Tax credits, is this true?

Jessikita1983

merlin68 wrote: »

I agree with you on that one. Oh brother never worked got about 8 kids. He won't work as he would have to pay maintenance. His up all night and asleep all day. Th kids are in rags and eat takeaways permently. To top it all he gets about £700 a week in benefits, for the 5 kids he lives with.
They were talking about having another one.

I really was not going after disabled people in my original comment. I was merely pointing out that I feel the system IS unjust in a lot of circumstances, due to the circumstances you describe above!

kingfisherblue

I'd like to know where this specialist care/nurseries will come from, especially with the cuts. For a non-disabled child under two, OFSTED regulations state that there must be one adult to every three children. This rises to one adult to four children aged 2-3 and one adult to every eight children aged 3-5.

I wonder what the ratios would be for disabled children? How would the wages of the staff be paid? After all, many people will never earn enough to pay high nursery fees without help from tax credits. Perhaps the government would pay for the specialist care, through taxes? No, that wouldn't work - it would cost more for this to happen than to pay Carer's allowance to parents of disabled children.

This doesn't even take into account the needs of disabled adults, yet many adults need a great deal of care as well.

I knew that carers like myself saved the government (and therefore the taxpayers) a massive amount of money, but according to this report in the Guardian, it is £119bn a year:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/12/carers-save-uk-119bn-a-year

Now, it has to be said that I don't believe everything that I read in the papers, but I do believe that we save the economy a great deal more than we receive.

melly1980

kingfisherblue wrote: »

Now, it has to be said that I don't believe everything that I read in the papers, but I do believe that we save the economy a great deal more than we receive.

yup

Its the old saying about knowing the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

Jessikita1983

kingfisherblue wrote: »

I'd like to know where this specialist care/nurseries will come from, especially with the cuts. For a non-disabled child under two, OFSTED regulations state that there must be one adult to every three children. This rises to one adult to four children aged 2-3 and one adult to every eight children aged 3-5.

I wonder what the ratios would be for disabled children? How would the wages of the staff be paid? After all, many people will never earn enough to pay high nursery fees without help from tax credits. Perhaps the government would pay for the specialist care, through taxes? No, that wouldn't work - it would cost more for this to happen than to pay Carer's allowance to parents of disabled children.

This doesn't even take into account the needs of disabled adults, yet many adults need a great deal of care as well.

I knew tjhat carers like myself saved the government 9and therefore the taxpayers) a massive amount of money, but according to this report in the Guardian, it is £119bn a year:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/12/carers-save-uk-119bn-a-year

Now, it has to be said that I don't believe everything that I read in the papers, but I do believe that we save the economy a great deal more than we receive.

There is no easy solution I agree, and if you have had a chance to read post 106, you will see it was not my intention to go after disabled people or have a pop at them.

Under my rose tinted ideals, the only people we would be paying for, would be the absolute genuine ones, i.e. disabled people, therefore there would be plenty of money to pay for their specialised care.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jessikita1983 wrote: »

There is no easy solution I agree, and if you have had a chance to read post 106, you will see it was not my intention to go after disabled people or have a pop at them.

Under my rose tinted ideals, the only people we would be paying for, would be the absolute genuine ones, i.e. disabled people, therefore there would be plenty of money to pay for their specialised care.

Genuine ones??? I'll bet that you watch people parking with a blue badge to see if they walk away from the car!

kingfisherblue

Quote by Jessikita1983, post 12:

All the people on benefits that I see, seem to do ok. They all have big screen TV's, the latest sky package, chain smoke, drink 8 tinnies a day, afford a holiday at least once a day and wear designer clothes.

All while they never actually do any work and have been long term unemployed, voluntary. Every time we recruit we can never fill the jobs!

You stated all the people you see on benefits - only later, after some criticism, did you say that you don't mean disabled people, and you still have no understanding for carers.

FWIW, as I have stated previously, I do not agree with claimants who choose benefits as a lifestyle choice. I don't think that churning out children whilst claiming benefits (as illustrated in Merlin's post) is acceptable at all. I made a choice not to have any more children, although I would have liked more than three. I was married at the time and knew that we couldn't afford them. If tax credits existed, I didn't know about them. I would never have had children that I didn't think we could comfortably afford.

Unfortunately, as I stated in an earlier post, my marriage broke up (and yes, I was the last to know!) and I had to rely on benefits. My ex doesn't live in this area any more, my mum and my in laws are in their 70s and none are in good health. My daughter works two jobs. I can't work because of my responsibility to my son.

This does not make me or any other carer the same type of person who does not want to work, or who has more children so that more benefits can be claimed.

So although you now defend yourself, Jessikita, and say that you were not going after disabled people in your original comment, you certainly didn't say anything about exceptions such as disabled people. That came later, and only after criticism.

Jessikita1983

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Genuine ones??? I'll bet that you watch people parking with a blue badge to see if they walk away from the car!

Re-read my use of grammar and the i.e (for example).

I wasn't referring to genuinely disabled people.

I was referring to the small minority that I believe need state help. I.E. Disabled people.

System

I'm interested to know what illnesses pass for genuine now...

kingfisherblue

Jessikita1983 wrote: »

There is no easy solution I agree, and if you have had a chance to read post 106, you will see it was not my intention to go after disabled people or have a pop at them.

Under my rose tinted ideals, the only people we would be paying for, would be the absolute genuine ones, i.e. disabled people, therefore there would be plenty of money to pay for their specialised care.

I did read post 106 - I also read your preceding posts. OK, so you're not having a go at disabled people (if they are absolutely genuine). Please read my comments on carers and realise that we, too, have genuine reasons for not being in paid employment.

Incidentally, I'm sure I'm not the only carer who goes back to bed for a sleep in the day, after yet another night of getting up to see to the person they care for. During this rather heated debate, I have been to see to my son three times (hence some delays in replying to posts).

If I am expected to put my child into specialised care (at exhorbitant cost to the state, as my earning capacity would not be that great), and work while he is in this care facility, when can I sleep?

Jessikita, you might not agree, but surely you can see why carers cannot always work and that it is not a choice, it is through necessity?

kingfisherblue

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

I'm interested to know what illnesses pass for genuine now...

Me too

And I can't post the above comment on its own because it is too short...