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

liam8282

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I think he is implying that you have a 'state benefit' by living in a council house but conveniently omitting that you pay rent for that 'benefit'

It could only be using deepmistrust logic, that something for somebody who is working has to pay for, but those on benefits gets free, is actually a benefit to the person that is working and paying for it themselves. :rotfl:

LizzieS_2

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

This is rich coming from someone who NEVER answers a question about themselves!

He has with his constant complaining £65 is not enough

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

Do you think the more that you say something, the more it will make people believe it?

^^:rotfl:
You know when you quote a post and it won't let you post it until you post something after the "quotes". Well please do try and make it something more meaningful.

The fact remains, you like to label WTC recipients who choose to work 16 hours as "playing the system". Yet, I've produced a thread whereby you yourself were looking for benefits to replace the fact that your own partner CHOSE to reduce her working hours to 16.

You rather ironically made a statement about council estates being awash with benefit scroungers, whilst you yoursself are occupying a subsidised council property (even a rent paying council tenant, is benefitting from cheap rents that come with the secured tenancy offered to those deemed to be in "Housing Need").

So yes, you were in need, and yes you did accept help, (of which there is nothing wrong in at all), and yes you did try and look for benefits to replace an earned wage. (It's in black and white :rotfl:). You probably did this because you felt your children would benefit from having a parent around a lot more. Yet you can't offer the same sentiment for other people who also choose to work 16 hours. Instead prefering to label them scroungers or "playing the system".

The hypocrisy is astounding.

But deep down, I suspect you realise that.
But instead of directing your anger back at yourself, you're either directing it at people who DID qualify for help when CHOOSING to work 16 hours (very bitter), and directing it virtually, at an internet profile. Hahaha.

Deepmistrust

LizzieS wrote: »

He has with his constant complaining £65 is not enough

Where did I say £65 was not enough?
Proof please.

Percy1983

I can actually see I difference with Liam.

EG

Scroungers, look at system, reduce hours to claim more.

Liam, reduced hours for good of family, looked to see if there was anything which could help.

Scrounger motivation, more money for less work.

Liam's motivation, the best for his child.

See the difference?

Deepmistrust

Percy1983 wrote: »

I can actually see I difference with Liam.

EG

Scroungers, look at system, reduce hours to claim more.

Liam, reduced hours for good of family, looked to see if there was anything which could help.

Scrounger motivation, more money for less work.

Liam's motivation, the best for his child.

See the difference?

Sure. However, explain how you would legislate against the *motives* of people who want to reduce their working hours to 16?

Explain who would decide which people are doing it for their family, and which aren't?

EDIT: I mean do these supposed scroungers on WTC have kids? What makes you sure they also aren't doing it for the good of their family? Umm, even those that DO figure out they are better off working part-time, could also say they are doing it for their families. They wouldn't be lying. So that doesnt really fit with your definition of scrounger, but rather fits more like how you've attempted to describe Liam's actions.

Given, that Liams claim was that unemployed people then CHOOSE to work 16 hours purely for financial gain (hahaha, who doesn't work for financial gain anyway - most people actually do work because they'd be better off :rotfl:), And those that are doing it purely because ....ummm....for the money.

And using your own logic, Liam attemtped to "scrounge"? Just because he wanted to claim benefits to replace the loss of earning which came about as a result of his partner choosing to reduce her hours?

And not to mention that Liam was financially better off going to the council and claiming to be in housing need, despite two full time workers in the household? By paying low rents to the council, rather than the market rents in the area. Are you really calling him a scrounger Percy?

liam8282

Percy1983 wrote: »

I can actually see I difference with Liam.

EG

Scroungers, look at system, reduce hours to claim more.

Liam, reduced hours for good of family, looked to see if there was anything which could help.

Scrounger motivation, more money for less work.

Liam's motivation, the best for his child.

See the difference?

That was one of several reasons.

I don't feel the need to defend council housing or council estates to deepmistrust. Remember this is the person that said I was bigoted with my views toward council estates. What a joker this person is.

There is no need to try to explain anything to deepmistrust, I have done this on several occasions, but they ignore it and just write something totally different which suits their own argument.

They claim to be a professional, that they may be, but they have no understanding of any of the real life situations that have been put to them.

They claim to know almost everything on every subject, but in fact they only reel off the same old tripe in response to every thing that has been put to them.

Deepmistrust has ignored several points I have made repeatedly (what a surprise).

1. I work full time. I could reduce my hours or even not work at all. My salary would be replaced with benefits in one form or another, I would not be any worse off if I did this.

The only motivation there is for people like me to work, is not financial, but merely the morality of wanting to provide for your own family.

2. My partner works part time. Yes she did choose to work part time, but only in order that we wouldn't have to rely on benefits for childcare for our child.

