!!!!! all to help the kid that they helped create? No one ever criticises them yet they have 50% responsibility towards causing the problem.

speedster

dookar wrote: »

Because the benefit system is not so shallow as you would like it to be.

Your chap who has been working all his life has also been paying a much reduced level of national insurance and could really have set some money aside. However, if he hasn't then he may still get means tested benefits.

A 16 year old girl has not had the opportunity to build up NICs or savings and so may claim means tested benefits.

It's really quite simple.

tosh.

16, never paid in a thing, gets all the benefits under the sun. means tested means what their income, circs are etc.

and people like my mate and i have paid our NI (at the voluntary rate, i hasten to add) plus 20% of our income in tax for yonks, yet we're entitled to fook all.

what is it with this place?????

full of muppets. cheers for the good advise from certain posters. i'll give him all the info tomorrow.

i'll leave the rest of you idiots to turn the thread into whatever.

speedster

dookar wrote: »

Because the benefit system is not so shallow as you would like it to be.

Your chap who has been working all his life has also been paying a much reduced level of national insurance and could really have set some money aside. However, if he hasn't then he may still get means tested benefits.

A 16 year old girl has not had the opportunity to build up NICs or savings and so may claim means tested benefits.

It's really quite simple.

as a footnote. he had money aside, but it's all gone after a year of a credit crunch (not that the ones on all the benefits would have bloody noticed)

and the 16yo bit i shant even entertain as an arguement as there isn't one. they fire out a kid, then get the whole lot. end of.

means tested my arze. IS, HB, house, free dental, eyes, training , the whole lot.