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

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

Originally Posted by liam8282

I've slimmed this down, and deleted your more irrelevant bits like spelling corrections etc.

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.


Firstly, (and I've asked you this before) how would you propose to differentiate between people who CHOOSE to work 16 hours and those that work 16 hours throught circumstance (i.e. perhaps they have children, or unable to increase hours etc)?
And more to the point why is the reasons for working at least the minimum number of hours set according to WTC rules relevant anyway? They are doing nothing wrong or illegal. The government had set WTC at 16 hours in order to assist those trapped by unemployement benefit (i.e. better off not working, than working) to ensure that it would always be better off to be in work. In that respect WTC has done it's job. It is (exception rule aside) always better off to be in work, than unemployed.


Liam8282 "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.

Semantics. Makes no difference at all. You are attempting to suggest by "THEY WILL ALREADY BE RECEIVING" the benefits are ALREADY EXISTING.

Most people would be able to see that my point from this is, as one benefit goes another replaces it.
But it doesn't just replace it. In working 16 hours, not only do they receive a top up. They receive WAGES. So they will, be better off. They are still eligible for HB or CTB if their incomes are assessed as low enough (though probably much reduced as their expendable income has increaed).

Those that are claiming those benefits would be able to calculate what would make them better off. Of course they would, anyone can calculate the best scenario that will generate most income. Even people in work can do that. That is no revelation, most people generally look at their situation and work out how they would be better off financially. So what? 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. Most scenarios would mean that they would be better off working. Which is the point of WTC. Where on earth are you going with this? Would you rather that the unemployed were better off, in order for them to decide not to work at least 16 hours?

To emphasise my point further, this is for people who CHOOSE to work the MINIMUM, when the could do more. Most people could work more, if push came to shove. If they are willing to work rather than stay on JSA/IS, they the system needs to be designed that they are always going to better off working. I really don't get what you are moaning about. In fact if they wanted to be even better off, they could work more hours, and...get paid more. In fact, if they stretched themselves to 30 hours, they'd increase their WTC too. But I fear even that wouldn't stop you moaning about how lazy they are.

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

Liam8282 I stated that some people choose to work part time, for the sole reason that they can claim WTC instead of working.

Liam 8282AGAIN, CHOOSE to work the MINIMUM, when they could do more.

Again, until you tell me how you can differentiate those who CHOOSE (nevermind that most people make some kind of choice about the number of hours they work, for numerous reasons). Or how even NOT choosing to work 16 hours and staying on JSA is preferable, then you are in danger of becoming a stuck record.





The free childcare / education is for everybody, this has already been discussed. NO IT ISN'T - it is specifically (AND ONLY) for 3/4 year olds nursery education of 12.5/15 hours per week.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.
Firstly, the "free" nursery education which is charged by preschools to the local authority. Any excess (assuming a setting is registered to provide full day care, as opposed to sessional care as many pre-school only are) is charged to the parents. If the parents work all day, and receive childcare help via tax credits, they are liable to pay the costs up to 80% of which is paid to them via tax credits. They Still have to PAY the childcare, in fact, with the 20% on top, it is not something they are able to keep and spend on themselves. Free or subsidised childcare is not a benefit in the sense it increases the cash in their pocket. Also, only a minority of accredited Childminders are able to accept the 3=4 year olds NURSERY vouchers, so for those people who use childminders, cannot claim the 12.5/15 hours per week anyway - though this just means in reality that they will receive the 80% for the full day rather than the part day, with another government department paying the nursery vouchers. In addition, if they pay via salary sacrifice schemes, this is deducted from their awards anyway. Would you prefer that we did away with childcare subsidies, such as salary sacrifice vouchers tax credit childcare etc, and instead made it unaffordable for people to go out to work? Or just for low income families, who need this help in order to make it beneficial to go out to work each morning?

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? Again the childcare aspect is irrelevant. No one in their right mind would work in order to just pay childcare - that isn't a benefit in the sense they will be better off by doing it.



No I don't know what peoples hours are, but it was one simple solution to a problem. There are many others.
Then do you want government policy to cover every working/living scenario and adjust eligibility accordingly? So if one person is a shift worker, make it illegal for them to claim childcare and so forth? You don't take your arguments to the reality of the situation.


I never attempted to pass anything off as fact, unlike yourself. I will say it again, everything I have written is my own opinion.
Until you understand what a fact is, from an opinion, then this is just a circuitous argument.
When you make statements of fact (whether they are false facts, or true facts) such as "EVERYONE gets free childcare"etc etc, this isn't an opinion, this is a fact. A fact you have got very wrong.


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?
My knowledge is professional. But that is neither here, nor there. I'm uninterested in your personal circumstances, and having children yourself does not make you an expert on childcare anymore than Baby P's mother was an expert on motherhood. Your lack of knowledged in the subject is judged by the opinions and false facts you have produced on THIS board.



