Bingo winner refused state benefits!

KayJay said:
There's no question in the first post.
Click to expand...

You asked for a question :thinking: Read the post, The point or question is .....
she's skint and tries to claim benefits but is refused on the grounds she could have managed the money better Jobsworths strike again ....
Click to expand...

In simple terms... The question is "Do you agree with the principle that some 'jobsworth' can make the rules up as they want? ...... Put it another way, You have been working for twenty years and get made redundant! then some jobsworth decides you should have been saving instead of buying your photo gear ..... No benefits for you :thinking:
 
Firstly the so called jobsworth is not making up the rules as they go along.

Secondly, they may well decide if you blow your redundancy money on camera equipment then maybe you should lose benefit. If on the other hand like most of us have done we have built up the gear over several years, then no problems.

Again the other side of this is a friend of ours who has a largish shortfall on an endowment mortgage, has been saving very hard to help pay it off in 3 years time. Has just been made redundant and he has been told no benefits as he has to much savings.
 
I am with Splog on this one.

From what I have read she borrowed the money to play bingo from her friend, so she didn't use her benefit money to play bingo.

Her share of the winnings was actually £25k

She then lived on the £25k for two years, That's £12.5k per year, she only spent some of the money on luxuries

Now as a single Mum of 3 kids she would have normally been entitled to benefits of around £15K per year, maybe more.

Just based on that minimum of £15k of benefits per year x 2 = £30k over two years

So she has survived for two years on less money than she would have got on state benefits anyway

The DWP must make there decisions on points of law and not on based on the opinion of someone in a office who decided she had squandered her money and should have made it last longer.

I think the DWP are on a very sticky wicket with this one and I think if this woman appeals there decision she stands a very good chance of wining
 
Last edited:
Things have certainly changed over the years, when I left school I worked for the DHSS and it was common for the guys who worked on the rigs to claim benefits (including mortgage interest) when their contracts ended and they were back onshore.

Even though they were earning huge amounts of money, the rules at the time meant that all they had to do was say that they spent all they had received and they were given full benefits until they went back to the rigs....
 
Even if she had kept all of the 50K, that is more or less my income for two years so I don't see why she shouldn't get benefit now it is gone (I assume she wasn't getting benefit for the last two years) as I would get benefit straight away if I was made redundant. It's not much different really. How long was she supposed to make it last? Five years? Ten years? The rest of her life?

The point about having to work for a living is fine in times of full employment but when there are not enough jobs to go round and we are in recession, it's irrelevant.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
The point about having to work for a living is fine in times of full employment but when there are not enough jobs to go round and we are in recession, it's irrelevant.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, which is why you save your money to see you through it.
 
Splog said:
You asked for a question :thinking: Read the post, The point or question is .....

In simple terms... The question is "Do you agree with the principle that some 'jobsworth' can make the rules up as they want? ...... Put it another way, You have been working for twenty years and get made redundant! then some jobsworth decides you should have been saving instead of buying your photo gear ..... No benefits for you :thinking:
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. Otherwise you'd get all sorts claiming benefits. It'd be absurd to just hand out money without some sort of approval and screening process.

Me spending money on camera gear with money I EARNED by working a JOB is completely different to spending money I won on camera gear while knowing I have no source of regular income and knowing that my benefits will be cut. Stupid analogy, surely you can see that?
 
wow, there are more people up their own behinds on here than i thought regarding some comments about people on benefits.

personally i agree with splog. my mum was on benefit for a while after divorsing from my dad due to no income does that make her "lower class" or a "sponger"?

too much judging by covers going on in here.
 
I always believed that the benefit system was there for unlucky people to help get them back on their feet.


NOT as a way to finance the rest of your life.
 
neil_g said:
my mum was on benefit for a while after divorsing from my dad due to no income does that make her "lower class" or a "sponger"?
Click to expand...

It certainly does not. People make all sorts of comments about the unemployed but the vast majority actually want to work. The 'idle scroungers' or whatever some people want to call them make up a very small percentage who in my opinion, shouldn't be working anyway - I certainly wouldn't want to employ them.


Steve.
 
jolsterj said:
I always believed that the benefit system was there for unlucky people to help get them back on their feet.


NOT as a way to finance the rest of your life.
Click to expand...

agreed. unfortunately too many people abuse the system (unlike the person mentioned by the OP in my opinion) and give the people who genuinely need it a) a bad name b) hassle getting the cash due to stupid rules.
 
neil_g said:
wow, there are more people up their own behinds on here than i thought regarding some comments about people on benefits.

personally i agree with splog. my mum was on benefit for a while after divorsing from my dad due to no income does that make her "lower class" or a "sponger"?

too much judging by covers going on in here.
Click to expand...

No, not at all. I was on benefits while looking for work. That's what the system is there for, to help you when you're looking for work.
 
neil_g said:
wow, there are more people up their own behinds on here than i thought regarding some comments about people on benefits.

personally i agree with splog. my mum was on benefit for a while after divorsing from my dad due to no income does that make her "lower class" or a "sponger"?

too much judging by covers going on in here.
Click to expand...

Being on benefits does not many anyone 'lower class' or spongers. It is not people such as your mum who are genuinely in need of benefits that I have issue with. That is what benefits should be there for.

It is the part of society who have never worked a day in their lives and never intend to. The folk who do this and have mulptiple kids (Which increases the moeny they get - no more benefits after the 2nd I say!) who will in many cases grow up to be exactly the same. Does the fact that make me angry also make me up my own behind? No, I don't think it does.

And I don't think anyone has implied that everyone on benefits are 'lower class' spongers. Just that there are a lot of spongers who abuse the state benefit system.
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
my mum was on benefit for a while after divorsing from my dad due to no income does that make her "lower class" or a "sponger"?
Click to expand...

Of course not that's what benefits are meant for, to support peoplewhen they need it. Definition of benefits: "financial assistance in time of need"
However, it's not a hard and fast rule, but typically being on benefits is one of the key sections of lower class:
Lower class (ca. 14% - 20%) Those who occupy poorly-paid positions or rely on government transfers. Some high school education.
Underclass (12%) Those with limited or no participation in the labor force. Reliant on government transfers. Some high school education.

From this wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top