Carryfast:
The benefits cap means that it can’t be more than £20,000-25,000 total which is why her payments were cut with the payment previously,supposedly,earmarked for the kids then included towards the cap limit.IE the cap means no more than £25,000 total,including housing costs and any dependents and possibly less depending on number of dependents.Which as I said can obviously create a situation whereby that isn’t enough to support a household that in most cases takes two wage earners.To the point where it’s easy to foresee a situation in which one,or even both,wage earners are no longer/not working,or not eligible to work,or even there in the case of marriage etc breakup or other numerous issues,or not earning enough,for whatever reason,leading to eviction and any children being taken into care.While the cases in the programme were obviously worse case,possibly even staged,scenarios to push an agenda.
You’re talking ■■■■■■■■. She got 20k pa benefits capped. She then also got 29k pa for looking after her daughter’s 4 kids who would have gone into care otherwise. Therefore 49k pa. The 29k pa isn’t benefts per se , it was on top of her benefits, which had been cut, but she was adamant that the 29k was for the boys and not to pay rent etc.
How is it possible to have 49k in benefits.When the benefits cap is 25k absolute max including whatever amount of dependents and housing costs and less depending on amount of dependents IE 20k in this case ?.While what do you mean by the contradiction that she’s been capped but she still keeps the 49k.When it’s clear that the benefits ‘cap’ is actually just a housing benefit raid/cut dressed up as something else.
truckman020:
in response to mac12,i agree with you,i am watching at the moment,this steve guy hasn’t worked for 9 yrs after a hand injury yet he can hold a game controller in his hands,he can play table football with the kids,they were told they would get full benefits back if they work 24 hrs a week between them,that proves they don’t want to work as it would be 12 hours each,she works 12 hrs while he looks after the kids and vice versa,i’m sure they could get some work if they try,the 35 year old woman living in her sisters place knew it could happen one day so while she was at her home looking after her kids why did she not study to better herself,she had 17 years to do so,the grandma looking after her grandchildren says she will not use her special allowance to pay the rent as it’s for the boys,surely paying the rent keeps a roof over the boys heads so is in fact helping them,i have not seen any genuine person yet on this programme that deserves benefits, as for the £40 this steve needs for ■■■■ and booze he stated that if asked why he needs so much for said items he would reply to the person asking what do they spend their money on,if it was me asking I would reply the difference is I earn my money so can spend it on what I like,i am also sick to the back teeth of them using their kids to try to get what they want,i have met plenty of guys over the years who have a job and work their bxxxxxxs off to provide for their children,they don’t rely on benefits,they do plenty of overtime,i cant say the same for myself as I don’t have kids but if I did they would to the best of my ability want for nothing,i’m sure a lot of you fellow drivers with kids have done that yourself and fair play to you as kids are a massive responsibility.
Firstly you do know the conditions for claiming the modern version of Incapacity Benefit.IE no one receives long term incapacity benefits unless they’ve passed the strict Incapacity test which effectively makes that benefit worthless and doubtful that anyone would ever pass it with just a ‘hand injury’.
As for anyone intentionally making themselves homeless because they aren’t prepared to cut down on drinking and smoking that’s about as believable as a hand injury being sufficient to claim long term Incapacity Benefits.
While it’s usually those you’re supposedly in admiration of who work to support their family on a tight wage who are most at risk of being stitched up by the government scammers.Because they are usually most reliant on the so called benefits system to bail them out in the case of redundancy or illness and having no income protection insurance to cover them.While no household is immune from other unforeseeable issues like marriage breakups etc any or all of which can make that household reliant on benefits to cover its costs and in general with today’s housing costs a total benefit of 20-25k won’t cover it.The obvious answer being at least don’t have children to cut the risks and costs.To which the government answer is let’s bring in loads of immigration and throw every benefit possible at it on the excuse that the indigenous population isn’t reproducing enough.
Are we really supposed to believe that a ‘hand injury’ will allow a long term claim for Incapacity from the workplace for 9 years. About as believable that anyone would make themselves homeless because they want to spend £40 per week on drinking and smoking.Even if £40 per week would make any difference to the loss of housing benefit anyway.
Carryfast:
The benefits cap means that it can’t be more than £20,000-25,000 total which is why her payments were cut with the payment previously,supposedly,earmarked for the kids then included towards the cap limit.IE the cap means no more than £25,000 total,including housing costs and any dependents and possibly less depending on number of dependents.Which as I said can obviously create a situation whereby that isn’t enough to support a household that in most cases takes two wage earners.To the point where it’s easy to foresee a situation in which one,or even both,wage earners are no longer/not working,or not eligible to work,or even there in the case of marriage etc breakup or other numerous issues,or not earning enough,for whatever reason,leading to eviction and any children being taken into care.While the cases in the programme were obviously worse case,possibly even staged,scenarios to push an agenda.
You’re talking ■■■■■■■■. She got 20k pa benefits capped. She then also got 29k pa for looking after her daughter’s 4 kids who would have gone into care otherwise. Therefore 49k pa. The 29k pa isn’t benefts per se , it was on top of her benefits, which had been cut, but she was adamant that the 29k was for the boys and not to pay rent etc.
How is it possible to have 49k in benefits.When the benefits cap is 25k absolute max including whatever amount of dependents and housing costs and less depending on amount of dependents IE 20k in this case ?.While what do you mean by the contradiction that she’s been capped but she still keeps the 49k.When it’s clear that the benefits ‘cap’ is actually just a housing benefit raid/cut dressed up as something else.
Didn’t see the program, but foster care payments aren’t benefits, and a quick google shows they can be up to £400 per week, per child.
Dav1d:
Didn’t see the program, but foster care payments aren’t benefits, and a quick google shows they can be up to £400 per week, per child.
I think that’s what she was supposedly moaning about in them being taken into account towards her benefits allowance and counting towards her benefits cap calculation.There are so many holes in that programme’s story lines,like a supposed hand injury resulting in 9 years of ongoing long term incapacity payments and anyone preferring the risk of eviction to cutting down on drinking and smoking,that it seems to be a badly staged,look scroungers diversion and misinformation exercise,put out by the establishment.Which no surprise also seems to have selectively and conveniently given immunity to the immigrant community.
