Katie price and taxpayer funded travel costs

[cressida 1,564]

A 100 mile round trip, that must be awful for Harvey - I agree with bassy and Oh Carol

[Cyclone 10]

Maybe it'll cost the country more to means test this benefit than it would just to pay the benefit to all those that qualify for it?

 

That's the case with most low numbers benefits (or at least the claim).

 

You have to wonder why though, given that it's presumably all administered on computer systems and her tax returns (and thus income) are also administered on computers...

 

The fact that it costs anything to make it means tested tells us something about the quality of the computer systems involved.

[Stranza 10]

I know it's Katie who claims it but Harvey's father the millionaire footballer Dwight York is also benefiting from this.

 

He could drive Harvey to school while Katie drops off her other kids maybe?

 

This is only a story because she is a glamour model.

 

(Can't believe I know so much about these people I avoid sleb stuff really honest!)

[anfisa 10]

Maybe it'll cost the country more to means test this benefit than it would just to pay the benefit to all those that qualify for it?

 

Knowing how inept the public sector are, you could be right.

 

But personalty I can not see why it would cost a lot to ask people about their savings and income before giving them a benefit, which I believe is done for most benefits.

[Mecky 10]

Oh look the usual trolls are out with their antisocoiety comments. Everyone for themselves - yeah right, until they need to rely on someone else or the state

[Powerage 10]

i have no problem with it she pays her taxes and it's for her disabled son, not her. the people I have a problem with are the ones that never pay any taxes yet claim every benefit they can.

[debs-b 10]

Didn't stop David Cameron claiming DLA for his son, despite his millions. I wasn't questioning whether he should or shouldn't get it. I would think any parent would rather not have to claim and not have a disabled child. I totally agree if you have a disabled child you should claim whatever your financial status is as the money is for the child. I wasn't questioning a claimant with a born disability being given what they are entitled to. I think there should be more support. I was trying to state that there are people other than just Katie claiming for their child who have a similar income level. She just seems to be getting vilified for being a loving mum doing the best for her son. I can see both sides of the argument and understand people will question this just because of their level of income. It's a slippery slope if you means test DLA. I should've been a bit clearer throwing that comment into the loop. As for Cameron earning his money and paying taxes that's probably another story.

Edited February 2, 2015 by debs-b

[ECCOnoob 1,040]

Didn't stop David Cameron claiming DLA for his son, despite his millions.

 

So he should to. The benefit is for his DISABLED SON not Cameron.

 

The same would apply to anyone else who works or dares to have some money in the bank and has a severely disabled child. They don't stop being disabled as they get older!

 

The same applies to serial breeders who work or dare to have some assets but they are still entitled to child benefit because its for THE CHILD.

 

There will be many things that Mr Cameron will provide for his son well above and beyond what he would receive in benefits. Just the same as every parent with a disabled dependant may do and their family members.

 

He has paid into the system through his working life. He has earned his money and paid his taxes. Probably a damn sight more than the serial "jobseekers" leaching money out of the system year after year without any intention of getting off their backsides.

 

How dare you question a claimant with a born disability being given what they are entitled to for life just because of the income level of their parents. That has sod all to do with anything. Disability benefit is NOT received by choice.

 

Just like the whole disgusting article this whole thread is based upon (with its completely misleading title). NO Katie price is not receiving taxpayer funded travel costs. Its for her DISABLED SON. He needs special care and special transport because he cant self travel. Its HIS benefit.

Edited January 29, 2015 by ECCOnoob

[anfisa 10]

 

He needs special care and special transport because he cant self travel. Its HIS benefit.

 

Lots of kids can not self travel to school, many need to travel by bus or taxi yet their travel costs are not met by the state unless the parent is in receipt of certain benefits.

[mint76 10]

I have every sympathy for any disable child.. but find it disgusting that people out of work are insulted at any opportunity called leaches etc.. ignorance , prejudice and generalisations and negative stereotypes are not helpful.

 

People out of work have to actively seek work ie job searching etc to get jsa so they have to be doing something and not nothing.. a lot of them have worked for years beforehand and have contributed etc.. it's always going to be the case that there are just not enough jobs for everyone therefore a safety net is required.

 

Yes there are some people who abuse the system but I believe the majority on jsa ppl are genuine.

 

There are some real odious creatures on this forum.. ignorance about anyone is bad and wrong.. whether it's someone who is disabled and sick like me or someone who is out of work.. that word empathy is often missing from some people.

[fredsredhat 10]

Lots of kids can not self travel to school, many need to travel by bus or taxi yet their travel costs are not met by the state unless the parent is in receipt of certain benefits.

 

As far as I understand it. Harvey goes to state school. He attends the one closest to his home which due to government cuts is not very close at all. Providing the child is attending the school the education authority have deemed fit then they will cover transport. However if parents decided to send the child to another school, without just cause, then the transport costs needs do not have to be covered unless as you state they claim certain benefits. Had she sent him to a private school or an alternative then she would have had to fund his travel herself.

 

Like her or not she might have the money in the bank but she also pays the taxes and to me in that respect has earned the right to take all the support she can for her son.

[ECCOnoob 1,040]

I have every sympathy for any disable child.. but find it disgusting that people out of work are insulted at any opportunity called leaches etc.. ignorance , prejudice and generalisations and negative stereotypes are not helpful.

 

People out of work have to actively seek work ie job searching etc to get jsa so they have to be doing something and not nothing.. a lot of them have worked for years beforehand and have contributed etc.. it's always going to be the case that there are just not enough jobs for everyone therefore a safety net is required.

 

Yes there are some people who abuse the system but I believe the majority on jsa ppl are genuine.

 

There are some real odious creatures on this forum.. ignorance about anyone is bad and wrong.. whether it's someone who is disabled and sick like me or someone who is out of work.. that word empathy is often missing from some people.

 

Calm down. I said the words "...serial "jobseekers" leaching money out of the system year after year without any intention of getting off their backsides..."

 

I never said ALL jobseekers.

 

The "stereotyping" is about the same level as the criticism, abuse and general ignorance which what gets splashed around about anyone who dares to earn above anything more than minimum wage, those who are fortunate enough to have more than average income, those who have more than an average sized house.

 

They are all accused of being tax avoiding, out of touch, spoilt uncaring scummy bankers. Fair? NO, but clearly doesn't stop people pointing fingers.

 

It works both ways.