You are mistaken, people do get free childcare, which has already been discussed. No, they get free nursery-education, which is set by Ofsted EYFS (early years foundation stage). All childcare providers are subject to this policy, but those who can accept the government nursery vouchers have to follow to a much vigourous degree, and have to prove they are covering the learning goals set down in the standard. It is more formal education than childcare. Ask any nursery or childcare setting for their policy on 3/4 year olds nursery education, and then ask them for the same again on their childcare provision. There will be significant differences in what they have to do, in order to be registered to provide PRE-SCHOOL education.



I am not angry about the free childcare, just highlighting the 80% free that those on benefits can manipulate to there own advantage. So, highlighing nothing then, nothing that you can offer any substance do.



Puerile. :rotfl:

I actually predicted that. But then I'm predicting most things about you correctly.

You can of course choose to continue pretending that you have the first clue of what you are talking about.

liam8282

Deepmistrust wrote: »

You can of course choose to continue pretending that you have the first clue of what you are talking about.

You have "professional" experience only of the subjects covered, says it all. No real experience at all, just stuff you have read about and something you want to chirp on about.

No wonder you have no grasp of my perspective or that of the real world.

Deepmistrust

Liam,

I know you've claimed to be merely expressing your opinions. But throughout I have correct the false FACTS you have infact displayed (not just simply 'opinions). Whilst you seem to enjoy a shallow level of English, in that you like to play the good old spelling Nazi, but a much greater skill is to differentiate fact from opinion. So I have taken a selection of your comments, and am going to attempt to explain the difference in greater detail:

"The current benefits system makes it advantageous for certain people to be on benefits, rather than work.

For starters a couple can work the minimum 16 hours, between them, to qualify for WTC. 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."

You have claimed AS FACT that "certain people" are better off not working (assuming you are not refering to the exception rule, but rather a much bigger proportion of the low income familiess I'm sticking with families for the moment as a lot of your argument is centred around the childcare element). You ignore all arguments, that a working person will be better off not only by wages, but by tax credit top ups. They can still be assessed for CTB and HB whilst working. Numerous WORKING people on low incomes also receive a housing allowance. So, for you to claim that "certain people" (in this context) are better off by not working, I would like to know where you have sourced this factual information from?

You then state that it is "very easy" to claim WTC. Yes, that's true, but you actually do have to be working according to WTC rules first. Which...umm...means they have to be...working. (Albeit on a low income).

On a side note, just to boggle you a bit more, have you considered also, that it is possible for a couple to work 30 hours EACH, and yet only earn the same as the couple working 16 hours EACH? (Being that wages differ from benefits, they are not universal). Yet the couple working 30+ hours EACH, are in fact entitled to MORE WTC than the couple working 16 hours? The moral being, working more hours than the benefit has already been factored in, hence the increase in WTC if you work over 30 hours. So, now that we have dealt with your complaint that those that work less hours do so to "get more benefits" by proving that if they worked EVEN MORE hours, they'd also get EVEN MORE benefit, do you understand that the system to incentivise people to WORK EVEN MORE hours actually DOES in numerous cases...work.

"All in all, when all benefits received are calculated, certain people can clearly see they are better off not working."

Which "certain people"? Only you've muddied the waters by then going to on complain it's part-timers, but as part-time workers actually...umm...work. I'm curious who these people are that you state as fact are better off "not working"?

"The high level of benefits is resulting in more and more people choosing to live off benefits rather than work."
This is a classic case of posting opinion as unsubstanstiated and utter rubbish as FACT.

"This is where the system is failing, people should never be better off on benefits, there is just no incentive for these people to work"
This is a smidging of fact cunningly disguised as an opinion, but stating that "there is no incentive" (unless you are considering incentive subjective of course - which it is - however in this context we are refering to finanical incentive in particular). I've already shown (^) how WTC can incentivise people to..work. So there are indeed incentives in working.

On a slightly seperate note:
"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."
Clear differences should not be too difficult for you to detail then. I've asked several times, how you differentiate between the two, you continually have avoided giving any relevant response. I'm asking for objective reasons how the two can be seperated, and as such then implemented into TC rules. Given that those "that work and need support" are working and on low incomes, much like the other group who are also working and on low incomes (but according to you only doing it for the WTC).

I'll leave it at there for the moment, i've looked only at your first few posts here. We'll see how you do with these ones, before I look at the others, when time allows.

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

You have "professional" experience only of the subjects covered, says it all. No real experience at all, just stuff you have read about and something you want to chirp on about.

No wonder you have no grasp of my perspective or that of the real world.

Hahaha, where is this *real world* you hark on about? What a losing argument. At no point did I say I have not got first hand experience of childcare. I go further than that, I have expert and professional knowledge on the subject (in certain branches). But the main point being, that isn't here nor there. Like I said, do you think Baby P's mother had *real world* experience of motherhood? Is her experience of motherhood more 'expert' than that of a woman not yet a mother?

(to be honest, I doubt you even get the analogy, I'm hardly dealing with the brighest spark here).

