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

liam8282

Because, more often than not there are corporations taking huge chunks of profit off the backs of others labour. If wages were improved, and payrises were kept at least in line with inflation, less people would be reliant on top up benefits such as WTC. The minumum wage is a relatively new policy. Using your logic, therefore "greater minds" would have allowed no such law to protect workers, previously.

"Greater Minds" are only greater when they agree with what you have to say, or support your current argument.

All well and good saying raise the minimum wage, all this would do is speed up inflation even more. The value of the money decreases and the worker is left in the same position they started. Raise the wages by £10pw and the cost of living increases by £10pw, if not more.

You should really swallow your own pill here, none so blind as those that refuse to see. Your attacks, and in some cases complete falsehoods, do not have any bearing on the fact that I can indeed "attack" your opinions if I so wish. If you air them on a public internet forum, then why do you find it so hard to cope when they are countered?

Not attacks or falsehoods, but my own personal opinions.

The only thing you seem to have highlighted that I was incorrect about was free childcare, even though I stated in the same post that I wasn't sure about the exact figures etc.

& to correct you on that point, read the post, which I acknowledged, which says everybody receives free childcare, 3 hours per day I think it was? But, those on benefits get 80% on top towards childcare.

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

Because, more often than not there are corporations taking huge chunks of profit off the backs of others labour. If wages were improved, and payrises were kept at least in line with inflation, less people would be reliant on top up benefits such as WTC. The minumum wage is a relatively new policy. Using your logic, therefore "greater minds" would have allowed no such law to protect workers, previously.

"Greater Minds" are only greater when they agree with what you have to say, or support your current argument.

All well and good saying raise the minimum wage, all this would do is speed up inflation even more. The value of the money decreases and the worker is left in the same position they started. Raise the wages by £10pw and the cost of living increases by £10pw, if not more.

You should really swallow your own pill here, none so blind as those that refuse to see. Your attacks, and in some cases complete falsehoods, do not have any bearing on the fact that I can indeed "attack" your opinions if I so wish. If you air them on a public internet forum, then why do you find it so hard to cope when they are countered?

Not attacks or falsehoods, but my own personal opinions.

The only thing you seem to have highlighted that I was incorrect about was free childcare, even though I stated in the same post that I wasn't sure about the exact figures etc.

& to correct you on that point, read the post, which I acknowledged, which says everybody receives free childcare, 3 hours per day I think it was? But, those on benefits get 80% on top towards childcare.

I've repeatadly pointed out that you were attacking recipients of WTC for not working. I've repeatadly stated that recipients of WTC have to be working in order to claim WORKING tax credit. Then you repeatadly complain about that *some* people chose to work part time, (for which they receive the LOWER amount anyway). You stated as FACT that unemployed people got "free childcare". I accept you now know that to be false.

No, not everyone received "3 hours per day" of free childcare either. This applies only to 3 and 4 year olds (from the term following their 3rd birthday until the term before they start reception) year olds are entitled to 2.5 hours per day (though some area's have trialed a 15 hours per week scheme - not sure if this is in force yet?) during TERM-TIME only. This isn't "childcare" either. This is pre-school education.

80% childcare costs on paid to those on the lowest incomes (or highest tax credit awards) and has to be used to pay registered childcare and they HAVE to be working (16 hours at least for a lone parent) and for a couple one parent has to be working over 30 hours, and the second parent at least 16 hours in order to qualify. (or combined 30 hours).

If you weren't sure of the facts, you could have just asked, rather than make false claims, which have obviously led to your anger at your (mistaken) belief that unemployed people get "free childcare".
When you stigmatise a group of people (especially when it is based upon mistaken information), it is indeed an attack on those people.

liam8282

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I've repeatadly pointed out that you were attacking recipients of WTC for not working.

I have never attacked any recipient of WTC for not working, if I have please direct me to that post.....

I've repeatadly stated that recipients of WTC have to be working in order to claim WORKING tax credit.

I have never commented on this, obviously you have to be working to get WTC.

