Age 7 government child trust fund payments not being released!!!

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

You are only considering childcare, when I did mention other benefits including this.

It is wrong to try and manipulate what somebody has written by extracting only part of a sentence and to ignore everything else.

I would say a £144 per week benefit is a massive benefit in anyones eyes, also when you start to add this to WTC, CTC, Child Benefit, rent reduction, the list goes on..................


However, in the case you mentioned where the person is going out to work, I do think that they are the people that the current benefits system was designed to support.


But at the moment is far to easy for people to abuse and gain from.

but your initial post is aimed at those that DON'T work. In order to qualify for help with childcare costs, then a person has to be....working.

It's bad enough that people moan at those people who have kids and don't work, but to moan that they receive help with childcare costs help so they can work?

What do you actually want?

mumps

LizzieS wrote: »

Hi Deepmistrust

No need to apologise, I think we got a little stuck over the pram.

Even if the parents have always lived on benefits, I do not believe it is fair to deny a baby. If parents do not cater for baby's basic needs then that is a matter for social services - not a reason to withdraw this benefit for everyone else.

Looking at starting totally from scratch I have listed items which parents as a whole find as essential buys before birth (and probably missed some):

Mothercare Cot bed bundle 2 cellular blankets, 2 flannelette sheets, 2 jersey fitted sheets £35
Argos cheapest cotbed £110 plus mattress £30
Mothercare 10 newborn bibs £6
Mothercare cheapest travel system suitable from birth including car seat £136
Mothercare 10 piece starter set (3 sleepsuits, 3 bodysuits, 1 hat, 2 pairs scratch mitts, 1 pair bootees) £15
Baby monitor cheapest argos £23 never had one of these
Mothercare microwave steriliser £15 & 6 pack of bottles argos £18 never had these
Mothercare bath set (bath, top n tail bowl, sponge, cuddle robe, thermometer) £23 never had these
Changing bag – join boots parenting club & get one free when you buy nappies otherwise at least £15 never had these
Argos wardrobe & drawers (full size are more practical long-term than the novelty nursery ones and are usually cheaper) £160
Argos thermometer £5 never had one of these
Argos baby grooming set £4
Cotton wool balls – around 50p
Free samples of toiletries usually in bounty packs (some full size)
Mothercare changing mat £7 never had one of these
cot bumper - not priced as they are not really recommended never had one of these

I make that £492.50 for buying in nearly every instance cheaper products (ok I admit I highly rate mothercare bedding). Some of the above are on offer so I avoided busting the budget.

Other products that many parents buy in the first 12 months:
Baby gate
High chair
Car seat for 6+ months

I brought up four, marked the things I never had, lots of the other stuff was given to me as presents. I didn't have car seats for first two as we didn't have a car.

Just thought I would mention this, mine are all grown up and I don't have much of an opinion on what people should get now.

liam8282

Deepmistrust wrote: »

but your initial post is aimed at those that DON'T work. In order to qualify for help with childcare costs, then a person has to be....working.

It's bad enough that people moan at those people who have kids and don't work, but to moan that they receive help with childcare costs help so they can work?

What do you actually want?

My post is aimed at people who abuse the system.

It is not just aimed at those that don't work. People who work the absolute minimum, just so that they can claim WTC and the childcare benefits are just as bad in my opinion.

It is clear that their is a difference between those that work and need support, and those that only work to play the system to their own advantage.

What I would actually want is a revamp of the system, so the people who are clearly abusing the system can no longer profit at the expense of others, as they have been doing for years.

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

My post is aimed at people who abuse the system.

It is not just aimed at those that don't work. People who work the absolute minimum, just so that they can claim WTC and the childcare benefits are just as bad in my opinion.

It is clear that their is a difference between those that work and need support, and those that only work to play the system to their own advantage.

What I would actually want is a revamp of the system, so the people who are clearly abusing the system can no longer profit at the expense of others, as they have been doing for years.

OK, well what you are refering to, is a minority of a minority. And abusers of any system, will always exist. But they should not be able to dictate government policy towards the rest of us. (Which appears to be your position, that because of a minority of abusers, the *whole system*needs revamped).

And how would you differentiate between a person who is working enough hours to qualify for assistance in an attempt to make the most out of it, and a person who is working enough hours to qualify for assistance generally? Or are all people who work part-time trying to fiddle the system?

Surely if they are working enough hours, and on low pay, and thus qualify for assistance, then by definition, they aren't actually abusing anything.
Just stating the obvious like.;)

liam8282

Deepmistrust wrote: »

OK, well what you are refering to, is a minority of a minority. And abusers of any system, will always exist. But they should not be able to dictate government policy towards the rest of us. (Which appears to be your position, that because of a minority of abusers, the *whole system*needs revamped).

