Katie Price - claiming benefits

[Justice]

She might not be everyone's cup of tea, but making over £40m with just a pair of tits is pretty impressive.

 

[skipper734]

Easy, Easy don't watch or read this crap. By watching you are encouraging to make more of these air time filling waste of, well everything. Programmes like this also make your blood pressure rise to dangerous levels.

 

[nwgull]

How many people claim child benefit who don't actually need it, out of interest?

Do you mean don't need as in, don't actually have kids (with or without special needs) - ie benefit fraud, or don't need as in, could afford to pay for it themselves?

 

[Dave the OAP]

I think that the real recipient of any government assistance here is her son Harvey, who through no fault of his own, was born 'disabled'. Don't get me wrong, I hate everything that KP epitomises, but in this instance she is doing no worse than many, many people in claiming what she/Harvey are legally entitled to. There are hundreds of thousands of families claiming child benefit who do not need it, you don't hear of too many of them handing it back?

(Possibly one of the most magnimous things I have ever written on here, must be going soft).

This with bells on.

So often people who have " disabled" children are left to get on with it and receive no assistance especially if you are seen to be a family that is able to " cope".

We have no idea what the special requirements are for Harvey and if he requires a taxi for him and his nurse then so be it. I would rather pay through my taxes transport for a youngster who has been born with a disability through no fault of his making than some of the handouts given out to people who play the system....and yes I have come across these people. I am sure we all have.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Not entirely relevant to the thread title (and I completely disagree with her getting any government funding) but I know 2 taxi drivers here who have a very good living out of working Mon to Fri only doing the morning and afternoon school runs only.

Indeed. A mate of mine used to make a fortune as a taxi driver when he used to take a child with behavioral challenges to a school in London from Portslade every week. He also made decent money from a contract with B&H council to take a 'Green Card' worker ( no idea if they're still called that ) to work at a well known supermarket. I always thought it somewhat odd that someone with learning difficulties was able to work in a supermarket but not able to catch the bus.

How many people claim child benefit who don't actually need it, out of interest?

It should be scrapped entirely and replaced with free school meals ( healthy hot ones ) and free school uniforms. Of course that might upset the middle earners who don't actually need the money.

She might not be everyone's cup of tea, but making over £40m with just a pair of tits is pretty impressive.

To be fair to her, she's made money from books as well. *** goes to wash his mouth out after suggesting we should be fair to KP !!! ***

 

[mikeyjh]

This with bells on.

So often people who have " disabled" children are left to get on with it and receive no assistance especially if you are seen to be a family that is able to " cope".

We have no idea what the special requirements are for Harvey and if he requires a taxi for him and his nurse then so be it. I would rather pay through my taxes transport for a youngster who has been born with a disability through no fault of his making than some of the handouts given out to people who play the system....and yes I have come across these people. I am sure we all have.

But isn't Price doing exactly that? Claiming something that she, as Harvey's mother, doesn't actually need? As we're so often told, the welfare state is a safety net for those in real need and while Harvey has difficult life, Price can easily afford to support her own child.

 

[Easy 10]

Perhaps I've got this wrong then, but I thought that state benefits were there as a safety net for people who genuinely need them, not as a mandatory right for anyone who applies for them.

We are talking about a woman who is a multi, multi-milliionaire, who no doubt has people already in her employ on her estate who could (presumably) run Harvey to school and back for her, with the necessary help on board. But no, instead she claims the cost back off us. I appreciate that yes, she is also a taxpayer. But does that still give a her the right to milk the system ? Why is this costly privilige not means tested ?

I'm struggling with this, as you may have gathered.

 

[mikeyjh]

It should be scrapped entirely and replaced with free school meals ( healthy hot ones ) and free school uniforms. Of course that might upset the middle earners who don't actually need the money.

Isn't that the truth, deary me, some of the whingeing I heard from very good earners when the caps were introduced was toe curling, to say the least.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

But isn't Price doing exactly that? Claiming something that she, as Harvey's mother, doesn't actually need? As we're so often told, the welfare state is a safety net for those in real need and while Harvey has difficult life, Price can easily afford to support her own child.

Maybe this is the socialist in me but isn't the real ideal of a welfare state that it serves EVERYONE and we all have the same level of care, education and living standards. Unless she is on one if those celebrity tax-dodging schemes, KP puts way more into the system than most, so why on earth should she not make fair and honest use of it?

 

[Biscuit Barrel]

Apparently her son Harvey needs a daily taxi to school, accompanied by a nurse. This, according to Price, is "paid for by the government" (ie you and me).

