Guest pelmetman Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-10-15 7:09 PM teflon2 - 2018-10-15 6:14 PM My daughter sales manager to new store open where I live needed 52 full time staff to operate the store many of the applicants claimed to only be able to work 16 hours even though they were fit didn't say that they would still be able to claim benefits taking on these would be unfair to the one's who would work full time for probably the equal financial return. Would that be fair. (?) Sorry Teflon but your post simply doesn't stack up or make any sense. Who on earth applies for a job with full time hours when they know they cannot for whatever reason work any more than 16 hours? You really don't understand the benefit system your criticising do you Bullet? *-) ......... IF THEY WORK ANYMORE THAN 16 HOURS THEIR BENEFITS ARE CUT :-| ......... Income Support and working 16 hours a week or more If you claim Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance you should normally either be not working or working on average less than 16 hours a week. Partners of people receiving Income Support/Jobseeker's Allowance are able to work for, on average, up to 24 hours a week, without their partner’s entitlement being affected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 16, 2018 Author Share Posted October 16, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-10-16 2:03 PM Bulletguy - 2018-10-15 7:09 PM teflon2 - 2018-10-15 6:14 PM My daughter sales manager to new store open where I live needed 52 full time staff to operate the store many of the applicants claimed to only be able to work 16 hours even though they were fit didn't say that they would still be able to claim benefits taking on these would be unfair to the one's who would work full time for probably the equal financial return. Would that be fair. (?) Sorry Teflon but your post simply doesn't stack up or make any sense. Who on earth applies for a job with full time hours when they know they cannot for whatever reason work any more than 16 hours? You really don't understand the benefit system your criticising do you Bullet? *-) ......... IF THEY WORK ANYMORE THAN 16 HOURS THEIR BENEFITS ARE CUT :-| ......... Income Support and working 16 hours a week or more If you claim Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance you should normally either be not working or working on average less than 16 hours a week. Partners of people receiving Income Support/Jobseeker's Allowance are able to work for, on average, up to 24 hours a week, without their partner’s entitlement being affected. I'm well aware of that and responded to Teflon so your 'shouting' is looking very silly. The discussion concerned UC and not IC or Job seekers. I've no doubt you know your way around 'the system' well......after all you seem to have spent more time 'between jobs' than actually in one until "retiring". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 17, 2018 Author Share Posted October 17, 2018 Disability benefit assessments now being 'deliberately altered' and/or 'tampered' with by McVeys DWP "audits" to deny disabled people the benefits support they desperately need. The altered reports bear little or no resemblance to the originals. So who are the real benefit cheats? Utterly disgraceful. https://welfareweekly.com/outrage-as-disability-assessment-reports-are-altered-to-refuse-benefits-support/ https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16982248.mp-raises-fears-thousands-of-benefits-claims-have-been-tampered-with/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W3526602 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 Hi, Has anybody been brave enough to suggest that some people receive too much benefit? Going back a few years.... A bloke bought a house a few doors from mine. He was in his 50s, and unemployed ... as far we could ascertain, his last job was milk monitor at school. Depite being on benefit, he managed to get a mortgage. Before actually moving in, he employed a builder to modify the house, while he spent a couple of weeks in the Dominican Republic. Within the first year, he went on holiday again, to Norway, and visited his wife's parents in Japan. He drove a Jaguar XJ6, and later bought a Granada stretch-limo, both parked in the road. His wife had driving lessons and passed her test, but as far as I know, she never drove again. He boasted that he walked to the doctor's (about a mile) every week, and intended to do so until he got Mobility Allowance, after which he would be looking for a Motorbility car. Within the next few years he added two more sprogs in quick succession, to add to the previous three. He then demanded his oil boiler be changed to gas, as the old boiler could not heat the water fast enough for each of the kids to have a fresh bath every evening. He got the boiler, and had the road dug up to connect to gas, both at public expense. Then he demanded a five bed-room council house, which was refused. He threatened to leave his wife and kids. They settled for the council paying the interest on his mortgage. After about five years, he sold the house for circa £40,000 more than he paid for it, bought a pair of semi-det shops, also on a mortgage. The council said he did not have to repay any of the interest they had paid on his previous mortgage. More recently, another neighbour, also unemployed and with a mortgage, had a row with his wife. She walked out, taking the kids with her, and moved into a private rented house about 50 yards down the road. He spends as much time in her house as he does in his own. They are both receiving benefits. The Benefits System is intended to tide you over, not keep you in the style to which you want to be accustomed, at somebody else's expense. 