And how would you differentiate between a person who is working enough hours to qualify for assistance in an attempt to make the most out of it, and a person who is working enough hours to qualify for assistance generally? Or are all people who work part-time trying to fiddle the system?

Surely if they are working enough hours, and on low pay, and thus qualify for assistance, then by definition, they aren't actually abusing anything.
Just stating the obvious like.;)

Don't you mean, what you think I am referring to? You do seem to like to pass off statements that mean nothing such as "minority of a minority" to try and support your own opinions as facts, even though the only basis of your comments is really your own opinion.

These are just my opinions on the subject, if people disagree with them or have a differing opinion fine. No need to break down every sentence that somebody writes and try to get a full explanation of it.

Personally, I don't think it is a minority of a minority. I think it is a big problem and growing. If it wasn't a problem why is there so much debate about it?

The system as is, is too easy to manipulate to result in a person profiting from it. The system should never result in a person "earning" more on benefits, than they would from a job.

A lot of "normal" hard working people are starting to see that people who don't work can live just as good, if not better a lifestyle, with no effort.

A typical circumstance would probably mean that a person and their partner who both work, say have 2 children...., are probably worse off than their next door neighbours who both don't work, but are entitled to claim benefits for just about everything. When you start to include rents and housing benefits etc, the people who work are generally worse off.

When people are in that situation, it is very easy to look at others who do nothing, but get everything.

Your point about part timers and WTC. You seem to have dismissed the point I made about a couple who work a minimum of 16hours, between them, being eligible for WTC.

For a single parent, yes I can understand 16 hours, but for a couple no, it should be at least 32 hours. To state the obvious.

Also when a person chooses to only work the minimum, when they could easily do more, for the simple reason that they will get WTC, this is what I meant by abusing the system.

POPPYOSCAR

liam8282 wrote: »

Don't you mean, what you think I am referring to? You do seem to like to pass off statements that mean nothing such as "minority of a minority" to try and support your own opinions as facts, even though the only basis of your comments is really your own opinion.

These are just my opinions on the subject, if people disagree with them or have a differing opinion fine. No need to break down every sentence that somebody writes and try to get a full explanation of it.

Personally, I don't think it is a minority of a minority. I think it is a big problem and growing. If it wasn't a problem why is there so much debate about it?

The system as is, is too easy to manipulate to result in a person profiting from it. The system should never result in a person "earning" more on benefits, than they would from a job.

A lot of "normal" hard working people are starting to see that people who don't work can live just as good, if not better a lifestyle, with no effort.

A typical circumstance would probably mean that a person and their partner who both work, say have 2 children...., are probably worse off than their next door neighbours who both don't work, but are entitled to claim benefits for just about everything. When you start to include rents and housing benefits etc, the people who work are generally worse off.

When people are in that situation, it is very easy to look at others who do nothing, but get everything.

Your point about part timers and WTC. You seem to have dismissed the point I made about a couple who work a minimum of 16hours, between them, being eligible for WTC.

For a single parent, yes I can understand 16 hours, but for a couple no, it should be at least 32 hours. To state the obvious.

Also when a person chooses to only work the minimum, when they could easily do more, for the simple reason that they will get WTC, this is what I meant by abusing the system.

Well said!

Percy1983

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Well said!

Seconded, approved and forwarded.

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

Don't you mean, what you think I am referring to? You do seem to like to pass off statements that mean nothing such as "minority of a minority" to try and support your own opinions as facts, even though the only basis of your comments is really your own opinion.

No, my comments have a basis in facts, whereas YOU are pitifully attempting to pass off your opinion as 'fact'.

Perfect example:
"All in all, when all benefits received are calculated, certain people can clearly see they are better off not working. Be that the cash benefits they receive, discounted rents, free childcare, free prescriptions....... I don't know exactly what people receive.

The high level of benefits is resulting in more and more people choosing to live off benefits rather than work."

Not only do you attempt (poorly) to portray as fact that non-workers are better off than workers (conveniently ignoring many other aspects of the benefits of working, such as long term career opportunities), you also state a falsehood. Non-working families do not receive 'free childcare'.

These are just my opinions on the subject, if people disagree with them or have a differing opinion fine. No need to break down every sentence that somebody writes and try to get a full explanation of it.

There is everyneed to counter your falsehoods, and malicious attacks on recipients of WTC (mainly directed at part-time workers). If you feel distressed and unable to cope when your views on the subject are countered, then I suggest airing them on a public internet forum, in not in the interests of your health.

Personally, I don't think it is a minority of a minority. I think it is a big problem and growing. If it wasn't a problem why is there so much debate about it?

Woah, hang on, when I said a "minority of a minority" you claimed I was passing of 'opinion as fact'. Yet here you are "personally" thinking that it's more than a "minority of a minority". So, using your own logic, please stop passing off your own opinion as fact.