Then you repeatadly complain about that *some* people chose to work part time, (for which they receive the LOWER amount anyway).

I stated that some people choose to work part time, for the sole reason that they can claim WTC instead of working.

You stated as FACT that unemployed people got "free childcare". I accept you now know that to be false.

Actually what I said was:

"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." post #448

How on Earth can you possibly say from that, that I have stated anything as FACT??

The reply which I acknowledged was:

"80% is paid via the childcare element of WTC. The only people that qualify for free child care is the free 15 hours for 3 year olds per week. " post #449

No, not everyone received "3 hours per day" of free childcare either. This applies only to 3 and 4 year olds (from the term following their 3rd birthday until the term before they start reception) year olds are entitled to 2.5 hours per day (though some area's have trialed a 15 hours per week scheme - not sure if this is in force yet?) during TERM-TIME only. This isn't "childcare" either. This is pre-school education.

If you want to be pedantic and argue the merits of the childcare / educational values go right ahead, not that anybody is interested. At the end of the day, somebody else is still looking after your child for those 3 hours and it is free, hence most people view it as free childcare, and those that are on benefits are getting a further 80% on top of other benefits. I can't see what you are trying to get at with this point, those that work full time, don't get the same support that those on benefits get with regard to childcare.

80% childcare costs on paid to those on the lowest incomes (or highest tax credit awards) and has to be used to pay registered childcare and they HAVE to be working (16 hours at least for a lone parent) and for a couple one parent has to be working over 30 hours, and the second parent at least 16 hours in order to qualify. (or combined 30 hours).

This is one point I seem to have been wrong about, I thought it was 16 hours between the couple. But even so, why do they need childcare when a couple is only working part time? Couples who work full time manage working day / night shifts, so no need for childcare, why can't a couple who work part time manage?

If you weren't sure of the facts, you could have just asked, rather than make false claims,

I have never made false claims, I expressed my opinion on the subjects. I have repeatedly stated that these are my own opinions.

which have obviously led to your anger at your (mistaken) belief that unemployed people get "free childcare".

Where did I get angry? I acknowledged my comments may not be correct, even before it was corrected in the following post.

When you stigmatise a group of people (especially when it is based upon mistaken information), it is indeed an attack on those people.

Says the bigot.

Do you like what I have done with the reply? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

mgirl_2

Given that the budget deficit is so great that with no action we would apparently be spending more no interest to service the debt than we spend on schools, it seems crazy to borrow money to give to newborns - the money gets tied up for years, so doesn't even benefit the economy. Public spending that ends up increasing economic activity is one thing - this scheme is another. All these schemes also cost money to administer, and the more complex they are the more it costs. I'm glad they're scrapping them.

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

Why is there no need for me to answer a post which is aimed at me, and quite insulting to myself, basically calling me a bigot for having a different opinion to yours and comparing me to a Nazi for having that opinion?

You're so simple it's laughable. "Spelling (or Grammar) Nazi":

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Grammar Nazi

You're a bigot for a lot of reasons, but I wasn't calling you Nazi for your opinions, but for the reasons quoted in the link under "Grammar Nazi".


Because you cannot accept that people have different opinions to your own, that is not my problem.

Right backatcha. You see this is going nowhere because you don't practise what you preach. I fully accept you have differing opinions, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to comment on them, or counter them, when you air them on a public forum. I really don't understand why you struggle with this?

I have also expressed my opinion on the topic in hand in some detail on this thread, without the need to attack or belittle any other persons opinion.


"A bigot (in modern usage) is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different ethnicity, race, or class."

Exactly what you are doing in your numerous replies (rants) to various people on this thread, stating that their opinion is wrong because you happen not to agree with it. See above. You're repeating yourself again.

I do think you understand the definition tbph, but you choose to ignore it because you don't agree with it.

Here we go, awaiting another meltdown-rant once Liam has finished spell-checking what I wrote.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

Originally Posted by Deepmistrust
I've repeatadly pointed out that you were attacking recipients of WTC for not working.

