Suspected of Benefit Fraud

The_mangler

ska_lover wrote: »

Benefits are the life of riley. You sit and moan about the pittance you get every week. what right do you have to moan? Its FREE MONEY. You should be thanking the tax payers - without whom you would starve - not sitting moaning. Its that attitude that winds up people like me, as we work, pay your bills, and are struggling ourselves, yet have to listen to people who do nothing more than sit on their butt all day - moan about how skint they are!

I would personally like to thank you, dear poster, for funding my alleged life of riley, when I have no choice but to stay at home and care for my disabled husband, for the princely sum of £52 a week (this affects the amount of CTC I pick up). I am studying with the OU for a degree when I can (while my husband sleeps or is at appointments) so that when I am free of caring responsibilities ie he dies I too can earn that lofty position of looking down on others who dont work

Some of you just dont get it do you.

rozmister

ska_lover wrote: »

OH DIDDUMS! There are tens of thousands of people who work that are worse off than you sitting their on your benefits! - that is what people on benefits don't get. I work full time and struggle like this! Many many working people can afford no other than tesco value food - why do you think you deserve better - yet contribute nothing to your own upkeep?

Seems to me you are talking a load of crap! people living in REAL poverty cannot afford a PC!! Yet you are sitting in the dark, do you have your pc plugged in to a generator then?

I'm not on, and never have claimed, benefits. How bloody presumptuous are you to assume I would have to have a vested interest to defend a group of people. I eat Sainsburys Basics now despite working a minimum of 52 hrs a week because I'm doing a placement with a charity, I do understand there are people out there are working hard for a pittance you absolute fool.

For a brief period, when I was a child when my Dad had terminal cancer my home was funded by benefits; my dad was dying so he couldn't work and my Mum was his carer and then had to look for a job after he died. That wasn't my fault, my Dad's fault or my Mum's fault. It was about 4 months after he died until she found something because we lived in rural Cornwall and we were dirt poor for the whole period. It was not a fun time and I have some sympathy for people who end up in that situation THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. Growing up in an area like Cornwall lots of my friends parents lived on benefits because they couldn't get a job at some point, a few lived in council houses, and they lived a life of poverty at times. That's why kids from homes where the parents are on benefits get free school meals, in case their parents can't afford to feed them everyday.

The fact the media tells you that all benefit claimants have a flat screen TV and a brand new car and Sky doesn't mean they actually do. If they do then yes they're being overpaid but for a large proportion of benefit claimants those things are luxuries they can't dream of affording while the state is subsidising their living.

You are so ignorant it's actually laughable.

rozmister

ska_lover wrote: »

Benefits are the life of riley. You sit and moan about the pittance you get every week. what right do you have to moan? Its FREE MONEY. You should be thanking the tax payers - without whom you would starve - not sitting moaning. Its that attitude that winds up people like me, as we work, pay your bills, and are struggling ourselves, yet have to listen to people who do nothing more than sit on their butt all day - moan about how skint they are!

I'm not on benefits you idiot.

Oldernotwiser

The_mangler wrote: »

I would personally like to thank you, dear poster, for funding my alleged life of riley, when I have no choice but to stay at home and care for my disabled husband, for the princely sum of £52 a week (this affects the amount of CTC I pick up). I am studying with the OU for a degree when I can (while my husband sleeps or is at appointments) so that when I am free of caring responsibilities ie he dies I too can earn that lofty position of looking down on others who dont work

Some of you just dont get it do you.

This is rather disingenuous though, isn't it?

Whilst I'd agree that CA isn't generous, I would assume that your husband gets ESA/IB and DLA/AA and that you get your council tax and rent/mortgage paid. If you add up the whole package and then change it from a net sum to gross, I'm pretty sure you'll find that it's on a par with what 2 people working for NMW would get and considerably more than this if you have high housing costs.

To pick just one benefit out of the many you receive is intellectually dishonest.

(And, in case you think I'm just unsympathetic, I also care for a husband in a similar position to yours.)

Idiophreak

gravitytolls wrote: »

As for 'even if you've got £1,000....'. Actually, I think the system's about right, you've worked for years, managed to save a bit for a rainy day, stuck a bit away for the kids, get made redundant and all of a sudden you're expected to start again? Often, after a period of benefits, you need some cash to get you started again once you're back at work ~ decent clothes, new shoes, mebbe a car ~ is anyone suggesting that the taxpayer pick up the tab for such items?

I quite agree with your sentiment - in fact, I think the current system is very stingy wrt capital. When I was growing up we were in no way wealthy, but not poor either. Just "normal". My parents have always been very good at saving for a rainy day. When my dad was made redundant, they (not having claimed anything in their lives) were shocked when they discovered they were entitled to no help on account of their rainy day fund. (I don't know what the figures were - it was years ago). It's a really bizarre quirk of the system that actively discourages people from managing their finances and rewards recklessness.

