[kitty86]

Thank you to everybodys good advice, sometimes it takes some help and information from other people before you know what you are entitled too, as that information is not always forthcoming from the relevant people.
I knew that the usual its too much, and paid for doing nothing, and the usual brigade would be on this thread. I just hope that nothing like this ever happens to you, my mum went from a spritely 40 year old with her own business to a hardly moving jointly inflamed unable to work and lost everything 43 year oid who walks and moves slower than my 76 year old nan but still has 4 children under the age of 11 and an autistic son to take care of.
I could understand if she was a young mum who had numerous

[kitty86]

kids for the benefits but she wasnt and Im sure if she had had a crystal ball to see the future, she would not have had so many kids if she had known how ill she would get.

[trevgo]

Originally Posted by kitty86

I knew that the usual its too much, and paid for doing nothing, and the usual brigade would be on this thread.

I don't think anyone has said that. It's just that some people have more realism than others.

I have huge sympathy - my very best mate was diagnosed with MS 4 years ago, the day after the funeral of his partner of 23 years who'd died of cancer at 46. You never know what is around the corner. He can now only walk about 100 metres with a stick, but still works.

Nobody knows what the future holds in terms of finance or health. To have 6 kids (including another 4, when you already have an autistic lad) is a heck of a committment.

[Blairdennon]

Originally Posted by kitty86

kids for the benefits but she wasnt and Im sure if she had had a crystal ball to see the future, she would not have had so many kids if she had known how ill she would get.

I do not wish to be rude but there is someone missing from this equation who has equal responsibility as your mum.

[kitty86]

Oh i quite agree but as I said he pays the paltry sum of £55.00 a week for all his children as deemed appropiate by the CSA. Even if you work full time im sure we can all agree that 55.00 is hardly enough for 1 child let alone 4.
My mum left my dad when I was 11 my brother 7, he has not paid a penny, and as my mum was doing well financially she never asked, no he is of the opinion that as my brother and I are over the age of 18 we are adults and do not need his help.

[Biffo the Bear]

Well done Coalitionites, well done.

You've successfully arrived at a point in your lives where you feel happy berating someone who has worked all their life, but can no longer do so because they are crippled by Multiple Sclerosis and requires state support.

And the best thing any of you can do is whinge that you don't earn that much, or perhaps she shouldn't have had so many kids etc.

Moral degenerates, the lot of you.

[geordiejackie]

Originally Posted by Biffo the Bear

Well done Coalitionites, well done.

You've successfully arrived at a point in your lives where you feel happy berating someone who has worked all their life, but can no longer do so because they are crippled by Multiple Sclerosis and requires state support.

And the best thing any of you can do is whinge that you don't earn that much, or perhaps she shouldn't have had so many kids etc.

Moral degenerates, the lot of you.

Well said biffo these whingers need to take a long hard look in the mirror

kitty tell your mother to be proud,,,, after all Cameron was a millionaire and still claimed DLA best wishes to you and your mum
regards jack

[Blairdennon]

Originally Posted by Biffo the Bear

Well done Coalitionites, well done.

You've successfully arrived at a point in your lives where you feel happy berating someone who has worked all their life, but can no longer do so because they are crippled by Multiple Sclerosis and requires state support.

And the best thing any of you can do is whinge that you don't earn that much, or perhaps she shouldn't have had so many kids etc.

Moral degenerates, the lot of you.

It is a balance of responsibilities though. Some of us have put money and insurances aside to cover many eventualities over the years.The fact it may not have been needed does not lessen the fact that the money was spent. You seem to be saying that a flood victim who is insured receives compensation from the insurance company and those that were not insured gets compensation from those who were. All life is a risk and the choices made do not always work out. That does not mean you do not receive help it is just at what level.

[Biffo the Bear]

Originally Posted by Blairdennon

It is a balance of responsibilities though. Some of us have put money and insurances aside to cover many eventualities over the years.The fact it may not have been needed does not lessen the fact that the money was spent. You seem to be saying that a flood victim who is insured receives compensation from the insurance company and those that were not insured gets compensation from those who were. All life is a risk and the choices made do not always work out. That does not mean you do not receive help it is just at what level.

