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

Deepmistrust

Percy1983 wrote: »

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.

I have no idea what you think job seekers actually receive?

It's in the region of £65 which has to feed, clothe, them and meet their utility bills, perhaps their rent and mortgage (if they do not qualify for maximum or any assistance), and to transport them to and from job interviews.

Perhaps we could just give them sandwiches and blankets and be done with it?

Percy1983

THe bigger problem maybe with society in general, I can honestly say that if somebody who was unemployed was doing community work near me I wouldn't look down on them in any way but maybe others would. I must say to guys litter picking walked past me at the bus stop the other morning, was it community service/voluntary/employed... I have no idea. I am not saying we should put these people in bright orange 'unemployed' vests and parade them around.

Sorry I did make the assumption that you want the unemployed to do nothing as you do seem to oppose anything I suggest they should do. As you can see we have potentially thousands of hours of idle time everyday, if we could tap into that and use it there would be a benefit.

Of course its not the best of evidense but there is parts of my extended family who have never worked but do seem to have a big TV a playstation 3, maybe they stole it, but the indication would be they have afforded such items on benefits.

Another point I made before which you actually left alone, was that child benefits should be stopped after 3 children, good, bad or indifferent?

liam8282

Quote:
Originally Posted by liam8282
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?

You implied that you only had professional knowledge several posts ago.

I do 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*

If you take my comments for what they actually were, rather than what you try to make them out to be, it is quite easy to see where I am coming from.

I have made the distinction between those that CHOOSE to do as little as possible. You just cannot comprehend that some people do this can you?

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(?).

When I am talking about a 1 year old child, no there is no "free childcare". When you start talking about something further which is obviously not currently being discussed, that is again your failure to accept anything that anybody else has to say.

I did use the "free childcare", for my son when he was old enough to start the school nursery. But I did not get an 80% discount for any further childcare I may have required, which was quite a lot considering school holidays alone.

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?

Who is this benefits man you are talking about? I know it is really difficult for you to accept, but some people actually try to work to support their own families before looking to benefits.

In my situation we had two options, either my partner reduce her hours and look after our child, or we both quit our jobs, go on benefits and let everybody else pay for our family.

We took the first option.

If you actually read my post, you would see that I was asking a question. Probably from what I had read on these boards and seeing what everybody else claims, I wondered if my family could receive any support.

If you read any of my posts, I have never said I disagree with benefits, only the way that they are too easy for people to abuse and manipulate to their own advantage.

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;)

No, your misinterpretation. I wanted to confirm what I had heard / been told by other people. My partners only realistic option was to work part time, so that we didn't have to claim benefits.

You really do have a hard time reading and understanding what other people write.

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

Again, another misinterpretation, it does not say anywhere that either of us had or have a full time salary of £25k.

Before you post next time, will you please read and read again before making wrong comments.

A bit of a fallacy if you will.

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?

Wrong, yet again, I said people who CHOOSE to work the minimum, not people who have not option but to work the minimum.

It is really becoming obvious how difficult it is for you just to read and understand what somebody else has written.

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.

I stand by my comments about people who choose to work the minimum when they can do more.

My circumstances mean that I can do more, so I do.

I could however cut my hours down to 16, go on benefits and get everything paid for me. I probably would be financially better off if I did this, not to mention I wouldn't have to work those 19 hours either.

Isn't it strange how my personal experience was "neither here nor there", but now because you (stupidly) think it is something you can manipulate to your own advantage, it is suddenly the only thing you find relevant.

POPPYOSCAR

So I am a "pipsqueak"!! Hilarious!!

I hope you have helped mummy with the washing up today and tidied your room.

Deepmistrust

Percy1983 wrote: »

THe bigger problem maybe with society in general, I can honestly say that if somebody who was unemployed was doing community work near me I wouldn't look down on them in any way but maybe others would. Of course there are many that would indeed look down on them. For instance you only have to read these boards to experience the feeling of some folks vitriol towards the unemployed, they would be stigmatised in the same way we know that the group of young men working in the park in high-vis vests the other day were all on community service, if you can put yourself in that position for a moment. I must say to guys litter picking walked past me at the bus stop the other morning, was it community service/voluntary/employed... I have no idea. I am not saying we should put these people in bright orange 'unemployed' vests and parade them around. But they would be identified by the fact that they are non-voluntarily being forced into some kind of community service scheme. I'm not saying they shouldn't volunteer for such work, but volunteer is the key word. Those that do volunteer anyway will be far better off for it in many ways, not necessarily financial.