She could work full time and our daughter could be in childcare 5 days a week, but again this is our own morals taking precedence. We personally don't think it is right to claim benefits, when we can adjust our lives to suit our child and our circumstances.

3. My post which Deepmistrust continues to refer to was me merely seeking advice on the options that were available to me at the time.

Looking into Deepmistrust posts, isn't this funny:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2480163

The person who harks on about stuff actually came to money expert because they don't want to pay interest on their own credit card.

Using their own logic, it could be said that:

They are not working, or maybe 16 hours per week to claim WTC, they are claiming all other possible benefits, living in a private rent (couldn't get a council house, hence the hostility toward me for being lucky enough to get one), they are probably a single person in their late 40s, early 50s, with no family, struggling to pay off their own debts on credit cards and loans (they have racked up buying plasma tvs, laptops etc.)

All completely my own interpretation of their circumstances from a single post they made, but hey ho, whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

4. This list could go on for quite a while, but to tell you the truth, I think everybody can see my comments for what they were.

Deepmistrust being the only exception.

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

That was one of several reasons.

I don't feel the need to defend council housing or council estates to deepmistrust. Remember this is the person that said I was bigoted with my views toward council estates. What a joker this person is.

There is no need to try to explain anything to deepmistrust, I have done this on several occasions, but they ignore it and just write something totally different which suits their own argument.

They claim to be a professional, that they may be, but they have no understanding of any of the real life situations that have been put to them.

They claim to know almost everything on every subject, but in fact they only reel off the same old tripe in response to every thing that has been put to them.

Deepmistrust has ignored several points I have made repeatedly (what a surprise).

1. I work full time. I could reduce my hours or even not work at all. My salary would be replaced with benefits in one form or another, I would not be any worse off if I did this.

The only motivation there is for people like me to work, is not financial, but merely the morality of wanting to provide for your own family.

2. My partner works part time. Yes she did choose to work part time, but only in order that we wouldn't have to rely on benefits for childcare for our child.

She could work full time and our daughter could be in childcare 5 days a week, but again this is our own morals taking precedence. We personally don't think it is right to claim benefits, when we can adjust our lives to suit our child and our circumstances.

3. My post which Deepmistrust continues to refer to was me merely seeking advice on the options that were available to me at the time.

Looking into Deepmistrust posts, isn't this funny:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2480163

The person who harks on about stuff actually came to money expert because they don't want to pay interest on their own credit card.

Using their own logic, it could be said that:

They are not working, or maybe 16 hours per week to claim WTC, they are claiming all other possible benefits, living in a private rent (couldn't get a council house, hence the hostility toward me for being lucky enough to get one), they are probably a single person in their late 40s, early 50s, with no family, struggling to pay off their own debts on credit cards and loans (they have racked up buying plasma tvs, laptops etc.)

All completely my own interpretation of their circumstances from a single post they made, but hey ho, whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

4. This list could go on for quite a while, but to tell you the truth, I think everybody can see my comments for what they were.

Deepmistrust being the only exception.

Interest on CC's is a subject many people here have issue with. Especially Percy. Hardly revelation of the century. But then I'm not going around slagging people off who have issues with their Interest payments whilst simunltanously trying to reduce my own! That's the difference, in what makes you a hypocrit and me not.
Though it's quite funny that you found that relevant.

I wasn't going to mention your online gambling habit. I suppose you wanted to claim benefits for a few more games of roulette or online bingo?:rotfl:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2010167=

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1914409=

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1081141=

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1079237=

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1008531=

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/785133=

It goes on, and on, haha, there are so many threads like these it's quite hilarious.

Are you gambling all the families WTC? :cool:

Oh deary me:rotfl::rotfl:

Deepmistrust

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Interest on CC's is a subject many people here have issue with. Especially Percy. Hardly revelation of the century. But then I'm not going around slagging people off who have issues with their Interest payments whilst simunltanously trying to reduce my own! That's the difference, in what makes you a hypocrit and me not.
Though it's quite funny that you found that relevant.

I wasn't going to mention your online gambling habit. I suppose you wanted to claim benefits for a few more games of roulette or online bingo?:rotfl:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2010167=

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1914409=

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1081141=

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1079237=

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1008531=

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/785133=

It goes on, and on, haha, there are so many threads like these it's quite hilarious.

Are you gambling all the families WTC? :cool:

Oh deary me:rotfl::rotfl:

Second link down
"On Friday morning I opened a new account, made deposits of £300 and ended up with winnings of around £300."

Isn't Friday WTC in the bank day for you?

liam8282

If you had of been around MSE for a bit longer, you would have known how lucrative it was to sign up to gambling sites for the "free" no deposit offers.

Especially the bingo sites!

I made quite a bit out of this.

Again another idiotic attempt to take something out of context.