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

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

I fail to see the relevance of any of the topics you have asked for an opinion on but here is what I think of them (if only to stop you bleating on):




Has that answered your current gripes?

The relevance is, that there are far greater wastes of money, upon which our taxes are used to fund. Some of these are immoral and illegal, and it is allowed to happen, because people like you spend far to long wittering on about the unemployed (and those that survive on the least incomes in the country), instead of attacking the real criminals and wrong doers in society.

Percy1983

Thank your we are now getting somewhere, so mostly the same, what would you tweak?

liam8282

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Now as someone who has benefited from the childcare rule himself - by his partner reducing her hours to 16 (not 15, because then you wouldn't be entitled ). I do find the hypocrisy hilarious.

Using your own logic here, if you're looking for benefits help - why did she reduce her hours? Cos you knew the benefits man might help ya out ?;)
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

As you can see from my post on other threads, I do have personal experience of what I am talking about, unlike you who only has "professional" knowledge.

In my situation we were the people actually struggling to make ends meet.

I do not benefit from any childcare, my partner reduced her hours so that she could look after our child. She does 4 hours per day, 4 days per week.

Our immediate family and friends look after our daughter for those 4 hours for 4 days, so we receive no help with childcare.

I actually posted that post nearly 6 months ago, when we were deciding what to do when my partner finished maternity and was going back to work.

I wanted to see what help we would be entitled to, as I work full time and she normally works full time.

Basically, we were entitled to nothing.

That is the reason my partner had to cut her hours down, to look after our daughter, but still earn an income to help support our own family.

Again, your assumptions and mis interpretation of what somebody else has written.

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

As you can see from my post on other threads, I do have personal experience of what I am talking about, unlike you who only has "professional" knowledge.

At what point did I state I only had profesional knowledge? Another baseless incorrect assumption. This is getting extremely predictable. This is why your arguments hold no water. Do you know what a fallacy is?

In my situation we were the people actually struggling to make ends meet.

Ah, you must be alone in that. Those people earning even less that you, of course aren't struggling to make ends meet *facepalm*

I do not benefit from any childcare, my partner reduced her hours so that she could look after our child. She does 4 hours per day, 4 days per week.

You've never used "free childcare" (using your own logic here - so you missed the 12.5 hours per week free then)? fair enough if you didn't get tax credit help(?).

Our immediate family and friends look after our daughter for those 4 hours for 4 days, so we receive no help with childcare.


I actually posted that post nearly 6 months ago, when we were deciding what to do when my partner finished maternity and was going back to work.

So what? Are you saying it was OK 6 months ago to look for the benefits man to support you so your partner would work less, but not now for other people?

I wanted to see what help we would be entitled to, as I work full time and she normally works full time.

You mean you actually wanted to see if you'd be able to make up some of her loss of earnings by using benefits, if she decided to work part time? Shocking tut tut;)

Basically, we were entitled to nothing.
I should think not on a full time salary of £25k and her part time salary;)

That is the reason my partner had to cut her hours down, to look after our daughter, but still earn an income to help support our own family.

Again, your assumptions and mis interpretation of what somebody else has written.
You mean like your assumptions that people who work 16 hours do so to "fiddle the system" I take you don't quite understand why I posted this up yet?

Don't be thinking this is an attack on your personal circumstances either (before you go all limp and whiney). I was merely using it to point out the obvious hypocrisy your earlier posts that attacked people who choose to work less than 30 hours knowing they may be supported by WTC.

Deepmistrust

Percy1983 wrote: »

Thank your we are now getting somewhere, so mostly the same, what would you tweak?

There are lots of loopholes. For example the way a person can have capital assets and not have them considered for WTC, and how child support is not considered. More loopholes that even I could possibly list.

But the important point is that you have to be very careful, closing lots of these loopholes could in many cases put a lot of people into poverty. (For example, just because a person owns a home worth 200,000 - a relatively modest property, to include it in assessing WTC would cause them hardship. Whereas another person may own a £1,000,000 property and otherwise be in the same circumstances, yet be eligible for the same WTC).

The point where we hugely differ, is that I do not disagree with the benefits system in principle, and nor would I make the recipients of it answerable for everything they do in their daily lives to their neighbours, especially to the point of making them cut their grass. And then to force people you "think" are pregnant "for the wrong reasons" to not have their babies.

Why do you want to humilate already downtrodden people?
I'm not sure if you realise what a vile policy that is, I'm tempted to wonder if you are a really horrid person, but am giving you the benefit of the doubt by suggesting that rather you haven't actually thought it through?

Percy1983

As mentioned I don't have any children yet, but to be honest if I could claim something I would.

Not because I believe we deserve the money just because we have decided to have a child, but as a method of recouping some of the Tax I have paid over the years to pay for somebody else's children.

In the mean if systems change to how I would like which would mean i get nothing then that wouldn't be a problem as I don't plan to have children I can't afford anyway (One of the reasons we don't have any yet).

Deepmistrust

Percy1983 wrote: »

As mentioned I don't have any children yet, but to be honest if I could claim something I would.

Not because I believe we deserve the money just because we have decided to have a child, but as a method of recouping some of the Tax I have paid over the years to pay for somebody else's children.

That's rather hypocritical. I don't deny you are entitled and eligible to any help you can get. But how about a rich banker who has paid millions in tax. Is he entilted to take more benefits than you or anyone on the basis of that he has paid more tax than you over the years?