I have never attacked any recipient of WTC for not working, if I have please direct me to that post.....

"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."

Here is one example. Here is you claiming that a couple working 32 hours to support their children, probably with WTC top-ups are "playing the system", because 32 hours are the minimum number of hours required to claim childcare. (You also specifically attacked the "couple working 16 hours each" in an earlier post too). You know absolutely NOTHING as to why a couple work 32 hours, yet are happy to generalise that those that do are "playing the system to their own advantage". You cannot point to a single case that justifies this stance. Simply if two parents work 32 hours to support their family, on a low wage, than THAT is one of the scenarios that tax credits was set up to help. They are NOT abusers. They are notching up 32 hours worth of work each week, which is what is required of them.


I've repeatadly stated that recipients of WTC have to be working in order to claim WORKING tax credit.

I have never commented on this, obviously you have to be working to get WTC.

I've addressed this in post 453, where I pointed out the obvious contradiction in your original post 448 (of which you have posted a selective snippet on here). You start by accusing recipients of WTC to be 'fiddling the system'...by doing all that is required from them by working at least the required number of hours (hahaha - this is funny going over your idiotic mass of confused posts).
In fact whilst we are on the subject of your very confused post 448. Not only did you accuse people of claiming all sorts, despite admitting you didn't actually know what people claim, you also claim that couples go on to work 16 hours each, to qualify for WTC.

At no point did it even register in your head the likelyhood that an increase in wages and WTC would result in a loss of other benefits such as JSA, (at least a reduction in) housing and council tax benefits etc. Instead you claim that those people who go on to work (whilst incidentally only working to 'fiddle' the system) are in fact having all this "on top" (yes your words) of their existing benefits.


Then you repeatadly complain about that *some* people chose to work part time, (for which they receive the LOWER amount anyway).

I stated that some people choose to work part time, for the sole reason that they can claim WTC instead of working.

Hahaha "instead of working" so part-times aren't actually working then? So "instead of working" some people WORK part time and claim WTC? Methinks you need to demuddle yourself.


You stated as FACT that unemployed people got "free childcare". I accept you now know that to be false.

Actually what I said was:

"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." post #448

How on Earth can you possibly say from that, that I have stated anything as FACT??


Jesus Christ. YOU claimed that people can see they are better off not working...because they are better off receiving benefits...one of which you listed as "Free childcare".

The reply which I acknowledged was:

"80% is paid via the childcare element of WTC. The only people that qualify for free child care is the free 15 hours for 3 year olds per week. " post #449

No, not everyone received "3 hours per day" of free childcare either. This applies only to 3 and 4 year olds (from the term following their 3rd birthday until the term before they start reception) year olds are entitled to 2.5 hours per day (though some area's have trialed a 15 hours per week scheme - not sure if this is in force yet?) during TERM-TIME only. This isn't "childcare" either. This is pre-school education.

If you want to be pedantic and argue the merits of the childcare / educational values go right ahead, not that anybody is interested. At the end of the day, somebody else is still looking after your child for those 3 hours and it is free, hence most people view it as free childcare, and those that are on benefits are getting a further 80% on top of other benefits. I can't see what you are trying to get at with this point, those that work full time, don't get the same support that those on benefits get with regard to childcare.

Parents of 3/4 years old are interested as to what the education value of pre-school education is, actually. I think you should leave people to make up their own mind on that one, or do you speak for them now too? Most people do not view nursery vouchers as "free childcare". Unless of course you view school as "free childcare" too?

In fact until recently the vouchers could only be used at 2.5 per day. Nor does it cover the usual childcare costs, in fact preschools are only allowed to claim £6.00 for this session, whereas to charge it as childcare would cost a lot more. Allowing for travelling times, how may parents could drop their kids, get to work, do their jobs and get back to pick them up again in 2.5 hours?


80% childcare costs on paid to those on the lowest incomes (or highest tax credit awards) and has to be used to pay registered childcare and they HAVE to be working (16 hours at least for a lone parent) and for a couple one parent has to be working over 30 hours, and the second parent at least 16 hours in order to qualify. (or combined 30 hours).

