[Cherie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Oh wow me too because only then will it stop people spouting off about how unfair it is. I don't find what Katie Price does for her son shocking, but I find some of the posts here heartless.

Disability awareness is sadly lacking, some people do not understand the local facilities may not suit the individual need and disabled children have to travel in some cases for hours to access schools that can care for their particular disability, if this was happening to able bodied children there would be a national outcry.

[poppsywoppsy]

From what I know of the situation, due to cuts in her area, the facilities for Harvey's condition have been closed, so the best one for him is quite a long way away.

If I was in Katie's position, With her money she could use her own car, hire a driver and Harvey's carer from home could travel with him, costing far less than her 1k a day costs.

If I was her, I would be proud I could provide this for my son, that I had the money for it and could use it for his sake. Is sending him on this long journey really worth all the time spent traveling?

I read somewhere that Dwight Yorke paid for his schooling at one time, but do not know if this is the current situation.

I wouldn't use government money when I could well afford to fund it myself, whether I/he was eligible or not. There are so many other deserving cases who do not have Katie's resources and could do with the help and funding as used by her.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Mike Literous

So. All people who are multi millionaires should still get child benefits? Not what the average voter thinks.

on the other hand should people who pop out children to feckless fathers every five minutes who then disappear into the sunset and never do a days work get it?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

From what I know of the situation, due to cuts in her area, the facilities for Harvey's condition have been closed, so the best one for him is quite a long way away.

If I was in Katie's position, With her money she could use her own car, hire a driver and Harvey's carer from home could travel with him, costing far less than her 1k a day costs.

If I was her, I would be proud I could provide this for my son, that I had the money for it and could use it for his sake. Is sending him on this long journey really worth all the time spent traveling?

I read somewhere that Dwight Yorke paid for his schooling at one time, but do not know if this is the current situation.

I wouldn't use government money when I could well afford to fund it myself, whether I/he was eligible or not. There are so many other deserving cases who do not have Katie's resources and could do with the help and funding as used by her.

The 1,000 fee was given as an example it is not what it costs to take her son to and from school, I am not even sure 1,000 was mentioned it wasn't on the show, maybe on one of the upload clips that I haven't seen.

[Mike Literous]

Originally Posted by Cherie

on the other hand should people who pop out children to feckless fathers every five minutes who then disappear into the sunset and never do a days work get it?

[Caballo]

Originally Posted by Mike Literous

So. All people who are multi millionaires should still get child benefits? Not what the average voter thinks.

They don't, if someone in the household earns Ł50k you don't get it.

[poppsywoppsy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

The 1,000 fee was given as an example it is not what it costs to take her son to and from school, I am not even sure 1,000 was mentioned it wasn't on the show, maybe on one of the upload clips that I haven't seen.

Yes Katie did make the quote of 1k or I wouldn't have known, it is also reported in the newspapers today.

[Mike Literous]

Originally Posted by Caballo

They don't, if someone in the household earns Ł50k you don't get it.

Not brought in yet.

[Caballo]

Originally Posted by Mike Literous

Not brought in yet.

It is, you pay an extra tax levy on your income if you don't decline child benefit.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Do you know this with absolute certainty? closer facilities doesn't mean suitable facilities. If this was your child and you knew your child would get a more focussed education whilst fully understanding the specific disability; within in a very specialized facility, wouldn't you fight every avenue to make sure your child got that assistance?

Nothing against a mother wanting the best for her kid, but whilst she is rich and the others in her borough are poor, she gets preferential treatment because of who she is and the poor have to make do with what the government offer, but the poor pay taxes as well. So where is the fairness in that.

Do you know that these poor children aren't being given the same offers as Katie Price's son? I do and I absolutely know they are. There really is no favouritism going on here. To get preferential treatment from the government you would have to be a sponsor of that government. I can assure you, Katie Price is offered the same as her poorer neighbours. There is no such thing as top schools for children with disabilities, only schools better geared for specific conditions.


They conveniently overlooked that little fact and I personally believe that if she chooses not to accept whats on offer to her and the rest of the poor people, then she should pay if she goes for the upgraded version. I doubt anyone else in her manor with disabled children are being offered that funding, ortherwise all the schools in her area would close.

I've already said but I will reiterate for clarity...when it comes to educational facilities for disabled children, there are no "upgraded" facilities. What they do have are specialized facilities geared for individual disabilities and this is variable depending on where you live. My sister is blind and had to attend a school for the blind but because her condition is caused from a brain tumour which carries various rare conditions, an ordinary blind school weren't able to facilitate her. This meant a lot of travel back and forth to an establishment that was geared for her condition. This was never means tested and was fully funded by the government.

