Another one of those benefits threads

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

And here is the bbc on the same:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8707652.stm

I await this with considerable interest.

I'm sure that the powers that be can barely contain their excitement.

carolt

So very glad that in today's news the Tories are outlining plans to sort out the benefits mess - the main positive thing I hoped the Tories would do.

See:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1281950/700-000-families-pocket-15-000-benefits-Labours-40-rise-welfare-payments.html

for more shocking facts (housing benefit of 93 grand/year, anyone? or 1 million children living in homes where no-one works, more than anywhere else in Europe? - shocking stuff...).

Shakethedisease

Shakethedisease, I am not bothered what spin you try to put on my thoughts, nor what assumptions you may make about my experience, understanding or knowledge of social issues.
I couldn't care less whether you want to contribute to this thread or not. And I'm not going to answer your twisted statements

What are you basing the 'twisted' stuff on ?

Not clear if you're trolling, with a massive chip on your shoulder or just incredibly lacking in basic knowledge of the benefits system.

Trolling ? Twisted ?

= 'personal attacks'.

Like you, I have an opinion too. I don't agree with your viewpoints. You don't like it fine. But really.. no need to resort to this sort of twaddle. It's unwarranted and unnecessary.

I'm married, have 5 kids, oldest 22, youngest 2 and haven't claimed a penny in benefits since 1994 when my first husband left me when I was 8 months pregnant ( with the first child also to care for ). I worked till I literally did go into labour. 6 months after that I got off my bum and applied for a midwifery course.. where out of 200 applicants. I got a place out of 15 offered.
I married again later on and had another 3 children...blah blah blah.

Today, I support my entire family ( of 7 ) single-handed, despite my husband recently being laid off after him working also since he was 17. Most of that in the RAF. We bought our own house last year, managing to save up a 35k deposit over 18 months.

I run websites, one of which I own, has, like this one, 1000's of members, millions of posts and ( ask Martin ) also makes a lot of revenue from the ads placed on it. Several other websites with Adsense on them are also doing well. I'm very happy thank you. My income varies, but let's just say this year, despite the recession.. I'm dreading the tax bill because I underestimated the profits.

But, I do know the benefits system too. For various reasons too long to go into. Hope that was enough of my 'social circumstances' to be going along with for now.

There is no chip on my shoulder, and no trolling going on. However, I am VERY familiar ( having started my own very successful and large forum from scratch several years ago ).. with cliques and people like you. You 'take over' and shout down the quieter and newer members when opinon differs from yours. And, when that doesn't work.. resort to calling them trolls and personal attacks (ie 'twisted').

I come here to voice my opinon like anyone else. Like them, love them or hate them. I like it here, it's fast-moving and interesting..and I dip in every day or so..depsite the fact I mainly lurk. I only post when I have something personal or something I feel I can add to the debate going on. Other than that, I have bigger fish to fry. But I do know forum 'luvvies' when I see them and I do know the mechanics of forums inside out. You two are classic examples. Feel quite 'important' here. Post numbers + thanks numbers = kudos and a 'feel-good' feeling.

Those that can't debate in an intelligent way always, always resort to name calling. But it's a reflection on you, not me. You're nothing new.

And many immigrants who work have kids too.

You can back this up for a start ! They bring them all over do they ? Once they land here ? Easy is it ?

Why should I? As silvercar correctly points out, they would get most of the costs back through CTC.

And this. Shifts ? Actual costs compared to the CTC received ? Back your assertations up rather than relying on other posters to back up your claims.

Moerover, single parents are not the only ones who have to deal with the price of childcare, parents in couples do too, I can assure you!

Only when BOTH work surely ?

I'm still, like I said, completely clueless as to what I'm supposed to be so twisted and bitter about ? Not that it really matters to me why you think that, but hey ho, other people's perceptions of oneself are always interesting to see.

Over and out from this thread. It's a waste of time to continue any sort if intelligent debate with those that think you're simply trolling on it. Anything I say from now will only be regarded negatively once that happens and the personal attacks start. As proved above.

carolt

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You can back this up for a start ! They bring them all over do they ? Once they land here ? Easy is it ?



And this. Shifts ? Actual costs compared to the CTC received ? Back your assertations up rather than relying on other posters to back up your claims.



Only when BOTH work surely ?

Ignoring your life story, which seems to have little bearing on the matter under discussion - though feel free to share it if you wish - I personally know many immigrants who have children here, and the papers are full of stories of both maternity admissions in hospitals rising and pressure on school places in areas with many immigrants; they're certainly not all single people.

CTC pays actual costs X 80%. I think you need to back up your counter claims rather than just firing them off if you wish them to be taken seriously.

I'm sorry you feel insulted to be accused of trolling; I just find your opinions so far from the truth that it seemed a possibility.

It seems that is not the case; you are just hopelessly misinformed instead.

lemonjelly

carolt wrote: »

Ignoring your life story, which seems to have little bearing on the matter under discussion - though feel free to share it if you wish - I personally know many immigrants who have children here, and the papers are full of stories of both maternity admissions in hospitals rising and pressure on school places in areas with many immigrants; they're certainly not all single people.

CTC pays actual costs X 80%. I think you need to back up your counter claims rather than just firing them off if you wish them to be taken seriously.

I'm sorry you feel insulted to be accused of trolling; I just find your opinions so far from the truth that it seemed a possibility.

It seems that is not the case; you are just hopelessly misinformed instead.[/QUOTE]

No it doesn't carolt. It pays at 70%. & you have to be working to qualify. A lone parent has to work 16+ hours per week to qualify. A couple has to have both working more than 16 hours a week to qualify.

carolt

So why can't a lone parent work 16 hours a week?

Presumably their children go to school like everyone else's. For 30 hours a week.

If I can find work to fit in with my son's nursery hours, which are far less than 30 hours (and I don't get CTC to help pay for costs), then so can they.

Thanks for the correction - 70%, 80%... = most of it. Enough.

lemonjelly

carolt wrote: »

So why can't a lone parent work 16 hours a week?

Presumably their children go to school like everyone else's. For 30 hours a week.

If I can find work to fit in with my son's nursery hours, which are far less than 30 hours (and I don't get CTC to help pay for costs), then so can they.

Thanks for the correction - 70%, 80%... = most of it. Enough.

I'd agree that childcare is less of a reason than some put forward for not working - especially as the child ages. Income support rules have moved so when a child gets to 7, a lone parent has to move onto JSA. & there is nothing wrong with that imo.

I suppose the only issue will arise at school holidays. One would hope familial support came into its own at these times though...

SingleSue

Sometimes a lone parent cannot work 16 hours a week even when their children are at school because those same children may have care needs and not actually be at school all the time.

This is easier dealt with when there are two adults in the family, one can work during the day whilst the other can take care of the needs as and when required and the other can work in the evening/night when the one working during the day is at home and can take on the role of caring.

One adult and this becomes almost an impossibility especially if the childs needs exceeds the requirements of the childcare provision.

lemonjelly

Sue, I suspect we were operating on the assumption that the child/children in question did not have any care needs.

I feel children with care needs in addition should be treated as a seperate case (& accordingly we should address the issues around carers allowance to reflect this).

SingleSue

I suspected that too....but I am in a picky mood this morning