Working vs Benefits

wherediditallgo

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

the entitledto website isnt always accurate either WDIAG, it showed in my situation i should recieve £50 more PW than I do

Something is wrong somewhere but you try getting someone to admit where...........Im still trying:rolleyes: (and there still paying my half rent amount on a figure that is 10 years old six months after i first told them it wasnt right:mad: so its taking some time:rolleyes: )

That's exactly my point - putting figures into an online calculator isn't going to give you as accurate a picture as submitting a proper assessment. It should, but it doesn't.

scootw1

John51 wrote: »

A worker up to their eyeballs in debt is more likely to be jealous of benefit claimants though I fail to see how claimants made the worker take on those debts.

People were smug enough when doing the MEW thing. Now that's over and the reality of actually packing back debts from wages rather than an increase in equity is causing a lot of pain. As usual, benefit claimants get the blame for causing the end of civilization.

You took on the debt, accept your responsibilities and stop looking for a scapegoat.

I suppose a lot of the workers in the country could say to a lot of the benefit claimants "get off your bums and get a job".

neverdespairgirl

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

I love meaningless answers like this. "who" ran it through "what program"?

I also love the example of a family with six kids just to "load" your argument

And as for a rent of two hundred quid a week, i only get half my rent of 87 paid so on that basis alone i know that figure you gave cannot be correct.

I really wish your claim where true though neverdespairgirl it would make being thrown on the employment scrap heap by the very govermants that are now complaining about me being there just a bit more bearable:rolleyes:

1. It was the Border and Immigration Agency (part of the Home Office) who came up with an initial figure. It seemed high to me, so I asked a law centre I work with sometimes to check it through their programme - it came up £500 a year higher, unfortauntely.

2. Family with 6 kids was the specific example I was dealing with, so the hostility you show is unjustified.

3. "And as for a rent of two hundred quid a week, i only get half my rent of 87 paid so on that basis alone i know that figure you gave cannot be correct." Well maybe, just maybe, there are not 8 of you. But £200 is actually quite low for LHA for 8 people in London.

4littleone

I didn't see any hostility there in wherediditallgo's replies, just some questions and answers.

As for scoots comment, pretty unfair really. In most cases people claim benefits because they have to, not because they want to.
And a lot of those people are actively seeking work, so already getting "up off their bums" in my opinion.

blind-as-a-bat_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

1. It was the Border and Immigration Agency (part of the Home Office) who came up with an initial figure. It seemed high to me, so I asked a law centre I work with sometimes to check it through their programme - it came up £500 a year higher, unfortauntely.

Hmmm did it not ocurr to you to aproach the agency,s that actualy deal with benefit claims to get a more acurate figure, i can think of hundreds of cases where one govermant department doesnt know a thing about another so may explain why you couldnt get an accurate answer

2. Family with 6 kids was the specific example I was dealing with, so the hostility you show is unjustified. see below

3. "And as for a rent of two hundred quid a week, i only get half my rent of 87 paid so on that basis alone i know that figure you gave cannot be correct." Well maybe, just maybe, there are not 8 of you. But £200 is actually quite low for LHA for 8 people in London. Ah well that puts a differant light on it then doesnt it as you never mentioned it was waighted for londen:rolleyes: which sort of justifies my responce to point 2

As you’re deliberately trying to make it look as if people on benefits get a load of money by using the most expensive area of the country and quoting figures that are not supplied by the agencies who would be able to give you more accurate ones.

Ever thought of being a politician? There good at manipulating figures for there own gain too

neverdespairgirl

4littleone wrote: »

I didn't see any hostility there in wherediditallgo's replies, just some questions and answers.

" I also love the example of a family with six kids just to "load" your argument"

that seemed quite hostile to me.

neverdespairgirl

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

As you’re deliberately trying to make it look as if people on benefits get a load of money by using the most expensive area of the country and quoting figures that are not supplied by the agencies who would be able to give you more accurate ones.

Ever thought of being a politician? There good at manipulating figures for there own gain too

Are you always this charming, or am I lucky?

The London Borough in question is Hounslow, which is pretty near the bottom of the pile in London terms.

A 6 children family would usally be entitled to 4 + beds, which would be £200 a week or more in much of the country, I reckon.

scootw1

4littleone wrote: »

I didn't see any hostility there in wherediditallgo's replies, just some questions and answers.

As for scoots comment, pretty unfair really. In most cases people claim benefits because they have to, not because they want to.
And a lot of those people are actively seeking work, so already getting "up off their bums" in my opinion.

Only stating my own experience. Don't doubt there are a lot of people seeking work but there are a hell of a lot too idle to do so

blind-as-a-bat_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Are you always this charming, or am I lucky?



.

Im always this charmin to someone who never posts on this board, and mainly posts in the housing connected bits on MSE (and no doubt elswhere;) ), who then suddenly digs up a thread that was at best tense yet had dropped well of the front page and flares the debate up again when it was best left to die in piece

Care to answer Why?

NekoZombie

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

As you’re deliberately trying to make it look as if people on benefits get a load of money by using the most expensive area of the country and quoting figures that are not supplied by the agencies who would be able to give you more accurate ones.

Ever thought of being a politician? There good at manipulating figures for there own gain too

To be fair BAAB, with the population density as high as it in London, people are just as likely to be living here as they are anywhere else in the country so I have no problem with these figures. London is also rife with extreme poverty and skills shortages leading to unemployment, so the likes of people on benefit are very easily found in run down boroughs like Newham. Sadly, we have no shortage of such boroughs..