This is one point I seem to have been wrong about, ONE POINT HAHAHA I thought it was 16 hours between the couple. But even so, why do they need childcare when a couple is only working part time? Couples who work full time manage working day / night shifts, so no need for childcare, why can't a couple who work part time manage?

Because you have no idea what their contracted hours are. If both parents clash over some of the hours they will need childcare. It's not difficult to understand. Or are you now attempting to suggest that part timers should work nightshifts?

If you weren't sure of the facts, you could have just asked, rather than make false claims,

I have never made false claims, I expressed my opinion on the subjects. I have repeatedly stated that these are my own opinions.

You base your opinions on a whole host of false beliefs about benefits. You have been wrong about factual stuff throughout this thread, and that is what you base your opinions on. You foolishly believe the "facts" you have misunderstood, you clearly have no factual knowledge of how childcare works, yet you are prepared to allow yourself turn into a raging bigot against people who need childcare help, on the basis of your lack of knowledge.


which have obviously led to your anger at your (mistaken) belief that unemployed people get "free childcare".

Where did I get angry? I acknowledged my comments may not be correct, even before it was corrected in the following post.

You clearly have issues with the benefits system that you WRONGLY THOUGHT paid FREE CHILDCARE to EVERYONE and the UNEMPLOYED.

When you stigmatise a group of people (especially when it is based upon mistaken information), it is indeed an attack on those people.

Says the bigot. How purile. (what else to expect though).

Do you like what I have done with the reply? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I have no problems with the way you have laid out your reply, but then, I'm not the grammar nazi moaning about spellings and layouts. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Deepmistrust

mgirl wrote: »

Given that the budget deficit is so great that with no action we would apparently be spending more no interest to service the debt than we spend on schools, it seems crazy to borrow money to give to newborns - the money gets tied up for years, so doesn't even benefit the economy. Public spending that ends up increasing economic activity is one thing - this scheme is another. All these schemes also cost money to administer, and the more complex they are the more it costs. I'm glad they're scrapping them.

Hi, thanks for taking this back to the original point. I don't believe the savings schemes are necessary. What they give with one hand they take with another, anyway. Best they do away with them, and instead concentrate on funding public services properly.

LizzieS_2

I think Liam's posts are coming from a slightly different angle to what is more commonly perceived. Most of us class people on benefits as being those who also receive income support, others (and I think Liam is doing this) say people are on benefits if they are working and receiving tax credits. The other thing I notice is Liam is taking a starting point of everyone working full-time (perhaps from his own situation he is taking that to mean no tax credits would be paid for a couple), so his references to reducing to part-time hours to gain are reasonable comments.

For childcare I will clarify it as follows:
1) If both parents are unemployed and claiming income support, no childcare is payable via tax credits (although some sure-start centres send out leaflets implying free childcare for some of their courses which can be misinterpretted).
2) If both parents (or a single parent) do not work at least 16 hours, no childcare is payable via tax credits.
3) If both parents (or a single parent) work at least 16 hours and they are already entitled to tax credits of above £548pa, 80% of childcare can be claimed from tax credits.
4) If both parents (or a single parent) work at least 16 hours and they are only entitled to tax credits to a maximum of £548pa, less than 80% of childcare will be paid by tax credits.

For (3) and (4) there is also a limit on the maximum weekly costs claimable.

Childcare in principle is a good idea - the system does not lend itself to be fair to parents circumstances. From personal experience, I have found the following particularly annoying:

1) While working above 16 hours each, we did not need to claim this as our hours did not clash. Considering it is only the working hours that counts towards entitlement to claim, it is possible for people in this situation to claim childcare costs for other purposes - a good number of 2 year olds are ready for pre-school and at around 80p per hour it is a bargain for those who can claim even though their hours do not clash (it is cheaper than pre-school playgroups).
2) Whilst working well in excess of 2 x 16 hours, we did not qualify even though we could not change the hours which clashed due to one being 12 hours. In the current climate, this is certainly one that could do with a dramatic rethink.

liam8282

Originally Posted by liam8282

Originally Posted by Deepmistrust
I've repeatadly pointed out that you were attacking recipients of WTC for not working.