Great post.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

Yes Katie did make the quote of 1k or I wouldn't have known, it is also reported in the newspapers today.

Katie actually said, for her to go to London and back with a private drives cost her a grand..then went on to say it would cost a fortune for her to pay for a private driver and a private nurse for her son.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Cherie

will this investigation include child benefit and winter fuel payments as well, because neither of those are means tested either.

I'm not meaning it to be in any way harsh. My sympathy will always be for the person in need. When allegations are put out there, particularly when its in reference to a high profile incident, it needs to get a proper investigation to make sure further allegations can't be raised again in the future

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I'm not meaning it to be in any way harsh. My sympathy will always be for the person in need. When allegations are put out there, particularly when its in reference to a high profile incident, it needs to get a proper investigation to make sure further allegations can't be raised again in the future

Oh I see sorry I misunderstood your point.

[Caballo]

I wouldn't be that convinced she's 'paying her way' tax wise either, doubtless it will be all above board but she's more than likely a ltd company paying herself minimum wage and and taking an annual dividend therefore only paying 20% tax. Granted as a sum of money given her wealth she'll be paying more than us but I'd be amazed but a little elated if she was PAYE.
It all depends on your social compass I suppose but I'd be funding it myself in her position.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by sampvt

She has a big pink blob of a range rover she is always seen in. In fact on the tv in that police program she was clocked without insurance and mot ON A SCHOOL RUN

Link please or it never happened.

[abhorson]

Originally Posted by Caballo

I wouldn't be that convinced she's 'paying her way' tax wise either, doubtless it will be all above board but she's more than likely a ltd company paying herself minimum wage and and taking an annual dividend therefore only paying 20% tax. Granted as a sum of money given her wealth she'll be paying more than us but I'd be amazed but a little elated if she was PAYE.
It all depends on your social compass I suppose but I'd be funding it myself in her position.

Same here if i was worth Ł40 mil net. She gave some feeble excuses too.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

Yes Katie did make the quote of 1k or I wouldn't have known, it is also reported in the newspapers today.

But she didn't say that's what it would cost to send my son to school. She said, that's what it cost for her to get a driver up to London and back. She used it as an example of how expensive a private driver is.

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Katie Price pays a hell of a lot in taxes as shes said due to the nature of her jobs and amount of income she has.

That's what taxes are there for to pay for these expenses. In her paying her taxes she IS paying for Harveys day to day care and has not sponged off the government.

Katie H is making her out to be a mum with 5 kids on the dole sponging off the government which is not the case.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Jules2

I am retired on pension but because my husband has an extra pension we could not get free school dinners for our two grandchildren whom we took to live with us due to family split up. We cannot get extra help for the eldest one who is now in college so we have to pay for tools and trips. We cannot get help for the younger ones with school trips etc. etc. We paid our taxes all our working lives and still pay a certain amount on the pension. We are therefore means tested and not the "children".

Katie P is rich, she has wasted a lot of money on so called weddings etc. etc. Katie H was right to have the opinion she has that is her opinion and she owns it, each to their own. I agree with Katie H.

Me too,and well done Jules

[sampvt]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Link please or it never happened.

Baiting threads like this show you for what you are stop them. The show was seen by thousands so don't try and be clever. Google it and you will find it,

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by daniel-lewis-1985

Katie Price pays a hell of a lot in taxes as shes said due to the nature of her jobs and amount of income she has.

That's what taxes are there for to pay for these expenses. In her paying her taxes she IS paying for Harveys day to day care and has not sponged off the government.

Katie H is making her out to be a mum with 5 kids on the dole sponging off the government which is not the case.

But she wasn't was she? imo KH had a valid point

[Caballo]

Originally Posted by daniel-lewis-1985

Katie H is making her out to be a mum with 5 kids on the dole sponging off the government which is not the case.

I disagree, she questioned whether is was morally acceptable for someone with KPs wealth to be taking from the welfare state.

[sampvt]

for everyone else except demolition

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/...p2Ga3foXRXFUqW

[Vicky.]

She is entitled to it, no question about it

But it leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth tbh that people with millions are doing stuff like this.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Caballo

I disagree, she questioned whether is was morally acceptable for someone with KPs wealth to be taking from the welfare state.

Its a no win situation though, is it morally right for someone to sit on their arse when capable of working sponging off the government and pleading poverty whilst drinking, smoking and watching Jeremy Kyle on a 50 inch tv. Is it morally right for KP to let the taxpayer pick up the tab (which she is perfectly entitled to do) whilst paying into the coffers. Honestly you cannot win with some people, they will whinge at both ends of the scale It is her business and she is doing nothing wrong unlike the MP expenses scandal or the layabout taking money with no intention of ever paying anything in.