couple want benefits after spending £100,000 - Page 2

Neil · 08-04-2008, 16:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

My house is mine, and paid for. If I was renting I presume I'd get housing benefit, though not if I'd squandered a windfall on a chain of houses.

So should you be forced to sell it?

lindsay ormerod · 08-04-2008, 16:33

They should get diddly squat, it's taking the michael . How can they have not noticed that they were down to their last few thousand.....

Neil · 08-04-2008, 16:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindsay ormerod

They should get diddly squat, it's taking the michael . How can they have not noticed that they were down to their last few thousand.....

Would you feel the same if it was their redundancy payment?

Mr Aleks · 08-04-2008, 16:38

While it may be seen as cheeky it as to be said they won the money fair and square.

garinda · 08-04-2008, 16:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

So should you be forced to sell it?

As the law of the land stands now, I currently don't have to sell it, because I could then blow all the money on whatever I wanted, and the state would be obliged to then house me, and cost the state more money.

I don't play the Lottery, so that is not relevant, but if I were to ever inherit any money I wouldn't expect to recieve what I do now.

I sincerely hope you are lucky enough to remain in good health until your dieing day, and are never troubled with any of these dilemmas.

garinda · 08-04-2008, 16:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

Would you feel the same if it was their redundancy payment?

Yes I would. Benefits are, and should be means tested. Someone with a stash of cash in the bank, from wherever, shouldn't also expect to recieve the same benefits as someone without a penny.

Here's a first.

Me with the conservative approach, and you spouting Marxist garbage.

Neil · 08-04-2008, 16:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

I sincerely hope you are lucky enough to remain in good health until your dieing day, and are never troubled with any of these dilemmas.

So do I and I was not having a dig. It is just that some people have been a little contradictory on this thread.

garinda · 08-04-2008, 16:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

It is just that some people have been a little contradictory on this thread.

Who........?

Not like you to be so unforthcoming.

Neil · 08-04-2008, 16:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Who........?

Not like you to be so unforthcoming.

Please don't ask me to read all those posts again by people upset 'cus they did not win £100,000

garinda · 08-04-2008, 17:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

Please don't ask me to read all those posts again by people upset 'cus they did not win £100,000

Good luck to them, that's what I say, though I still don't think they should be entitled to benefits that are means tested, when they have assets bought with money from their win, and money so far still not accounted for.

Would you be in favour of someone who was on the Dole, or whatever it's called now, still receiving their money if they had a couple of million in the bank, after a Lottery win? I wouldn't.

Neil · 08-04-2008, 17:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Would you be in favour of someone who was on the Dole, or whatever it's called now, still receiving their money if they had a couple of million in the bank, after a Lottery win? I wouldn't.

No, but if they did something stupid and spent it all I would.

flashy · 08-04-2008, 17:15

whats not been said yet is that....if i won that much money i would like to BUY myself a house or something to live in, that would be an investment, yes i know £100,000 wouldnt get me much of a house (well i could buy my house for a lot less than that) then they would have no need for housing benefit, then i would get a job after i'd bought the house so no benefits needed

garinda · 08-04-2008, 17:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

No, but if they did something stupid and spent it all I would.

If most benefits weren't means tested, which they currently are, except in Scotland, where you can still receive residential care without having to sell your house and use your savings, unlike in England and Wales, the country would be facing an even bigger burden, with the tax payer giving money to those who've decided to blow any windfall that they had.

Would I begrudge paying this man any money from the public purse, whilst he still had disposable assets? Yes I would.

Michael Carroll (lottery winner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

derekgas · 08-04-2008, 17:35

If these people have been stupid enough to spend the winnings, without investment, then as long as there are no assets from the proceeds, there is no choice but to allow them benefits, so a lot of the arguments posted are irrelevent, I think they should be allowed thier benefits, they will at least have the privelage of kicking themselves eternally, and forever have fingers pointing at them, they will of course, with hindsight, realise that they should have invested and spent the interest, it is also fair comment that the money they have spent will have been taxed unmercilessly, so they have made, albeit a token, contribution to the coffers.

Neil · 08-04-2008, 17:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by flashytart

then i would get a job after i'd bought the house so no benefits needed

I apologise for being simple but why do you need to buy a house before you can get a job?