No, I don't seem to be saying that at all.

What I'm saying is that someone who has paid into the system all their life and is now no longer able to work deserves the support of society to ensure a decent standard of living as set by the 60+ year evolution of a welfare state.

They should not be judged by Tory and Lib Dem ideologues who want to ride on the back of harsh economic times to realise their wet dream of denying the most vulnerable of the support they deserve.

This is not America, and that sort of thinking is not welcome here and never will be. The UK has a welfare state because it has evolved as part of a modern progressive egalitarian democracy.

[trevgo]

Originally Posted by Biffo the Bear

Well done Coalitionites, well done.

You've successfully arrived at a point in your lives where you feel happy berating someone who has worked all their life, but can no longer do so because they are crippled by Multiple Sclerosis and requires state support.

And the best thing any of you can do is whinge that you don't earn that much, or perhaps she shouldn't have had so many kids etc.

Moral degenerates, the lot of you.

Oh, get off your high moral horse. If you travelled the world, you would realise what a tiny proportion of it actually provides any help whatsoever to people who find themselves in an unfortunate situation.

You seem to believe the State has limitless resources and should dole out to everyone no matter how much, or what the circumstances are. No doubt the lady in question has been helped by the NHS (and I'm well aware that once diagnosed, there's little that can be done), and will still be paid £500 a week from public funds, Others have suggested there may be other entitlements too.

You would no doubt be happier if Labour continued on their ever burgeoning benefits bill until the point the country couldn't afford to pay anything at all.

[trevgo]

Originally Posted by Biffo the Bear

They should not be judged by Tory and Lib Dem ideologues who want to ride on the back of harsh economic times to realise their wet dream of denying the most vulnerable of the support they deserve.
.

How offensive. Are you old enough to have one?

[Annsyre]

Originally Posted by kitty86

Oh i quite agree but as I said he pays the paltry sum of £55.00 a week for all his children as deemed appropiate by the CSA. Even if you work full time im sure we can all agree that 55.00 is hardly enough for 1 child let alone 4.
My mum left my dad when I was 11 my brother 7, he has not paid a penny, and as my mum was doing well financially she never asked, no he is of the opinion that as my brother and I are over the age of 18 we are adults and do not need his help.

If your mum and dad had not separated, would they have been earning the equivalent of £50 000 per annum because that is what your mum has been receiving to date?

Presumably your dad is not wealthy if all he can pay is £55.

[Biffo the Bear]

Originally Posted by trevgo

Oh, get off your high moral horse. If you travelled the world, you would realise what a tiny proportion of it actually provides any help whatsoever to people who find themselves in an unfortunate situation.

You seem to believe the State has limitless resources and should dole out to everyone no matter how much, or what the circumstances are. No doubt the lady in question has been helped by the NHS (and I'm well aware that once diagnosed, there's little that can be done), and will still be paid £500 a week from public funds, Others have suggested there may be other entitlements too.

You would no doubt be happier if Labour continued on their ever burgeoning benefits bill until the point the country couldn't afford to pay anything at all.

And we set the standard that the world should aspire to, not vice versa. How come year upon year the wealthiest people in the world become wealthier, yet those who are in the most need constantly have the rug pulled away from underneath them? Our country's welfare state has evolved through need and with the agreement of the electorate, otherwise anti-welfare parties would have come to power on the basis of having it in their manifesto, as opposed to sneaking cuts in like the present incumbents.

The DLA budget of £13bn which they want to cut by 20% is not a 'limitless pot'. In fact, it's not much more than than the Vodafone tax bill that the government cheerfully wrote off. Or just over 10% of the annual cost of dodged taxes.

If you want to make a case for reducing benefits to disabled people on the basis of the balance of economic wealth distribution, you're going to have a hard time lad.

[jsmith99]

Originally Posted by Annsyre

You'd need a salary of around £50 000 to get £720 per week after deductions.

Or about four times what an individual on minimum wage would be paid in a year.

Originally Posted by Biffo the Bear

............What I'm saying is that someone who has paid into the system all their life and is now no longer able to work deserves the support of society to ensure a decent standard of living ..............

Well, if £36,000 a year before tax doesn't enable a decent standard of living, what pay rate does?

[Richievilla]

OP, as someone with a neurological condition myself, and someone with experience of friends/family with MS, I have total empathy with your mum. I would strongly advise firstly that you ignore people who go on about the benefits cap (which is only a minor issue in reality as the total savings are only £290m) and what is paid out in other countries, as what we pay out is not particularly generous compared to other OECD countries.

I think that your mum should seriously look into claiming DLA for herself. Obviously, I don't know precisely how it affects her individually, but I would advise that she looks at the eligibility criteria and (if she thinks she meets the criteria) then put in a claim. With your support, the process is nowhere near as complicated as some try to make out. There is no stigma in claiming for help when it is needed and I wish you and her all the best.

[ItJustMyOpinion]

I am quite sympathetic to the OP's situation, but there does have to be a cap and £26,000 seems about right. A family of six, is a big risk financially, unless you have a million in the bank as a back up and the father should definitely be forced by the state to pay more.

This country has a limited number of rich and middle income taxpayers to pay for the welfare state, so as the population increases, if those people are poor, it just means less to go around.

If someone has lived in an area all their life and paid their tax's, they should go right to the top of the housing list, no matter what the circumstances of others waiting. As housing is the biggest cost, more affordable housing for local people who pay their tax's is important.

[trevgo]

Originally Posted by Biffo the Bear

And we set the standard that the world should aspire to, not vice versa. How come year upon year the wealthiest people in the world become wealthier, yet those who are in the most need constantly have the rug pulled away from underneath them? Our country's welfare state has evolved through need and with the agreement of the electorate, otherwise anti-welfare parties would have come to power on the basis of having it in their manifesto, as opposed to sneaking cuts in like the present incumbents.

The DLA budget of £13bn which they want to cut by 20% is not a 'limitless pot'. In fact, it's not much more than than the Vodafone tax bill that the government cheerfully wrote off. Or just over 10% of the annual cost of dodged taxes.

If you want to make a case for reducing benefits to disabled people on the basis of the balance of economic wealth distribution, you're going to have a hard time lad.

The difference between you, "lad", and I is that I Iive in the real world.

You are spitting in the wind with your "consensus over lavish benefits". The main reason the coalition have gone for it is because they know there is solid support for it. The reason they are floundering in the polls is NOT because they are cutting benefits.

I am not going to defend tax avoidance, nor Vodafone in particular. The problem for all governments in this global economy is that large corporations can uproot and go anywhere they please. They are virtually forced to negotiate tax liability. I don't like it, but it's a fact of life. And what, precisely, did that government of "benefit culture", Labour, do to curtail corporate tax avoidance? SFA is what they did. They also bequeathed an HMRC bereft of anyone who really understood the complexities of large corporate finance - which is why they were run rings around. No doubt there was an equal opportunities employment policy in operation. They are currently recruiting people with the necessary knowledge to the HMRC so the issue can be tackled.

We owe a Trillion Pounds. The largest budget deficit of any large advanced economy. We are in no position to "lead the world" - not least through the stupefying incompetence of the previous government.

Of course those in need should continue to be supported by the State, as in the £500 a week the lady will continue to receive. Dreamers like you only raise unrealistic expectations.

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by Blairdennon

That is a pertinent point but we do have to balance responsibilities. Having children is almost always a choice.The state already takes on responsibility for health and education and general welfare. If things do not work out right it may be incumbent on others to help financially but too often we see those receiving aid having a more comfortable lifestyle than those who through their taxes provide that aid. I do not pretend it is easy.

Quite. Which is a very good argument for introducing a living wage.

Otherwise, what are you suggesting?

In this instance is an MS sufferer who worked for 30 years only worthy of the lowest level of support?

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by trevgo

Do you believe the State should pay limitless amounts of benefits to people no matter how many kids they choose to have and under any circumstances?

Just wondered.

No. Next question.

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by Annsyre

If your mum and dad had not separated, would they have been earning the equivalent of £50 000 per annum because that is what your mum has been receiving to date?

Presumably your dad is not wealthy if all he can pay is £55.

What an utterly patronising post.

Breathtaking.

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by ItJustMyOpinion

I am quite sympathetic to the OP's situation, but there does have to be a cap and £26,000 seems about right. A family of six, is a big risk financially, unless you have a million in the bank as a back up and the father should definitely be forced by the state to pay more.

This country has a limited number of rich and middle income taxpayers to pay for the welfare state, so as the population increases, if those people are poor, it just means less to go around.

If someone has lived in an area all their life and paid their tax's, they should go right to the top of the housing list, no matter what the circumstances of others waiting. As housing is the biggest cost, more affordable housing for local people who pay their tax's is important.

Everybody pays for the welfare state, not just the comfortably-off and wealthy.

[kitty86]

First of all thank you to the posters who can see the bigger picture than oh yet another single mother running our benefits system to the ground. The fact is that the people here who are complaining that u earn less, that is ur choice, if you wanted to you could change that, but you don't. If my mum had a choice she would not have MS and she would still be working and looking after and supporting her children by herself as she had done for the last 23 years. I'm interested to calculate that if my mum paid tax for 30 years how much she would have paid in, that she could now claim back by claiming benefits, if she only claimed what she was entitled too would that make people happier? I'm sure it'd be a damn sight more that 26,000 a year in all the years. And as for the poster who wishes to talk about my parents relationships, if my mum had stayed with my dad she would have been a battered housewife, still with MS but not leeching off the government. Is that a better exsistence?

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by trevgo

The difference between you, "lad", and I is that I Iive in the real world.

You are spitting in the wind with your "consensus over lavish benefits". The main reason the coalition have gone for it is because they know there is solid support for it. The reason they are floundering in the polls is NOT because they are cutting benefits.

I am not going to defend tax avoidance, nor Vodafone in particular. The problem for all governments in this global economy is that large corporations can uproot and go anywhere they please. They are virtually forced to negotiate tax liability. I don't like it, but it's a fact of life. And what, precisely, did that government of "benefit culture", Labour, do to curtail corporate tax avoidance? SFA is what they did. They also bequeathed an HMRC bereft of anyone who really understood the complexities of large corporate finance - which is why they were run rings around. No doubt there was an equal opportunities employment policy in operation. They are currently recruiting people with the necessary knowledge to the HMRC so the issue can be tackled.

We owe a Trillion Pounds. The largest budget deficit of any large advanced economy. We are in no position to "lead the world" - not least through the stupefying incompetence of the previous government.

Of course those in need should continue to be supported by the State, as in the £500 a week the lady will continue to receive. Dreamers like you only raise unrealistic expectations.

No you don't.

You have been conned by a political establishment into believing that the cause of the latest capitalistic crisis is the payment of decent benefits to claimants and decent pensions to public sector workers.

You have been conned into believing that the great majority who had nothing to do with the crisis have to pay for those that did.

You have been conned into believing that the economy of a sophisticated 21st century Capitalist economy is the same as a household budget - a completely ludicrous concept.

"Won't get fooled again"?

Well, you have.

[kitty86]

The father who pays for the younger children is not my father, and my mum only got the CSA payment because his other baby mother the reason for their marraige break up had claimed for the 2 children she had with him. My mum is fiercly independant, even going onto benefits which she has only done for the last 2 years, because she used the money she had saved for the other years was a big deal to her. Unfortunetly as she has got worse, she has come to rely on the benefits more. My mother is not a work shy layabout she has a serious medical condition.

[trevgo]

Originally Posted by GreatGodPan

What an utterly patronising post.

Breathtaking.

Why? Explain yourself.