Whether or not she was a plant we will probably never know. However, I’ve been doing a bit more research and one thing is for sure, all is not quite as this lady, an alleged victim of vicious Tory cuts aimed at the poor, would have us believe.
Apparently, she receives £240 a week in tax credits. I’ve no proof of this. It’s only something I’ve read. But it is a figure not unadjacent to my £13k pa estimate I mentioned in my earlier post. She also receives 61.80 child allowance (this is undisputable). On top of this she received an unspecified amount in child maintenance from her ex-partner. On top of this she received Housing Benefit and a reduction in her council tax due to her impecuniosity.
So, not to bad an income. However, here’s the rub. The tears that flowed on QT and her shouts of “shame on you” directed at Amber Rudd, this week’s Tory stooge, were because of the proposed reduction in Tax Credits. The main change is that the support given to low earners currently begins to be reduced when earnings reach £6,420. The new proposals will see the reduction begin when earnings reach £3,850. There are also proposals to restrict child tax credits to two children, but this will only apply to new applicants. However, the lady in question has no recorded income from her business. The tax man may be interested to learn how somebody painting other women’s nails in her front room, presumably for cash, can earn no money at all from doing so. The local authority may care to investigate whether her premises allow for business use. Others may be interested to learn why she bothers at all since she earns no money. But the point is that since she has no earnings the tax credit changes about which she bleated so openly will not affect her one jot!
Her tirade went roughly thus:
“I Work bloody hard for my money to provide for my children, to give them everything they’ve got and you’re going to take it away from me and them. I can hardly afford the rent I have to pay. I can hardly afford the bills I’ve got and you’re going to take more from me. Shame on you!” (cue rapturous applause and whooping).
As I understand it the work she does provides no money at all (so we’re told). All her income derives from benefits or from the father of her children. And the latest “cuts” take nothing away from her at all.
She also bleated that many of her customers would stop having their nails done as they too would fall victim to these so-called cuts. Well I'm quite pleased about that. I don't think that State Benefits should stretch to paying someone else to paint your nails.
Whether or not she was a plant is unimportant to me. What's important is that she seems to have fooled quite a few people into believing she is a victim. And she's not.