602 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-10-16 2:50 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-16 2:03 PM Bulletguy - 2018-10-15 7:09 PM teflon2 - 2018-10-15 6:14 PM My daughter sales manager to new store open where I live needed 52 full time staff to operate the store many of the applicants claimed to only be able to work 16 hours even though they were fit didn't say that they would still be able to claim benefits taking on these would be unfair to the one's who would work full time for probably the equal financial return. Would that be fair. (?) Sorry Teflon but your post simply doesn't stack up or make any sense. Who on earth applies for a job with full time hours when they know they cannot for whatever reason work any more than 16 hours? You really don't understand the benefit system your criticising do you Bullet? *-) ......... IF THEY WORK ANYMORE THAN 16 HOURS THEIR BENEFITS ARE CUT :-| ......... Income Support and working 16 hours a week or more If you claim Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance you should normally either be not working or working on average less than 16 hours a week. Partners of people receiving Income Support/Jobseeker's Allowance are able to work for, on average, up to 24 hours a week, without their partner’s entitlement being affected. I'm well aware of that and responded to Teflon so your 'shouting' is looking very silly. The discussion concerned UC and not IC or Job seekers. I've no doubt you know your way around 'the system' well......after all you seem to have spent more time 'between jobs' than actually in one until "retiring". Not shouting dear ;-) ........Its called emphasis :D .......... BTW.........I'm a self funded idle bast*rd B-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-10-14 6:13 PM BTW......What's wrong with making the benefit system less inviting to the professionally idle? :-S ........ We can't - the ELECTED Parliament cannot cut benefits to the UNELECTED Head of State and Hangers On. They can only increase them. The Tories changed the law to make sure of that. >:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-10-15 5:34 PM Perhaps if Labour didn't feck up the economy every time they get the keys to No 10, you would be qualified to criticise >:-) ......... Why do you continue to ignore the fact that the National debt has increased most under the Tories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 The guy who invented Universal Credit was on the radio the other day. I was surprised he was prepared to be questioned about it, rather than just make himself uncontactable and put out a statement like politicians and royalty do. Basically he admiotted it had faults, but said his original plan had been altered so much by the (Tory) Government - including cutting £3 billion from it, that his original plan bears little resemblance to what the Government is doing now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 John52 - 2018-10-17 4:16 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-14 6:13 PM BTW......What's wrong with making the benefit system less inviting to the professionally idle? :-S ........ We can't - the ELECTED Parliament cannot cut benefits to the UNELECTED Head of State and Hangers On. They can only increase them. The Tories changed the law to make sure of that. >:-) Oh good back onto the Royal Family for a change ... Ive asked before but i'll try again ... Do the Royals bring in more money to team UK than they cost in "benefits" ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 17, 2018 Author Share Posted October 17, 2018 W3526602 - 2018-10-17 7:15 AM Hi, Has anybody been brave enough to suggest that some people receive too much benefit? Going back a few years.... A bloke bought a house a few doors from mine. He was in his 50s, and unemployed ... as far we could ascertain, his last job was milk monitor at school. Depite being on benefit, he managed to get a mortgage. Before actually moving in, he employed a builder to modify the house, while he spent a couple of weeks in the Dominican Republic. Within the first year, he went on holiday again, to Norway, and visited his wife's parents in Japan. He drove a Jaguar XJ6, and later bought a Granada stretch-limo, both parked in the road. His wife had driving lessons and passed her test, but as far as I know, she never drove again. He boasted that he walked to the doctor's (about a mile) every week, and intended to do so until he got Mobility Allowance, after which he would be looking for a Motorbility car. Within the next few years he added two more sprogs in quick succession, to add to the previous three. He then demanded his oil boiler be changed to gas, as the old boiler could not heat the water fast enough for each of the kids to have a fresh bath every evening. He got the boiler, and had the road dug up to connect to gas, both at public expense. Then he demanded a five bed-room council house, which was refused. He threatened to leave his wife and kids. They settled for the council paying the interest on his mortgage. After about five years, he sold the house for circa £40,000 more than he paid for it, bought a pair of semi-det shops, also on a mortgage. The council said he did not have to repay any of the interest they had paid on his previous mortgage. More recently, another neighbour, also unemployed and with a mortgage, had a row with his wife. She walked out, taking the kids with her, and moved into a private rented house about 50 yards down the road. He spends as much time in her house as he does in his own. They are both receiving benefits. The Benefits System is intended to tide you over, not keep you in the style to which you want to be accustomed, at somebody else's expense. Cool story 602 ;-) Anyone can apply for a mortgage and will get one.....as long as they can prove they can make the repayments. That said, Banks will encourage people to take more than needed which is where many go wrong. If they default they risk repossession. As for 'council paying interest' [on mortgage] that would appear to fall under SMI explained here; https://www.gov.uk/support-for-mortgage-interest Note* "It’s paid as a loan, which you’ll need to repay with interest when you sell or transfer ownership of your home." Always good to get a bit of perspective on things eh? ;-) As for driving an XJ6.....cheap motor. In fact all similar types of car can be picked up dirt cheap often in good nick too. Nobody wants 'em because of the fuel/maintenance costs. I'm currently looking for a cheap(ish) 'runabout/shopping trolley'.....Citroen C3/Peugeot 207/Fiesta but want one with low VED rate. Found a very nice C3 recently, ran an insurance quote thru comparison site...