Firstly, I pay for her. Yes I do recive benifits but I also do home partys for company to earn a bit of extra income.
My first job out of school was working for Income Support, and then later the Child Support Agency in England.
If you are working on the side, then you are supposed to declare that income, and your Income Support/Family Support/Credit would be reduced accordingly.
The system is not designed to enable people to afford the luxury of a horse. I'd imagine that if the fraud dept at your local benefits office was aware of your circumstances, they would be eliminating the subsides that the tax paying people are providing for you.
Im saying if I didnt think I could afford a horse in the first place then I wouldnt of got one or even thought about it but I done the working out financially and I could do it, with or with out the help of my partner at the time, Hence why I went ahead and got the horse..
No not jelous of my sister at all, but at the same time she's 18 (classed as a adult) so surely she should pay some of her way at least. We are both my mums daughters yet its one rule for one and not the other that's all Im saying. Not jelous of her at all, Just stating a fact cause If it was someone elses yard they wouldnt be like ''oh your 18 you don't have to pay a penny to have a horse here ect, but cause your 27 you do'' Its kinda like were both keeping our horses there surly there should be the same rule to apply to us both? If you get what I mean :/
Maybe Im not coming across clear enough...
So basically, you can afford the horse because of tax payer provided subsidies, however you are unwilling to pay your mother for the cost of the care for the horse because you are miffed that your sister doesn't pay anything.
Please explain how that makes any bit of sense.
Not only is it morally corrupt to purchase a horse while on benefits, why are you reliant on your mother at 27 years old?