Welfare myths

[maviczap]

Originally Posted by NTECUK

Thing is what government has got the balls to put this right though ?

None

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

Most of the higher benefit"earners" are getting shed loads of housing benefit.Its actually a nice little earner for landlords who charge huge rents and get it paid by the State.Also most of these recipients are working and getting benefit as top ups,so removing it would mean they couldnt live where they currently do,or the landlords would have to charge much lower rents.IDS is now up against a powerful landlord lobby who wont be taking his medicine lying down.It will be interesting to see who blinks first in that stand off.

There are only ever 4 fundamental ways of spending money and attitudes that tend to accompany them:
1. Spending money you worked for, on something for you - Do I really need it? Is it worth the cost? What's best value for money?
2. Spending money you worked for, on something for someone else - I don't want to spend too much, it's needs to be the right thing for them, but I'm not going to spend hours researching it, this is good enough for them, hell they're not even paying for it.
3. Spending someone else's money on something for you - screw the cost, I'll have the biggest and best and whatever is most convenient for me.
4 Spending someone else's money on something for someone else - in which case; who cares what it's spent on and what we get for it?

People whose rent isn't paid for them, tend to fall into category 3. The people who pay it for them are even less interested (they fall into category 4). Landlords of those who receive housing benefit, or forces personnel with a stipend for accommodation, are well aware of this fact and it's hardly surprising that they exploit it by charging more than someone in category 1 would be prepared to pay for that particular property.

3 and 4 are exactly what I was talking about when I was suggesting it was beneficial for everyone to pay taxes in a way they directly notice.

[widepants]

Time to get something of my head now.Im on benefits as a full time carer and get my house , car paid for etc and do I feel guilt at getting it , even though this is the first time claiming and Im 47.
I certainly do.I know alot of you will think it will never happen to you but just hold that thought.

Originally Posted by widepants

do I feel guilt at getting it , .

I've noticed.

You shouldn't though, not when you've paid all these years and you are claiming genuinely, you are why the system exists, not everyone else IS.

[NTECUK]

Originally Posted by widepants

Time to get something of my head now.Im on benefits as a full time carer and get my house , car paid for etc and do I feel guilt at getting it , even though this is the first time claiming and Im 47.
I certainly do.I know alot of you will think it will never happen to you but just hold that thought.

This is why you paid into NI and income tax

[MisterTommyH]

I honestly don't think anyone would begrudge you what you get.

We all might need the system someday, and that's what it's there for.

Personally I don't think there's any problem with the majority of the disability benefits or carers benefits.

I do have a problem in that there are any number of people on things like JSA (who know the system and how to play it) and who expect to be kept when they are perfectly capable of working and have no reason not to (caring I see as a legitimate reason not to work).

There is a little bit of cross over in that I know some people have historically been transfered to things like DLA to shift the figures and get them off JSA (I worked for the DWP for a period). It is then very hard to get these people off DLA as they've got what they want. I think this is a minority of cases, but it all adds up, and it riles me that some people are able to get away with being a net recipient rather than a net contributor through nothing more than a lifestyle choice.

[Littlepeahead]

I'm in a situation where I cannot really afford to have children.

Both Mr LPH and I work full time, I earn more than him but as he is self employed he can claim back for many of his expenses which I cannot even though I also have to buy clothes for work, transport, etc.

I have to pay £4500 for my season ticket which is more than 10% of my salary before any deductions.

On top of that I am just about into the higher tax bracket now so getting a pay rise wouldn't really benefit me.

If I had a child I would have to pay a child minder to look after that child for 12 hours a day minimum as I leave home at 7.30am and rarely get home before 7.30pm. This would be an enormous amount per year and most of my disposable income would go to a child minder and we wouldn't qualify for any tax credits or help with childcare costs.

What's more I'll now get taxed at 40% on the value of things like my private medical cover which while I appreciate is a perk, has saved the government about £40,000 in the last 3 years where Bupa and my company have picked up the tab on operations I could have demanded to be done on the NHS. And when Mr LPH had a slipped disc there were no benefits available to him as he is self employed.

But I probably can't have kids without IVF, and now I'm finally earning enough to own a house so I have space to bring up a child I'm too old to qualify if I wanted to try with IVF on the NHS.

As it happens I'd rather have 2 bikes than 2 kids, which is lucky really.

But it does feel as though I work just to pay for others to get handouts from the state, for rail company bosses to get rich and for the tax office to take back as much of my income as they can.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by MisterTommyH

(caring I see as a legitimate reason not to work).

Or you could see it as a legitimate form of work in itself.

[MisterTommyH]

True- poor choice of words. Maybe 'legitimate reason not to earn'?