In fact (pardun the pun), if you want some facts, there is a link on HMRC that gives you the exact stats of who the recipients of WTC are. I'm afraid you might be disappointed though, as it doesn't specify, which of those recipients is only working part-time, because they can't be bothered to work longer and want to "abuse the system" (your words).

The system as is, is too easy to manipulate to result in a person profiting from it. The system should never result in a person "earning" more on benefits, than they would from a job.

As I've only been discussing WTC (i.e. WORKING tax credit) with you, and you are yet again digressing onto unemployed people, I'll leave this one for now, as I haven't the time at present to start a different discussion on unemployed families benefits.

A lot of "normal" hard working people are starting to see that people who don't work can live just as good, if not better a lifestyle, with no effort.

Why did you put normal in quotes? What is normal? I assume you've never been unemployed by that statement too. (Pseudo snobbery is a particular vile trait).

A typical circumstance would probably mean that a person and their partner who both work, say have 2 children...., are probably worse off than their next door neighbours who both don't work, but are entitled to claim benefits for just about everything. When you start to include rents and housing benefits etc, the people who work are generally worse off.

Again, passing off opinion as fact. The vast majority of two-parent working families, are always going to be better off, in so many ways, than an unemployed family surviving on benefits. Of course every rule will have it's exceptions, but people that usually quote rubbish like this have most likely really never experienced that kind of unemployment, and dependancy for day-to-day living. Nor do they seem to possess any insight, never mind empathy for people who are in hard times.

When people are in that situation, it is very easy to look at others who do nothing, but get everything.

"Believe only half of what you see, and none of what you hear" Marvin Gaye :rotfl:Seriously, don't be absurd. It's a common fallacy to believe when you are in work and struggling that those out of work (and struggling) are struggling a bit less than those in work.

Your point about part timers and WTC. You seem to have dismissed the point I made about a couple who work a minimum of 16hours, between them, being eligible for WTC. What point? Your points repeatadly switch between ranting about the unemployed claiming WTC and part time workers. All I've done throughout is attempt to let you a FACT that non-working people can't claim WTC. Some families breadwinners work part-time, for a multitude of reasons. Like I said, there are some stuck in a position (i.e. a minority of a minority - I.E. MOST PEOPLE ARE BETTER OFF INCREASING HOURS AND PAY, AS THAT IS HOW WTC WORKS, THEY DO NOT LOSE POUND FOR POUND WHAT THEY EARN), that means they can't afford (for whatever reason) to increase their hours, as they will be worse off in other ways.


For a single parent, yes I can understand 16 hours, but for a couple no, it should be at least 32 hours. To state the obvious. Ah, you want to discriminate against couples now? If the family breadwinner can only find work of less than 32 hours, do you seriously expect him to stay on JSA/IS rather than tax credits, because that is the logical conclusion of that notion.

Also when a person chooses to only work the minimum, when they could easily do more, for the simple reason that they will get WTC, this is what I meant by abusing the system. Like I said, how are you going to judge who is 'choosing' to work less than 30 hours, and those in a situation, or unable to increase their hours?

To be honest, your attack on part-timer workers, or the unemployed, or low-income families is nothing new, or original, sadly. And sadly there are lots of people who also will rant a lot about the unemployed, and whining about how the poor shouldn't get benefits because "we can't afford it", whilst conveniently ignoring the REAL reasons for our deficit.

Percy1983

Deepmistrust, I am wondering if you don't live in an area where you can't see every other person abusing the system, or are you indeed one of the abusers?

To me it isn't so much about the money saved it about people getting a free ride out of my wallet. Last time I checked the department which investigate false claimants actually cost more than they recovered, should they stop? hell no.

Deepmistrust

Percy1983 wrote: »

Deepmistrust, I am wondering if you don't live in an area where you can't see every other person abusing the system, or are you indeed one of the abusers?

Why? Because you can't accept that the vast majority of recipients just apply for what they are entitled, and continue their day-to-day lives as normal? Do you see dead people too? Does everyone that doesn't think low-income familes are on a fiddle have to also be on a fiddle?:rotfl:

Believe this or not, there are some people, in this country that possess a social concience. (Google it).

I think that sentence says more about you, than anyone else. Way to discredit yourself in an instant.

To me it isn't so much about the money saved it about people getting a free ride out of my wallet. Last time I checked the department which investigate false claimants actually cost more than they recovered, should they stop? hell no.
What is even the relevance of this? No one is even talking about fraud, not even Liam(whatever). He's talking about a system that LEGALLY rewards people to work less hours. Why are you obsessing with fraud? Are you a fraudster (see what I did there).

I wish someone who actually thinks about their argument could put one forward.