Harming children for no good reason

Is that a good reason to allow benefit fraud?

Why are you asking about benefit fraud?

I'm talking about an unlawful cut in payments to the poor which punishes and impoverishes children.

Does an MP fiddling her expenses justify her in voting for action that punishes and impoverishes children?

If we knocked £30 a week off MP's expenses, would that stop them being sponging parasites?
 
Sponsored Links
It's funny how kind, generous and forgiving we are to the owners of our politicians.

734798_942901349112470_1957462034896792947_n.jpg
 
Why's that?

940985_980803331988938_4756523909834508839_n.jpg


Are they more worthy of our generosity than the poor?
 
Sponsored Links
Here's a vacancy for a driver at a leading supermarket -

offering LESS than the benefit cap - is that illegal; if not, why not?

upload_2017-6-28_18-5-23.png
 
I don't understand that. Are you assuming that all benefits claimants receive the maximum?

Or do you happen to know that the person who gets the job will have a disability, five children, just had a baby, been bereaved etc?

They would be capped at "£257.69 per week (£13,400 a year) if you’re single and you don’t have children, or your children don’t live with you"
https://www.gov.uk/benefit-cap/benefit-cap-amounts
 
No. Opened in 1936 as a Secondary Modern and is now a High School.

The Americans have High schools, but we don't A secondary modern is for children in the 11-18 range, as would be a comprehensive, an Academy (both primary and secondary age children), and a Grammer. So we'll accept that it's not a Grammer school, but you've been watching too many American films, or like most dads, we open our wallets when told to, and listen to the kids with half an ear.
 
I don't understand that. Are you assuming that all benefits claimants receive the maximum?
I don't understand that. Are you assuming that all employees doing the same job do not get the same wage?

Or do you happen to know that the person who gets the job will have a disability, five children, just had a baby, been bereaved etc?
I don't understand that. Does it make a difference?
Are you assuming that the supermarket pays more if they have five children?

Why do they have five children?
 
We have been told it is £384 pw (20,000/52) - used to be £500 and, presumably if the court ruling stands, it will be again;

£8.16 x 39 = £318.24.
 
He lost his kit. I went to the shop (with him) and bought replacements.

I don't ever open my wallet unless I know exactly what the money is for.

I don't understand what you are saying.

As for "Watching too many American films"... these schools are called high schools.

Why don't you believe that?

Our two nearest High Schools are:

upload_2017-6-28_19-9-51.png


upload_2017-6-28_19-35-14.png
 
Not necessarily. The benefits, and the cap, depend on your circumstances.
No it doesn't. The cap is the cap - the maximum that can be paid.

That your circumstances entitle you to less than the cap does not alter the cap.

£318.24 is less than £384 (£500 if overturned).
 
Some people are capped at £384, some people at £257.69.
In London both the figures are different.

"The cap is the cap" you say, but the cap varies.

If you were here, you would not get £384

If the cap is overturned, nobody knows what you would get.

For example, depending on your age, you might or might not be eligible for Pension Credit or Housing Benefit, and if you were disabled you might or might not get the full allowance.

Let's hope you never fall on hard times.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top