£218. I could insure a Merc 3.2 C class Avantgarde for less....and buy one for less too! I was almost tempted two weeks ago. Meantime, back to benefit cheats vs tax cheats. Which is costing the country more? I'll answer the question for you. It's tax cheats. According to HMRC figures benefit fraud cost UK £2 billion in 2016/17 with tax fraud at £6.9 billion in 2015/16. 2,650 cases of tax fraud were prosecuted between April 2010 and March 2014, but only 2,005 successful convictions. By comparison more than 9,800 benefit cheats prosecuted in 2012/13. Which begs the question...why is so much time and effort spent prosecuting those defrauding much lesser amounts than those defrauding more than three times the amount? Not condoning fraud either way as we all know it's a criminal offence, but i've yet to read a credible response from anyone as to the reasons why we obsess over benefit cheats, whilst ignoring tax cheats which as i've pointed out steal, yes steal because that's what it is, three times the amount of the benefit cheat. Does the tax cheat have some kind of special exemption because we think they are a 'respectable' business person living in the 'right' location? Benefit cheats are portrayed as council house dwelling smokers on some sink estate with 55" Plasma screens on the wall of every room. Stereotyping isn't helpful but does seem to bring out the worse in people at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 17, 2018 Author Share Posted October 17, 2018 More than £1.5bn to be paid out by DWP in backdated payments for under paying 'tens of thousands' of claimants. "We estimate that around 180,000 people could be owed arrears payments, with around 105,000 estimated to be repaid during 2018-19 and 75,000 during 2019-20." *-) The government had previously said that all the backdated payments would be completed by April 2019. https://www.channel4.com/news/sickness-benefit-claimants-receive-backdated-payments-after-errors https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45892109 McVey blunders blindly on in blissful ignorance. *-) And how UC affects thousands of people. :-( https://www.channel4.com/news/government-under-pressure-over-universal-credit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W3526602 Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 <<< Which begs the question...why is so much time and effort spent prosecuting those defrauding much lesser amounts than those defrauding more than three times the amount? >>> Hi, Assuming that both are crimes? Me? I would chase the crims that are easiest and quickest to catch, using my own low paid staff, and who are unlikely to fight back. Mean minded? Propbably! But as it is MY money that is being handed to them every week, and they are competing with me in the shops. I'm not going to complain. 602 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 John52 - 2018-10-17 4:19 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-15 5:34 PM Perhaps if Labour didn't feck up the economy every time they get the keys to No 10, you would be qualified to criticise >:-) ......... Why do you continue to ignore the fact that the National debt has increased most under the Tories? WHY?........Because they always end up sorting out the mess Labour has left the country in *-) ........... The only thing that's puzzles me, is why Labour voters are so pig thick they keep on allowing them to do it? 8-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 18, 2018 Author Share Posted October 18, 2018 W3526602 - 2018-10-18 7:22 AM <<< Which begs the question...why is so much time and effort spent prosecuting those defrauding much lesser amounts than those defrauding more than three times the amount? >>> Hi, Assuming that both are crimes? Me? I would chase the crims that are easiest and quickest to catch, using my own low paid staff, and who are unlikely to fight back. Mean minded? Propbably! But as it is MY money that is being handed to them every week, and they are competing with me in the shops. I'm not going to complain. No assumption about it 602. Both are criminal offences and we know that. However the degree of seriousness separating the two is like comparing a petty thief or shop lifter with the Brinks-Mat mob or Hatton Garden vault robbers. So by your analogy you'd sooner lose three times the amount of your money to a tax cheat than a fraction of the amount to a benefit cheat? That does seem somewhat skewed to me! :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W3526602 Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 <<< So by your analogy you'd sooner lose three times the amount of your money to a tax cheat than a fraction of the amount to a benefit cheat? That does seem somewhat skewed to me! >>> Hi Bulletguy, No, I would not "sooner", but by your analogy, we should chase the big fish, which costs a lot of money, with a bigger risk of not winning, so that money will be wasted. Probably not fair. But little fish grow into big fish. 602 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 18, 2018 Author Share Posted October 18, 2018 W3526602 - 2018-10-18 4:16 PM <<< So by your analogy you'd sooner lose three times the amount of your money to a tax cheat than a fraction of the amount to a benefit cheat? That does seem somewhat skewed to me! >>> Hi Bulletguy, No, I would not "sooner", but by your analogy, we should chase the big fish, which costs a lot of money, with a bigger risk of not winning, so that money will be wasted. Probably not fair. But little fish grow into big fish. Sprat to catch a mackerel has always seemed an obtuse way of going about things to me. I think the issue being avoided is there's always been some kind of nodding 'respect' for those committing tax fraud, but a gleeful joy at seeing benefit cheats being brought to book. Know your place etc. As long as that practice continues then you, and everyone else must be prepared to lose way more money to tax cheats than benefit cheats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.