Methinks you should get out that big dictionary you sleep with, and look up the definition of "professional":rotfl::rotfl:

Percy1983

You know what they say about people like deepmistrust...

Whose who think they know everything... annoy those of us who do.

As I say he has labelled me a Nazi because I don't think people should be paid to have children.

But if you was to ask around my local area you will find I am far from a Nazi and actually spend a lot of time helping in the local community and am on a local primary schools voluteer list (I will add I don't have children and have no links apart form they are local).

I have also been labeled as stupid, yet I am in a profession which is generally known to require a good level of intelligence.

Basically you can label me a stupid Nazi as you don't agree with me, or you can stop and think that maybe its based on observations by somebody who is intelligent and can see society falling apart dispite his best efforts locally.

Just trying to point out you are not this higher power you seem to think you are and we are not all the thick Nazi runts you think we all are.

Deepmistrust

Percy1983 wrote: »

You know what they say about people like deepmistrust...

Whose who think they know everything... annoy those of us who do.

As I say he has labelled me a Nazi because I don't think people should be paid to have children.

But if you was to ask around my local area you will find I am far from a Nazi and actually spend a lot of time helping in the local community and am on a local primary schools voluteer list (I will add I don't have children and have no links apart form they are local).

I have also been labeled as stupid, yet I am in a profession which is generally known to require a good level of intelligence.

Basically you can label me a stupid Nazi as you don't agree with me, or you can stop and think that maybe its based on observations by somebody who is intelligent and can see society falling apart dispite his best efforts locally.

Just trying to point out you are not this higher power you seem to think you are and we are not all the thick Nazi runts you think we all are.

No you half-wit. I've already tried to explain that your beliefs mirror that of social-darwinists, of which Hitler himself was one:

Percy1983"Maybe human habits should be more like the animals of this planet, if an animal can't provide for there young they will die, its not down to the other animals to provide for them.

Personally I do think the world would be a better place if people wern't allowed to breed for a living, and the reasons behind many babies is just wrong and it shouldn't be happening."

or:

"but can you not see that letting some people have children is actually wrong?"

I sincerely wish either one of you had a bit of background education to fully understand the implications of your arguments.

This is too easy.

liam8282

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Hahaha, where is this *real world* you hark on about?

The world in which everybody else seems to live, even yourself although you are way up high on your pedestal, looking down on the lowly "idiots", "nazis", "bigots", "half wits", (all of your insults).

All because people have a different opinion and perspective to that of yours.

Very bigoted.


What a losing argument.

I am not arguing, merely expressing my opinion. You seem to be the only person on here arguing, again purely because you refuse to accept that people have a different perspective than your own.

At no point did I say I have not got first hand experience of childcare. I go further than that, I have expert and professional knowledge on the subject (in certain branches). But the main point being, that isn't here nor there.

What is the extent of your knowledge, what you have read on the internet or out of a book?
My knowledge is professional.

This implies you have no real practical knowledge of childcare. Do you have children, have you ever had to pay for childcare?

You can read all the books in the world on a subject, but the lack of any real experience is an ultimate flaw in argument you have.

Like I said, do you think Baby P's mother had *real world* experience of motherhood? Is her experience of motherhood more 'expert' than that of a woman not yet a mother?

(to be honest, I doubt you even get the analogy, I'm hardly dealing with the brighest spark here).

I find it quite disgusting that somebody trying to argue about benefits on an internet forum, would even start to try and compare it to Baby P. You really are talking about a "minority of a minority" on that one, and I will not give you the satisfaction of a reply to a purely provocational comment.

It is also amusing that when you try to insult me, you mis spell brightest. Oh dear.

Methinks you should get out that big dictionary you sleep with, and look up the definition of "professional":rotfl::rotfl:

Professional means basically nothing in the context to which I was referring. If you have no practical experience on childcare and paying for it, whereas I do, who are you to say what I know and what I don't know about the subject?

Again, the bigot pops out to say hello.

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

Professional means basically nothing in the context to which I was referring. If you have no practical experience on childcare and paying for it, whereas I do, who are you to say what I know and what I don't know about the subject?

Again, the bigot pops out to say hello.

I think you should read properly. Knowing this stuff for FACT in my professional capacity, does not suggest in anyway that I therefore do not have knowledge in my personal capacity.

It's not rocket science.

You are judged on your knowledge by that of which you have displayed on here. And when it comes to this subject that is zero.

POPPYOSCAR

Percy and Liam.I would give up on this one if I were you.It would appear to me that this person just wants to argue for the sake of it and wind people up judging by the comments and personal insults.

Deepmistrust

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Percy and Liam.I would give up on this one if I were you.It would appear to me that this person just wants to argue for the sake of it and wind people up judging by the comments and personal insults.

Though there is clear evidence these two need their hands holding at every stage. They are actually adults, and about time they reached the conclusion of knowing when to stop, of their own accord.

But I'm sure you think you are doing them a favour, by highlighting their own failure to realise when they have had enough.:rotfl: