[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by 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?

I hope all ends well for your mother and your siblings.

Take no notice of those on here who cast judgement in a selfish and negative manner - you mother has a moral right to every penny she gets, and should feel beholden to none for that money.

[frankie_baby]

people who are comparing her benefits amount with someone who works are missing one key point, if she could and still work she would still be entitled to some of the benefits anyway thus pushing her income up higher anyway, this cap system is far far too arbitrary

[mad_dude]

Originally Posted by 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?

I am sympathetic, highly sympathetic to your mums problem. however making the assumption that people earning less than 26k could earn more is just as dangerous. as the right wingers on here making the assumption that because your mother is currently recieving over 26k in Benefits. that she has a comfortable lifestyle.

I am not well versed in the benefits system but could your Autistic Brother claim DLA and Benefits in his own right? It might be a complicated arrangment but get the landlord to split the rent between your mother and your Brother, as Both will have individual benefit caps.

Another option that you might consider, is your mother claiming that the house is no longer suitable for her disability and she needs to live in adapted accomodation. This should, give her some sort of council housing priority and if she gets into a council house. It might be cheaper than renting privately.

Good luck.

[flagpole]

not much to add save the fact that a pre tax income in the region of £37k should be plenty to live off.

Originally Posted by anthpieface

Does the cap include housing benifits? Because if you rent, this could run into hundreds of pounds a week if you live in a high rentel area.

have we ruled out moving?

Originally Posted by GreatGodPan

I hope all ends well for your mother and your siblings.

Take no notice of those on here who cast judgement in a selfish and negative manner - you mother has a moral right to every penny she gets, and should feel beholden to none for that money.

the absolute moral right to the benefits to which she is entitled. but she no longer is. there is no specific moral entitlement to £760pw net

Originally Posted by frankie_baby

people who are comparing her benefits amount with someone who works are missing one key point, if she could and still work she would still be entitled to some of the benefits anyway thus pushing her income up higher anyway, this cap system is far far too arbitrary

not missing the point, but your point.

if she were working earning £760pw net she wouldn't be entitled f/a in benefits.

but notwithstanding this the only baring it has on the discussion is that the people saying the £500pw is comparable to an earned income of ~£37k should knock a couple of grand off. it doesn't fundamentally change the argument.

[trevgo]

Originally Posted by GreatGodPan

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.

Nope, wrong there, but as the forum's resident communist (or whatever you call your fairytale politics) I wouldn't expect anything else. It's certainly true that governments who consistenly borrowed more than their countries earned are in a right old pickle now that credit has dried up.

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.

Nobody would like to see Fred Goodwin selling the Big Issue more than I, but unfortunately Labour Lord Myners was looking out of the window when they were drawing up his final pension agreement. Incidentally, have you checked out the extent of private debt in this country? Seems the Labour politicians' wreckless profligacy rubbed off on the population. Not I, I hasten to add. Other than a tiny rump of mortgage, I don;t owe a penny to anyone. I've always lived within my means.

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.

Well unfortunately for all of us, events appear to prove you wrong on this too. We're in the sh!t because too many politicians thought as you do, and that "sophisticated capitalist economies" could defy the basic laws of economics. There's a lot more noughts in the sums involved, but spend more than you earn is always a recipe for eventual disaster.

"Won't get fooled again"?

Well, you have.

I was never fooled - not even back in the early 00's when Blair/Brown were walking on water and trumpting the "record growth". I said all along that it was built on quicksand, and as in everything else, I was right.

[trevgo]

Originally Posted by kitty86

The father who pays for the younger children is not my father.

I'm getting confused now. Where is your dad then?

[kitty86]

I haven't seen or heard from my dad in a number of years, he is the father to me and my eldest bro who is Autistic. When my mum left him she didn't ask for his help and neither did he offer it. Now me and my brother are over the age of 18 and are adults he has no interest in helping out and even if he was still around he probably wouldn't anyway.

[frankie_baby]

Originally Posted by flagpole

not missing the point, but your point.

if she were working earning £760pw net she wouldn't be entitled f/a in benefits.

but notwithstanding this the only baring it has on the discussion is that the people saying the £500pw is comparable to an earned income of ~£37k should knock a couple of grand off. it doesn't fundamentally change the argument.

with 6 kids (1 disabled) and disability herself surely even at 26k a year she would be entitled to something thus pushing her income higher, maybe im wrong i'm not an expert

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by flagpole

not much to add save the fact that a pre tax income in the region of £37k should be plenty to live off.



have we ruled out moving?



the absolute moral right to the benefits to which she is entitled. but she no longer is. there is no specific moral entitlement to £760pw net



not missing the point, but your point.

if she were working earning £760pw net she wouldn't be entitled f/a in benefits.

but notwithstanding this the only baring it has on the discussion is that the people saying the £500pw is comparable to an earned income of ~£37k should knock a couple of grand off. it doesn't fundamentally change the argument.

Yes she is. The cap doesn't take effect until next year.

[trevgo]

Originally Posted by kitty86

I haven't seen or heard from my dad in a number of years, he is the father to me and my eldest bro who is Autistic. When my mum left him she didn't ask for his help and neither did he offer it. Now me and my brother are over the age of 18 and are adults he has no interest in helping out and even if he was still around he probably wouldn't anyway.

Sorry to hear that. I had a dad who should have been kicked out, but they were old school folk and mum put up with stuff very few would now. I am sympathetic - my main employee earned £48K gross last year, plus car and private health, but has 3 young kids, non-working wife, lives in a council house and is always completely skint. I'm sure even on £760 a week, you don't live a life of luxury.

The problem is - the country's skint too.

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by trevgo

Nope, wrong there, but as the forum's resident communist (or whatever you call your fairytale politics) I wouldn't expect anything else. It's certainly true that governments who consistenly borrowed more than their countries earned are in a right old pickle now that credit has dried up.



Nobody would like to see Fred Goodwin selling the Big Issue more than I, but unfortunately Labour Lord Myners was looking out of the window when they were drawing up his final pension agreement. Incidentally, have you checked out the extent of private debt in this country? Seems the Labour politicians' wreckless profligacy rubbed off on the population. Not I, I hasten to add. Other than a tiny rump of mortgage, I don;t owe a penny to anyone. I've always lived within my means.

Well unfortunately for all of us, events appear to prove you wrong on this too. We're in the sh!t because too many politicians thought as you do, and that "sophisticated capitalist economies" could defy the basic laws of economics. There's a lot more noughts in the sums involved, but spend more than you earn is always a recipe for eventual disaster.


I was never fooled - not even back in the early 00's when Blair/Brown were walking on water and trumpting the "record growth". I said all along that it was built on quicksand, and as in everything else, I was right.

The key part of your whole post.

Totally uncalled for, I'm alright Jack, smug, call it what you will.

Why do such feelings infuse the morality of so many in our country these days?

Such a shame......

[trevgo]

Originally Posted by GreatGodPan

The key part of your whole post.

Totally uncalled for, I'm alright Jack, smug, call it what you will.

Why do such feelings infuse the morality of so many in our country these days?

Such a shame......

Whhhhaaat?

I really do wonder what goes on in your mind and how it processes inputs. The only point I was making was that I've always practiced what I preached. If I wanted something, I saved up for it. When I've had money over, I threw it at the mortgage. I don't think debt is a good thing for people or countries.

I'm allright Jack because I didn't crank up credit cards, buy holiday homes or buy-to-lets at the top of the market, designer clothes etc etc. I suppose that's it. To someone like you, prudence is something to be ridiculed.

[Landis]

Originally Posted by Biffo the Bear

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.

I am sympathetic towards the OP's mother but I would have a hard time making a case that the evil Tories are wrong to slash this woman's benefits to the equivalent of £37k.
If your argument is that this figure is an inadequate safety net in this economy, in 2012, or 2013, then I don't think the problem is your politics. I think the problem is that you lack perspective.

The family concerned will no doubt have to budget to be well fed, and to keep warm in the winter.
Holidays seem unlikely. I could be describing 50% of families in the UK at this moment.

