I'm sick.. No better off working :(

BJV

osdset wrote: »

What patronising sarcasm.

You neglected to add that the OP should go around in sackcloth and ashes muttering 'ever so humble' Uriah Heep fashion in eternal gratitute for the opportunity to obtain a few crumbs from the table of prosperity.

Have to say wow that is a bit harsh!!!

I looked at the post and re-read it I did not see it as anything other than go on you, well done, motivating, stick with it. you can see by the number of thanks that lots of other people felt the same way.

Just because someone does not share your opinion! MSE is full of people from all walks of life and they will have different points of view. Surely you are being either very naïve thinking that no-one is concerned about our benefits bill and looking at ways to reduce it or either deliberately nasty.

Sorry not sure which?

BJV

osdset wrote: »

prove it.
Prove it.

For my sins I used to work in the motor trade. I know some people lie. To my dying day I will remember saving for a car as my old one had died and a lady looking at a new car on DVLA. She decided not to buy it as her hockey equipment would not fit in the boot.!

She was very active in the hockey world and played semi pro.!!!

Just because we may not lie does not mean that some people do not.

BurnleyBob

mejaa wrote: »

by benefits I mean the dole....
technically speaking the benefits we do get -£65 child tax- £50 of which is a disability element for our son so the remaining £15 is what we actually get, and iirc people who were supposedly educated to a high standard therefore earning high (above the £54000 mark) (assuming you mean higher education higher wage )were also able to claim the "basic" allowance of tax credits up until recently !!!
also educate myself to a higher level?? I really would be in the s**t then with a mound full of debt by going to uni plus childcare fees and to be honest im quite happy with the fact that I have a nvq level 4, possibly starting level 5 AND have 3 kids to look after !!!

Yes, your inverted benefits snobbery is why you have attracted criticism in this thread.

And it appears it has affected your memory because 'what we actually get' doesn't include Child Benefit judging by your calculation. That's paid to you by everyone else to subsidise you choosing to have kids.

mejaa

rather harsh, snob ??? lol....I live in a council house, work for a living, wear the cheapest of the cheap clothes...
oh yes child benefit- which I have to use to pay school dinners for my 3 children because we don't get free school meals and the rest goes towards clubs etc for my children....
QUOTE=BurnleyBob;63542532]Yes, your inverted benefits snobbery is why you have attracted criticism in this thread.

And it appears it has affected your memory because 'what we actually get' doesn't include Child Benefit judging by your calculation. That's paid to you by everyone else to subsidise you choosing to have kids.[/QUOTE]

jacques_chirac

BJV wrote: »

For my sins I used to work in the motor trade. I know some people lie. To my dying day I will remember saving for a car as my old one had died and a lady looking at a new car on DVLA. She decided not to buy it as her hockey equipment would not fit in the boot.!

She was very active in the hockey world and played semi pro.!!!

Just because we may not lie does not mean that some people do not.

I trust you reported her?

mejaa

i did not start this thread to criticise anyone i was just making a point that we are no better off working than being solely reliable on benefits....

MissMoneypenny

mejaa wrote: »

blown out of proportion yet again. I meant that we aren't one of those families who rely solely on state benefits/free school meals/free dental/precriptions etc..... yes some cases are genuine, however there are millions of people who choose not to work because they rely solely on the state ...

All claimants are relying "on the state". If they can keep themselves and their family, then they wouldn't need to ask for money from the welfare state. i.e rely on the state.

There are many people in work who get given more from the welfare state, than those that don't work at all. One of the exceptions to that is (was?) those non working parents with lots of children, who plonk themselves down in expensive areas, that they couldn't afford to live in if they didn't claim benefits.

thriftylass

BurnleyBob wrote: »

Yes, your inverted benefits snobbery is why you have attracted criticism in this thread.

And it appears it has affected your memory because 'what we actually get' doesn't include Child Benefit judging by your calculation. That's paid to you by everyone else to subsidise you choosing to have kids.

Kids that will pay your pension!

BJV

jacques_chirac wrote: »

I trust you reported her?

At the time I did not know what to do so very young very silly so I called Motability and left it with them. I don't know what happened after that.

BurnleyBob

thriftylass wrote: »

Kids that will pay your pension!

I expect that Ponzi scheme to collapse long before I'm due to join the queue at the Post Office for a State Pension.

On that same theme, those much maligned single mothers who are accused of making a career of breeding should instead be hailed as national heroines according to your reasoning (if I've read your one-liner correctly).