Katie price and taxpayer funded travel costs

[ricgem2002]

Katie Price should receive an award as a tax raiser! Her Tax bill over the years must be enormous.Millions pay no tax at all and others very little at the side of her.

She just happens to be in the enviable position that lots of daft barstewards who love big breasts have put her in.

She pays presumably nearly 50% of her earnings in tax which is good for the country,and will still be left with a fortune..................all down to false boobs! no wonder it is such a "growth" industry!

 

we don't know what her tax bill would be (she could be paying less tax than a checkout operator)

[JFKvsNixon]

Most benefits are means tested and this to me appears to be just another benefit which should be means tested. It is an excessive amount of money to spend on one person especially when some families are struggling to survive and relying on food banks.

 

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?

[cressida]

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

[Cyclone]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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