Give up your job to live on benefits.

C_Mababejive

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Er... maybe the woman's husband died? We should not make assumptions here, we do not know the facts.

I personally think she is one of the people who should be helped, it is only a temporary measure until her children are a few years older. She is a nurse who has paid into the system and will do so again. Although I do think she should downsize if possible.

It's the ones who have never (through choice) contributed and have children regardless and whose rent we pay for decades that we should be targetting here.

Point taken...we should indeed focus on the council house for life brigade as well as those who want their mortgages paying whilist living in big houses they can no longer afford.

dopester

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Er... maybe the woman's husband died? We should not make assumptions here, we do not know the facts.

If so, they should have budgeted in their freewill decision to buy a house for some form of mortgage life insurance/assurance to run alongside the mortgage. There are insurance products against that risk. However why bother with them when you can feed on the taxpayer.

mbga9pgf

He didnt die. Its pretty bl00dy obvious. THey would have been all over that fact like a rash in this left-leaning article if he had.

Once again, people not getting to grips with their own responsibilities.

dopester

When I first read the BBC article I got the impression she had 3 kids, but reading it again, I'm not seeing it say how many kids she has. Oh.. right at the beginning... it says she has 3 kids, all under 8 years of age.

Anyway, on Rightmove, the cheapest bungalow in her Saltdean is on at "From £185,000" (In full details: Price Range: £185,000 - £195,000), STC, and it's just a 2-bedroom bungalow... and I can't see Amanda thinking it's fair or acceptable to house her kids in a 2 bedroom bungalow so she's probably got a larger one in Saltdean.

MrPThomas

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Another one guaranteed to raise the hackles.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11743245

Shortly after the installation of a new Government, hell bent on cuts, the concept of someone "giving up their job" despite obvious responsibilities to her children, and financial commitments of an outstanding mortgage, I would call this a "brave" decision.

Am I being too polite? Why do we pay benefits for anyone 'choosing' not to work? Isn't this simply a case of 'chickens coming home to roost'? Or are we to be fooled by the BBC 'nanny spin' which is intended to have us all thinking "Now look what Cameron has done. Turning out mother and three children to suffer clifftop winter storms....."

The Gov can not keep propping up the housing market by paying peoples mortgages when they can not afford to themselves.

This has to end sooner or later.

They are postponing the huge amount of repossessions on the horizon but it is coming.

C_Mababejive

dopester wrote: »

When I first read the BBC article I got the impression she had 3 kids, but reading it again, I'm not seeing it say how many kids she has. Oh.. right at the beginning... it says she has 3 kids, all under 8 years of age.

Anyway, on Rightmove, the cheapest bungalow in her Saltdean is on at "From £185,000" (In full details: Price Range: £185,000 - £195,000), STC, and it's just a 2-bedroom bungalow... and I can't see Amanda thinking it's fair or acceptable to house her kids in a 2 bedroom bungalow so she's probably got a larger one in Saltdean.

Hmmm...Saltdean looks like quite a nice area and popular too..

I wish i could afford to live in a £200,000 house there and have it paid for substantially by the taxpayer..ermmm...but i cant because I AM the taxpayer..

MrPThomas

In the past it may have been advantageous to give up your job and go on benefits.

But that is all changing. The UK is going to see some of the biggest changes this decade in the last hundred years.

We are going to see poverty and some people losing everything.

No more sitting back and living off the government.

FantomX

lemonjelly wrote: »

Yes & no. They still use the CSA website, but actually now technically are the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission.

A rose by any other rose...

http://www.csa.gov.uk/

Wrong, CMEC is one of the many Quangos that have been abolished. The CSA is to be integrated into the DWP.

FantomX

ILW wrote: »

So the father has no responsibilty, but taxpayers have?

Yes the father does have a responsibility and no it shouldn't fall on the taxpayer at all! However, the situation is complex and it's one that the govt are failing to address. Go and have a look at the Families Need Fathers website.