That said, however, the system is as it is. I just find it *really hard* to imagine the OP thought they didn't have to declare this money...It doesn't matter they claim the money was for their child...when faced with the question "do you have any savings?" how many people would write "no" and, when pressed, go "what? that? oh, that's my *savings* - but I don't touch that." I find it very admirable that OP's trying to save for their child's future...but then I also find it admirable that people save up and buy cars, save house deposits and so on - all savings are there for a reason, none of them are good enough reasons not to declare them.

Oldernotwiser

Idiophreak wrote: »

My parents have always been very good at saving for a rainy day. When my dad was made redundant, they (not having claimed anything in their lives) were shocked when they discovered they were entitled to no help on account of their rainy day fund. (I don't know what the figures were - it was years ago). It's a really bizarre quirk of the system that actively discourages people from managing their finances and rewards recklessness. .

But what's the point of having a rainy day fund if you don't expect to use it when made redundant; how much rainier does it have to get?

krisskross

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

But what's the point of having a rainy day fund if you don't expect to use it when made redundant; how much rainier does it have to get?

When we had a mortgage and I was the only one working we scrimped and saved to accumulate 3 months bill money in an account that we never touched. This was to keep us going until we sold the house which would have been our only option should I have lost my job.

This was our rainy day fund and we would have had no hesitation using it if the occasion had arisen. Certainly expecting other taxpayers to fund us never came to mind.

Nara

My partner was made redundant and got a 15k payoff, but hey you know what we were honest about it and declared the whole lot. The outcome being that we had to spend most of it on paying the mortgage, living etc before we got any help or benefits. Even when my partner went out and managed to get a part time job we wondered if it was worth it, since he got 10p a week JSA because he earnt a little bit.

I try not to think about how that 15k would have cleared all of our debts apart from the mortgage, ofc thats my own fault for having the debts in the first place, maybe i should of just paid them off and pleaded poverty, or put them in a savings account and pretended that it wasn't for me but my daughters education.
Or maybe i should of just gone the whole hog and risked the awful awful punshiments that they seem to deal out to people to work the system, like paying back 50p a week for 100 yrs after frauding thousands off the tax payers money.

Sorry feeling bitter and twisted today...

Idiophreak

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

But what's the point of having a rainy day fund if you don't expect to use it when made redundant; how much rainier does it have to get?

It depends what you're using it for, I guess.

People have different interpretations on these things, but I have no issues with anyone that wants to use savings to "top up" benefits to maintain their (moderate) quality of life through a tough spot - which is what my parents did / would have done had they been entitled to anything.

I'm not talking about sitting there with the money in the bank...As you say, redundancy is a very rainy day - but to have your "rainy day" fund diminished in half the time, because you had the sense to have it in the first place, is just perverse...You become unemployed and your savings suddenly become worth half as much? why on Earth would anybody bother? Certainly doesn't sound very MSE to me.

Some people go in for this martyred pride thing "I'm so great, I'd never take a penny from the state!" woo, go you. Other people view "benefits" as a "benefit" of paying tax their whole lives. Whilst I appreciate the state isn't a piggy bank - you can't just take out what you put in - I see no shame in asking for help when you're up against it. And "up against it" is, of course, relative...My parents weren't broke when my father was made redundant - but should we really have to wait for people to have nothing before we start offering them help? Why stop there, why not have free debt advice that's only available to those with enough debt that bankruptcy's the only option? Clearly they're the ones in need of help...

I don't think there's any need for the attitude on these boards that if you're unemployed for a couple of months you should have to live "hand to mouth" and whatever other nonsense is kicking around. If you're lucky/wise enough to have put a little away to smooth out the bumps in life, I don't see why anyone would resent that. If your "couple of months" unemployment becomes extended to months, years, then the savings will diminish and, soon enough, you'll be living "hand to mouth" and eating supernoodles three times a day as is the "acceptable" behaviour for benefits claimants.

I just don't think it's fair that my parents, having paid tax for 40-odd years, should be expected to "fund" those that have no financial responsibility and fail to save, whilst they are forced to burn through their (modest) savings at maximum speed before they're entitled to any support.

Idiophreak

krisskross wrote: »

When we had a mortgage and I was the only one working we scrimped and saved to accumulate 3 months bill money in an account that we never touched. This was to keep us going until we sold the house which would have been our only option should I have lost my job.

This was our rainy day fund and we would have had no hesitation using it if the occasion had arisen. Certainly expecting other taxpayers to fund us never came to mind.

A very admirable attitude.

"So, why did you lose your house in three months, when you could have claimed benefits and made your savings stretch to 6 months while you tried to find work?"

"Oh, I'm much too holier-than-thou to claim benefits. Besides, I hadn't even started eating supernoodles..."