When challenged on this by Katie Hopkins, in that perhaps she could probably afford to pay for this herself privately, the response was "that would be f-king ridiculous, it would cost up to a grand a day!". Quite apart from the slightly dubious claim of it costing THAT much, this is coming from a multi-millionaire (estimated fortune of £40m), who will pick up the thick end of £150k just for loafing around in the CBB house over a couple of weeks.

How, in the name of Holy Guacamole FRIG, does she qualify to have state-funded transport for her child to school ? Seriously, I have not the words, and this has sent me to bed angry. Could she not sell her tacky pink Land Rover, or one or two of her horses to help with this heinous expense ? Well, apparently not.

I know its my own fault for putting CBB on tonight, and I'm not proud of it. But I was bored and faintly curious, and that plastic vacuous slut just made made jaw drop with this off-the-cuff revelation.

UN. Believable.

I agree with your principle that very wealthy people should not be entitled to government hand outs, but I do not agree with you when you say "paid for by the government" (ie you and me). If she has amassed a £40m fortune then she would have paid tens of millions in tax over the past 20 years. This is far higher than "you and me".

The money she has paid in tax would of helped pay for "yours and mine" hospitals, schools and a lot of other public services. I have always found it a bit ungrateful when these people who pay vast sums of money in tax and then get slatted when they dare take anything back out of the pot. I also find it equally strange that people who earn low wages and contribute very little in the way of tax and then take a lot out of the pot, are held up as "hard working" pillars of the community.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I doubt she knows what goes on. She'll have home help / accountants dealing with all that stuff. She probably gets a tax credit of some kind, and the accountant has told her the government is contributing.

 

[Southern Scouse]

Katie who?

 

[father_and_son]

I think that Katie Price is a ****. However, she has earned, and continues to earn, a shed load of cash for being a professional celebrity. I am assuming that, even with Harvey's transport paid for, she is a net contributor of a lot more tax than the average Joe. I expect Peter pays his fair share as well.

Absolutely this.

Although there appears on the face of it, some horrible inequities when a state funded "benefit" is provided universally, the alternative is the complex process of means-testing everything. If you go down that route then an army of people are required to sift through the paperwork and that is likely to cost considerably more than the benefit provided (and it sure as hell won't be a grand a day!).

Based on KP's considerable personal wealth, she is without a doubt a net contributor to the state benefit system and so, like her or not, she is entitled to draw a little of it back in the form of a benefit that is universally available - she will still be paying considerably more than you and I in direct and indirect taxes to the UK state!

 

[Ernest]

Exactly the same reasons why our MILLIONAIRE Prime Minister Cameron CLAIMED every single penny he could in disability BENEFITS for his son

 

[mikeyjh]

Maybe this is the socialist in me but isn't the real ideal of a welfare state that it serves EVERYONE and we all have the same level of care, education and living standards. Unless she is on one if those celebrity tax-dodging schemes, KP puts way more into the system than most, so why on earth should she not make fair and honest use of it?

The question of universal benefits is one I struggle with, as is the 'I put in so I should claim back' argument.. As we know, the poor of the country are on their knees right now, use of food banks is rocketing, those in the most need are being persecuted at every turn and Katie Price's son is being accompanied to school by a nurse in a private car - That's not the socialism I sign up for....

 

[Buzzer]

Exactly the same reasons why our MILLIONAIRE Prime Minister Cameron CLAIMED every single penny he could in disability BENEFITS for his son

Well, the poor lad who had severe problems is dead now so he's no drain on your taxes anymore, is he?

 

[Jovis]

How many people claim child benefit who don't actually need it, out of interest?

Well in theory, no one. Child benefit is means tested. Any household where someone earns more £50,000 is not entitled to the full payment, and if you don't voluntarily opt out then the government claw it back through the tax system. Although you could argue that a household with two people earning £49,000 each doesn't NEED child benefit, even though they are entitled to claim.

 

[Ernest]

Well, the poor lad who had severe problems is dead now so he's no drain on your taxes anymore, is he?

What's that got to do with it ? A lot of people have died thanks to this Government and benefit sanctions so they're not a drain on your taxes either now

 

[User removed 4]

Exactly the same reasons why our MILLIONAIRE Prime Minister Cameron CLAIMED every single penny he could in disability BENEFITS for his son

Very classy.

 

[Buzzer]

What's that got to do with it ? A lot of people have died thanks to this Government and benefit sanctions so they're not a drain on your taxes either now

Ah that's alright then. Quid pro quo. That'll teach Dave.

Stay classy, eh.