Benefits trap mum on £70k a year says she can't afford to work

Lokolo

andy.m wrote: »

I didn't say that they are more likely to get a job at all, I said the degree they studied is more employable, which it is.

You studied games, you got a job, you pay tax, you pay back your borrowing, what's difficult about that?

That people such as you, judge based on a degree that it shouldn't exist. Just like you are judging your neighbour's son based on what he studies.

andy.m_2

Lokolo wrote: »

It's pretty offensive that you are judging your neighbours son for what he studies without any way to see what he might do in the future.

I will have a small bet with you now that my Neighbour's Son, upon graduation, does not get a job in the Italian media.

andy.m_2

Lokolo wrote: »

That people such as you, judge based on a degree that it shouldn't exist.

You are clearly not reading what I say, read back through and try again.
Try not to live up to the PE teacher stereotype

I said that funding for those courses should be pai...

Do you know what, I give up.

You are right, I said all those things, do I have to play "skins"?

Lokolo

andy.m wrote: »

I will have a small bet with you now that my Neighbour's Son, upon graduation, does not get a job in the Italian media.

I didn't get a job in games. Yet that's what I primarily studied. I don't think those that all study Psychology become psychologists etc.

What's your point?

Lokolo

andy.m wrote: »

You are clearly not reading what I say, read back through and try again.
Try not to live up to the PE teacher stereotype

I said that funding for those courses should be pai...

Do you know what, I give up.

You are right, I said all those things, do I have to play "skins"?

No I prefer skins.

The_Green_Man_2

It would be interesting to clear away all the bluster and rhetoric and see the actual benefits she is entitled to, the reasons she is entitled to them and all the costings, rather than to mention irrelevences like her car or the size of her garden and TV.

The_Green_Man_2

Ah, found it:

She now receives £32,800 in benefits – which per month includes £1,400 housing benefit, £152 in council tax payments, £403 tax credit, £394 in employment and support allowance, £84 for free school meals and £180 for travel to school. Child allowance adds a further £130 a month.
On top of that, because she is on benefits, her eldest child qualifies for a grant, which pays for the £3,500 a year fees.

There is also an £800 a year bursary towards buying books. Her second child, who is off to university in October, will also have the £9,000 a year fees paid by the taxpayer and will qualify for help towards books.

andy.m_2

Lokolo wrote: »

I didn't get a job in games. Yet that's what I primarily studied. I don't think those that all study Psychology become psychologists etc.

What's your point?

My point is that there are, whether we like it or not, more highly thought of and more recognised degrees than others.
I quote Engineering/Law/Medicine as the core 3.

The country will need Engineers to invent and make things, Law makers to rule over us and Medicine to keep us healthy.

Therefore it can be said, and has been said that if you get a first in these subjects you are pretty much set for a job.
Most certainly this is not the case, as you rightly state, but on the whole, all things being equal it can be construed as a more employable degree.

There are some degrees out there that are ridiculously specialised and niche, you quote David Beckham studies as a valid example.
Now, for one or two (maybe ten or twenty or even fifty or a thousand - you get the idea) people this will lead to a job in that field, they will prosper from it and make a good living.
THEY will be the ones who will make a good living and be able to pay it back, for the other 90% they will not make a good living, they will toss it off for 3 years and never hit the earnings threshold and hence never pay back the borrowings.

I am not commenting or questioning the validity of their degree ( I mean after all, I'm not fit to comment on anything except Engineering) merely that the %age of people who have chosen to go into reading that degree will not acheive.

To that effect, I suggest that the payback threshold be adjusted based on the opportunity afforded at the end of the degree and what contribution to the country they make.

To reiterate, those that chose to study David Beckahm, buy fully into it and acheive, they will earn over the threshold and pay back, the system works.
You read games, you got a job (I assume) over the threshold, you pay back, the system works, I DID NOT comment on your degree or say it is not valid or any of the other digs you perceived.

lostinrates

The_Green_Man wrote: »

It would be interesting to clear away all the bluster and rhetoric and see the actual benefits she is entitled to, the reasons she is entitled to them and all the costings, rather than to mention irrelevences like her car or the size of her garden and TV.

It's also possible not all of what she receives is state benefits. It might be some of her income is from a mother source. E.g. Lloyds have some charitable pay out for failed names I think, many professional bodies have 'hardship' funds. Etc etc. (fwiw I do not know if these are meant to be instead of state benefits)

The_Green_Man_2

lostinrates wrote: »

It's also possible not all of what she receives is state benefits. It might be some of her income is from a mother source. E.g. Lloyds have some charitable pay out for failed names I think, many professional bodies have 'hardship' funds. Etc etc. (fwiw I do not know if these are meant to be instead of state benefits)

I found them in the article and most of them are connected with the children, not with her unemployment. Some are very tenuous, including her children's university grant and fees (isn't that the child's not hers?).

To be fair, I don't understand why the 'children' (adults surely if they are at university?) have their fees paid by the taxpayer if their parent is on benefits?