Sorry I did make the assumption that you want the unemployed to do nothing as you do seem to oppose anything I suggest they should do. As you can see we have potentially thousands of hours of idle time everyday, if we could tap into that and use it there would be a benefit. Perhaps many of the unemployed already DO make good use of their time. Many of them actually spend a lot of time...JOB HUNTING! Others may be taking training, or voluntary work, even helping out with friends or neighbours already. Your mistake lies in assuming that to get to the miniority of lazy ones, we should be attacking ALL the unemployed (afterall you couldn't have a policy of forced labour for benefits only for SOME).

Of course its not the best of evidense but there is parts of my extended family who have never worked but do seem to have a big TV a playstation 3, maybe they stole it, but the indication would be they have afforded such items on benefits. OK, but that's anecdotal. It's not provable eitherway from here. Maybe they saved and are savvy? I don't know their circumstances, if they have children, then benefits become more generous because civilised society doesn't want the children of the unemployed to be completely on the bread line - we recognise that some "luxuries" such as computers and internet access are BENEFICIAL to ALL people and that is why some schemes exist to ensure all households have access to computers. The other point being, is that we never truly knows what goes on in peoples houses, maybe they have actually done something to "earn" their TV's etc.

Another point I made before which you actually left alone, was that child benefits should be stopped after 3 children, good, bad or indifferent?
Sorry, I meant to come back to this one. I think the principle is flawed, because the idea behind CB is to assist in the general expense that comes with have children (For ALL families - which is why it isn't means tested). To stop at one, two or even three children is basically saying, "we accept 1, 2 or 3 children cost xx amount to raise, but we dont' accept subsequent children cost anything, as we are unwilling to apply the general principle to ALL children".
I am under the impression you think that this would cap the number of children born? (correct me if I'm wrong and your reasoning for this is different) - but you only have to look to the third world to realise that removing or even not giving financial assitance to poor people does not have any affect on birth numbers - on the contrary in countries where there are no welfare states (often the poorest countries) birth rates are much higher than in the UK.

And I still genuinely would much rather hear your answers to the questions I put to you in 519?

Deepmistrust

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

So I am a "pipsqueak"!! Hilarious!!

I hope you have helped mummy with the washing up today and tidied your room.

And up he squeaks to prove my point

Even you can see that, that ^ is about the extent of any contribution to this that you are capable of?

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

As usual you fail to see anything from a perspective, except that of your own. :T

It is a complete waste of time even acknowledging anything you have written with a reply.

You take something which another person has written and put your own completely absurd ideas to it, you even add things that are just not there.

I really do not feel any need to respond to your comments anymore.

:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

I knew it woudn't be long, after exposing your obvious hypocrisy on the other thread.

Ranting like a man possessed about people who ARE entitled to childcare and WTC help for working 16 hours, calling them all sorts, and then we discover that when his own partner CHOSE to reduce her hours to 16 he thought he'd see if he could top up the incomes shortfall with benefits. Hahaha, if the cap fits :T

liam8282

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I knew it woudn't be long, after exposing your obvious hypocrisy on the other thread.

Ranting like a man possessed about people who ARE entitled to childcare and WTC help for working 16 hours, calling them all sorts, and then we discover that when his own partner CHOSE to reduce her hours to 16 he thought he'd see if he could top up the incomes shortfall with benefits. Hahaha, if the cap fits :T

Which is why you failed to address several other points I have made and made incorrect statements and wrong assumptions about my personal circumstances.

Circumstances I might add, you dismiss in one breath but then hold with the highest regard in the next.

You're a joke. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

Which is why you failed to address several other points I have made and made incorrect statements and wrong assumptions about my personal circumstances.

Circumstances I might add, you dismiss in one breath but then hold with the highest regard in the next.

Your a joke. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Do you mean *you're;)

I thought you were going? You came back mid-tantrum to post THAT? Hahaha

liam8282

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I thought you were going?

I never said I was going, but what else to expect from you.

I said I didn't feel the need to reply to your comments, but on that (and this occasion) I did.

Why does everything need explaining to you over and over again?