In the mean if systems change to how I would like which would mean i get nothing then that wouldn't be a problem as I don't plan to have children I can't afford anyway (One of the reasons we don't have any yet).

It's a personal choice when to have children (accidents aside). If a family are on low incomes, with not realistic better job prospects and want to start a family, then low incomes should not prevent them.

There was a time, before money, that this wasn't even an issue. Species procreate - it's what they do. We've created a society that means we aren't hunter gatherers anymore, people are supported by farmers to concentrate on other skills or trades, in the knowledge their food is grown. Monetary systems were devised as a way to ensure that the farmer was rewarded for his efforts. Just because one person is unfortunate enough to not have the skills of a highly paid person, is not reason enough to deny them a right to a family.

If those people choose not to work, in favour of laziness ( a minority), then we should not starve them. They will never be well off, they will always be poor, but their children should not be starved out of existance. Not in a civilised society.

Percy1983

Deepmistrust wrote: »

There are lots of loopholes. For example the way a person can have capital assets and not have them considered for WTC, and how child support is not considered. More loopholes that even I could possibly list.

But the important point is that you have to be very careful, closing lots of these loopholes could in many cases put a lot of people into poverty. (For example, just because a person owns a home worth 200,000 - a relatively modest property, to include it in assessing WTC would cause them hardship. Whereas another person may own a £1,000,000 property and otherwise be in the same circumstances, yet be eligible for the same WTC).

The point where we hugely differ, is that I do not disagree with the benefits system in principle, and nor would I make the recipients of it answerable for everything they do in their daily lives to their neighbours, especially to the point of making them cut their grass. And then to force people you "think" are pregnant "for the wrong reasons" to not have their babies.

Why do you want to humilate already downtrodden people?
I'm not sure if you realise what a vile policy that is, I'm tempted to wonder if you are a really horrid person, but am giving you the benefit of the doubt by suggesting that rather you haven't actually thought it through?

I would agree that capital assets should come into the equation.

You will find that I am not saying cut all benefits, and if anything I am also offering tweaks, yes you clearly disagree but there is some merit to some of my ideas you have to admit.

I am not forcing anybody not to have children, I am pointing out that whatever your income you should be liable to pay for your children. To which if you want a better life for you and your children you will go about improving yourself and your income. Benefits should be enough to pay for you and your children to eat, but big TVs, playstations, iphones shouldn't be affordable.

Its not about trying to humiliate people its about not rewarding them for doing nothing and rewarding them for doing something. My point is they could all contribute an amount of time into the local community. I do admit that the system could be abused and payed staff could get replaced if its not managed, but if managed correctly it could have massive benefits for local comunities.

Do you honestly think that if somebody is unemployed (by choice or otherwise) the best thing for them is to sit at home doing nothing?

Percy1983

Just to add actually, why not reduce benefits to a bare minimum needed and its is then 'topped up' based you you doing voluntary work or training. Going back to my general arguement, if you want to eat the goverment can pay, if you want a playstation you should earn it.

Deepmistrust

Percy1983 wrote: »

I would agree that capital assets should come into the equation.

You will find that I am not saying cut all benefits, and if anything I am also offering tweaks, yes you clearly disagree but there is some merit to some of my ideas you have to admit.

I am not forcing anybody not to have children, You did actually say they should be stopped from being born I am pointing out that whatever your income you should be liable to pay for your children. To which if you want a better life for you and your children you will go about improving yourself and your income. That's exactly what the principle of WTC encourages, that people are better off by working, the more you earn the more you get to keep and the WTC doesn't reduce pound for pound - so in all scenarios (exception to the rule aside) everyone is always going to be better off when they earn more. Benefits should be enough to pay for you and your children to eat, but big TVs, playstations, iphones shouldn't be affordable. I honestly don't know anyone who has those things which were paid for by benefits. Anyone that I know that is unemployed, if they have those things did so by either purchasing those things prior to losing their job from their salary or on credit on the basis they could at the time repay it, or by savvy saving. If you are refering by "benefits" to things like WTC, then I disagree completely, of course people should see the benefits of being better off by working, and be able to spend their incomes as they see fit. Otherwise we are back in the same situation where it is better or just as better off to be unemployed.

Its not about trying to humiliate people its about not rewarding them for doing nothing and rewarding them for doing something. My point is they could all contribute an amount of time into the local community. I do admit that the system could be abused and payed staff could get replaced if its not managed, but if managed correctly it could have massive benefits for local comunities.
It is called VOLUNTARY work for a reason. Huge numbers of unemployed (and employed) people already volunteer for unpaid work, to either fill gaps on cv's, or to do something productive with their time, or to keep their minds and bodies occupied when in a rough patch of unemployment. Why humiliate them by forcing them to do it? Then they no longer stand out as productive (even during unemployment) but just become someone to point at and say "look another scrounger".

Do you honestly think that if somebody is unemployed (by choice or otherwise) the best thing for them is to sit at home doing nothing?
At absolutely no point have I suggested this at all. Please understand what I mean when I accuse you of "fallacy" and "strawmen". If you please want any civilised reply rather than the derision you got earlier, then at least please attribute the correct position I take before asking questions, this prevents your questions being fallacious.

People are unemployed for differeing reasons, a minority of them will of course be due to laziness. There are systems in place already to cut JSA if they are not jobseeking. In the same way I explained about capital assets and the two differing situations with the homeowners, no two jobless people are the same either. So employing a policy of humiliation in order to get to the lazy ones, is degrading and insulting to those people who are genuinely down on their luck.