I have never attacked any recipient of WTC for not working, if I have please direct me to that post.....

"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."

Here is one example. Here is you claiming that a couple working 32 hours to support their children, probably with WTC top-ups are "playing the system", because 32 hours are the minimum number of hours required to claim childcare. (You also specifically attacked the "couple working 16 hours each" in an earlier post too). You know absolutely NOTHING as to why a couple work 32 hours, yet are happy to generalise that those that do are "playing the system to their own advantage". You cannot point to a single case that justifies this stance. Simply if two parents work 32 hours to support their family, on a low wage, than THAT is one of the scenarios that tax credits was set up to help. They are NOT abusers. They are notching up 32 hours worth of work each week, which is what is required of them.

WRONG, I was talking about people who CHOOSE to work the minimum because they know they can have their income topped up with WTC. Why work those extra hours when they can simply get WTC instead.

It has been clear enough for everybody else to understand, only you seem to have difficulty taking on board another persons perspective.

I've repeatadly stated that recipients of WTC have to be working in order to claim WORKING tax credit.

I have never commented on this, obviously you have to be working to get WTC.

I've addressed this in post 453, where I pointed out the obvious contradiction in your original post 448 (of which you have posted a selective snippet on here). You start by accusing recipients of WTC to be 'fiddling the system'...by doing all that is required from them by working at least the required number of hours (hahaha - this is funny going over your idiotic mass of confused posts).
In fact whilst we are on the subject of your very confused post 448. Not only did you accuse people of claiming all sorts, despite admitting you didn't actually know what people claim, you also claim that couples go on to work 16 hours each, to qualify for WTC.

At no point did it even register in your head the likelyhood that an increase in wages and WTC would result in a loss of other benefits such as JSA, (at least a reduction in) housing and council tax benefits etc. Instead you claim that those people who go on to work (whilst incidentally only working to 'fiddle' the system) are in fact having all this "on top" (yes your words) of their existing benefits.

AGAIN, sadly your own poor misinterpretation of another persons comments.

What I actually said was:

"Not really that much of an effort to support your family, but a very easy way to qualify for yet another benefit, on top of other benefits they will already be receiving."

Not "on top of their existing benefits", but "on top of other benefits". A distinct difference, but your manipulation and misinterpretation of what somebody else has written continues.

Most people would be able to see that my point from this is, as one benefit goes another replaces it.

Those that are claiming those benefits would be able to calculate what would make them better off. Either continue to claim JSA (or whatever they are claiming), or work the minimum but be able to claim more in WTC & childcare, which otherwise wouldn't be possible if they did not work the minimum.

To emphasise my point further, this is for people who CHOOSE to work the MINIMUM, when the could do more.

Then you repeatadly complain about that *some* people chose to work part time, (for which they receive the LOWER amount anyway).

I stated that some people choose to work part time, for the sole reason that they can claim WTC instead of working.

Hahaha "instead of working" so part-times aren't actually working then? So "instead of working" some people WORK part time and claim WTC? Methinks you need to demuddle yourself.

AGAIN, CHOOSE to work the MINIMUM, when they could do more.

You stated as FACT that unemployed people got "free childcare". I accept you now know that to be false.

Actually what I said was:

"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." post #448

How on Earth can you possibly say from that, that I have stated anything as FACT??


Jesus Christ. YOU claimed that people can see they are better off not working...because they are better off receiving benefits...one of which you listed as "Free childcare".

I have already acknowledged this point, you feel the need to keep coming back to it. I don't.

The reply which I acknowledged was:

"80% is paid via the childcare element of WTC. The only people that qualify for free child care is the free 15 hours for 3 year olds per week. " post #449

No, not everyone received "3 hours per day" of free childcare either. This applies only to 3 and 4 year olds (from the term following their 3rd birthday until the term before they start reception) year olds are entitled to 2.5 hours per day (though some area's have trialed a 15 hours per week scheme - not sure if this is in force yet?) during TERM-TIME only. This isn't "childcare" either. This is pre-school education.