[kitty86]

I'm glad that someone else can see the facts. The fact is the benefits she recieves at the moment allow her and my brothers and sisters to receive a fairly comfortable life, as in they are clothed, fed, and have a roof over their head, they don't have money for the latest gadgets and gizmos, they don't holiday three times a year, or have sky tv or mobile contracts but the fact remains that ok so the rent is fairly well subsidised at the moment, but there is still a shortfall to make up, there's still gas bills, electric bills, water rates, food shopping these are all the very basic things that need to be paid a month. With the cut there's less rent paid so more for you to make up within the benefits but the benefits are being cut too. So move to a smaller place ok, do you know how few places accept DSS? As in at the same time do you know how high rental prices are at the moment. So you go on the council waiting list, but there's no houses available. So what then?

[wallster]

Originally Posted by grps3

some people with jobs don't earn 26k a year

26k a year for doing nothing is pretty good income

while it is sad she is 'losing' a grand a week , 26k is still adequate , im sure there are plenty ways she can survive off lower income, cancelling cable tv/internet, mobile phone contracts etcetc

she could even move to a cheaper house to rent to increase her spending money

Exactly right. In most countries in the world she wouldn't be getting a fraction of that. £26k is a very decent amount that taxpayers are funding.

[Biffo the Bear]

Originally Posted by Landis

I am sympathetic towards the OP's mother but I would have a hard time making a case that the evil Tories are wrong to slash this woman's benefits to the equivalent of £37k.
If your argument is that this figure is an inadequate safety net in this economy, in 2012, or 2013, then I don't think the problem is your politics. I think the problem is that you lack perspective.

The family concerned will no doubt have to budget to be well fed, and to keep warm in the winter.
Holidays seem unlikely. I could be describing 50% of families in the UK at this moment.

Let's look at it this way.

The combined annual spend on DLA and unemployment benefits is ~ £20bn. Taken on its own, this is an unusually high figure because of the economic situation leading to more unemployed people, therefore, one can only expect it to go down in due course as the economy recovers.

This high figure is perceived to be unmanageable because of the economic situation. Therefore, as the situation improves, it becomes more manageable through a) natural reduction as more people find work and b) offsetting through higher revenue through a rising GDP.

The poor economic situation is not caused by a high welfare bill, the poor economic situation CAUSES a high welfare bill. So cutting the welfare bill will not make a blind bit of difference at this moment in time.

Treat the cause, not the symptoms, and everyone benefits.

[kitty86]

In most countries in the world she wouldn't need a fraction of that as the cost of living and prices are not as high as they are in England.

[geordiejackie]

Originally Posted by wallster

Exactly right. In most countries in the world she wouldn't be getting a fraction of that. £26k is a very decent amount that taxpayers are funding.

careful in most countries in the world being gay is looked on as the work of the devil thank god you live in this country aye
peace be with you
regards jack

[Blairdennon]

Originally Posted by Biffo the Bear

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.

Someone who has paid in is entitled to support and that is what is being received. It is the level of support and the quality of the life expected that is the issue. Yes we should support but it is a balance. My point about the flood victims is that we should also expect people to make provision themselves for when things go wrong. A person with no insurance cannot expect to live as comfortably as a person who had insurance nor can they expect to receive compensation for all the property that they did not have insured.

[Biffo the Bear]

Originally Posted by Blairdennon

Someone who has paid in is entitled to support and that is what is being received. It is the level of support and the quality of the life expected that is the issue. Yes we should support but it is a balance. My point about the flood victims is that we should also expect people to make provision themselves for when things go wrong. A person with no insurance cannot expect to live as comfortably as a person who had insurance nor can they expect to receive compensation for all the property that they did not have insured.

I would respectfully suggest that there's a difference in the preservation of property and the preservation of quality of human life.

Yes, if you're not insured, then it is tough luck really, I agree with that to an extent. However, should you be struck ill, then it's not a case of 'oh well, I'll just have to get on with it'.

With something like MS, there is no more 'getting on with it', it's a chronic disease from which I don't think anyone can recover. That's the point where we, collectively, as a society, turn around and say "I don't mind my taxes helping to care for this person, for they are in greater need than I."

The crux is whether you agree or disagree with that sentiment. I perceive most people as agreeing with it and that is why the welfare state is as it is. If most people disagreed with it, then no doubt a political party would have come to power with remit to scrap the welfare state.

[kitty86]

For your information the family do help her, I help every month when I get paid, as do my grandad who is still working well past retirement age, we are not a family of shirkers as so many on here would like to believe. I just pray that some of you don't go through anything like she or countless other extremely ill people have to go through, you really see why the country has gone to such rack and ruin with the selfish attitudes and mindsets that have graced this page today. If that's the case than the taxes that some of you are paying now that allow you to claim a state pension when the time comes, that shouldn't be allowed either as it doesn't matter if you have worked and put taxes into the country you shouldn't get anything back. Disgusting.

[Biffo the Bear]

Originally Posted by kitty86

For your information the family do help her, I help every month when I get paid, as do my grandad who is still working well past retirement age, we are not a family of shirkers as so many on here would like to believe. I just pray that some of you don't go through anything like she or countless other extremely ill people have to go through, you really see why the country has gone to such rack and ruin with the selfish attitudes and mindsets that have graced this page today. If that's the case than the taxes that some of you are paying now that allow you to claim a state pension when the time comes, that shouldn't be allowed either as it doesn't matter if you have worked and put taxes into the country you shouldn't get anything back. Disgusting.

Don't defend yourself - you've got nothing to defend.

Quite frankly, your mum is getting screwed by a bunch of people who have zero idea of the hardships of poverty and disability combined.

Take solace in the fact that the people on here who are most critical are not representative of the majority of society.

[geordiejackie]

Originally Posted by Biffo the Bear

Don't defend yourself - you've got nothing to defend.

Quite frankly, your mum is getting screwed by a bunch of people who have zero idea of the hardships of poverty and disability combined.

Take solace in the fact that the people on here who are most critical are not representative of the majority of society.

Absolutely biffo and i would bet my house most of these posters are living of mummy and daddy's inheritance money if they stopped that watch em shout unfair unfair lol
best regards jack

[trevgo]

Originally Posted by geordiejackie

Absolutely biffo and i would bet my house most of these posters are living of mummy and daddy's inheritance money if they stopped that watch em shout unfair unfair lol
best regards jack

You should be a little careful what you summise, Jack. Some of us may well have been born into very poor families, been educated at sink state schools, but risked everything to start a business.

You're stereotyping a little too much.

I am probably right of centre on issues such as these, but would never associate myself with some of the nastier comments made on here. Stating that, in my opinion, having 6 kids is too much of a commitment is not nasty. I'm sure at the time the future looked rosy. I don't want a country in which sick people barely survive, but if they have 6 kids and not a father in sight, there has to be a limit that a cash strapped state can do.

[ItJustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by GreatGodPan

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

I think you will find a single parent paying tax on NMW is what £400 pa. One child costs £5000 a year to educate, so that taxpayer takes out more than they put in.

The reason the system works is the rich and the middle earners pay in more than they use. A single man earning 40K with pay about £12,000 in tax, which is then used to educate the child.

Originally Posted by thisismoney.co.uk

The highest-earning 1 per cent of Britons pay almost 30 per cent of all income taxes, according to research.

The 308,000 on the 50p top rate – who earn more than £150,000 – pay £47billion a year to the Treasury.

Since 2000, the share of tax paid by the highest earners has risen from 22.2 to 27.7 per cent.

Research by Oriel Securities shows the 3.7million who earned more than £35,000 and pay 40 per cent tax, hand over £57billion in tax, 34 per cent of the total.

The lower-earning 50 per cent pay £17bn – less than the housing benefit bill.

Overall, 90 per cent of all income tax is paid by half the working population.

About 3.7m people earn between £35,000 and £150,000, placing them in the bracket that pays the 40 per cent income tax rate. Collectively they pay £57bn in income tax, about 34 per cent of the total.

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/n...#ixzz1vESKkRZn

That's quite fair as rich people have nicer houses, better jobs and more luxury's, so the essential services the low paid provide and the lesser lifestyle are compensated via public services. Nick Clegg is taking more and more low earners out of tax.

My point was, our population is increasing and unless they are rich people, everyone will be getting increasingly small pieces of the pie.