If you want to be pedantic and argue the merits of the childcare / educational values go right ahead, not that anybody is interested. At the end of the day, somebody else is still looking after your child for those 3 hours and it is free, hence most people view it as free childcare, and those that are on benefits are getting a further 80% on top of other benefits. I can't see what you are trying to get at with this point, those that work full time, don't get the same support that those on benefits get with regard to childcare.

Parents of 3/4 years old are interested as to what the education value of pre-school education is, actually. I think you should leave people to make up their own mind on that one, or do you speak for them now too? Most people do not view nursery vouchers as "free childcare". Unless of course you view school as "free childcare" too?

In fact until recently the vouchers could only be used at 2.5 per day. Nor does it cover the usual childcare costs, in fact preschools are only allowed to claim £6.00 for this session, whereas to charge it as childcare would cost a lot more. Allowing for travelling times, how may parents could drop their kids, get to work, do their jobs and get back to pick them up again in 2.5 hours?
80% childcare costs on paid to those on the lowest incomes (or highest tax credit awards) and has to be used to pay registered childcare and they HAVE to be working (16 hours at least for a lone parent) and for a couple one parent has to be working over 30 hours, and the second parent at least 16 hours in order to qualify. (or combined 30 hours).

The free childcare / education is for everybody, this has already been discussed. Those who work (not just the minimum, obvious to most, but probably not to you Deepmistrust) don't get the rest of the day at an 80% discount though.

When the 80% free childcare, plus WTC, is added in, it is more beneficial for some to work the MINIMUM 16 hours just to get these benefits. My point being, why only work the MINIMUM when you can do more?

This is one point I seem to have been wrong about, ONE POINT HAHAHA I thought it was 16 hours between the couple. But even so, why do they need childcare when a couple is only working part time? Couples who work full time manage working day / night shifts, so no need for childcare, why can't a couple who work part time manage?
Because you have no idea what their contracted hours are. If both parents clash over some of the hours they will need childcare. It's not difficult to understand. Or are you now attempting to suggest that part timers should work nightshifts?

No I don't know what peoples hours are, but it was one simple solution to a problem. There are many others.

If you weren't sure of the facts, you could have just asked, rather than make false claims,

I never attempted to pass anything off as fact, unlike yourself. I will say it again, everything I have written is my own opinion.

I have never made false claims, I expressed my opinion on the subjects. I have repeatedly stated that these are my own opinions.

You base your opinions on a whole host of false beliefs about benefits. You have been wrong about factual stuff throughout this thread, and that is what you base your opinions on. You foolishly believe the "facts" you have misunderstood, you clearly have no factual knowledge of how childcare works, yet you are prepared to allow yourself turn into a raging bigot against people who need childcare help, on the basis of your lack of knowledge.

Funnily enough I have 2 children, 6 & 1. So I do know quite a bit about childcare. What is the extent of your knowledge, what you have read on the internet or out of a book?

which have obviously led to your anger at your (mistaken) belief that unemployed people get "free childcare".

You are mistaken, people do get free childcare, which has already been discussed.

Where did I get angry? I acknowledged my comments may not be correct, even before it was corrected in the following post.

You clearly have issues with the benefits system that you WRONGLY THOUGHT paid FREE CHILDCARE to EVERYONE and the UNEMPLOYED.

I am not angry about the free childcare, just highlighting the 80% free that those on benefits can manipulate to there own advantage.

When you stigmatise a group of people (especially when it is based upon mistaken information), it is indeed an attack on those people.

Says the bigot. How purile. (what else to expect though).

Puerile. :rotfl:

Percy1983

Give up Liam you will never win, not because you are right or wrong, but becuase Deepmistrust has quite a closed bigoted mind.

With that ignore me as I am a Nazi :rotfl:

With that carry on I want to see how long it takes to run out of colours.