live off £37,000-a-year benefits !
- Thread starter bulldog147
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 1,231
- Location
- UK
it blows my mind why on earth anyone would want to have over four children, let alone 16 of them.
some people are obsessed with having children. one of my friends always tries for a a child within the first 5 months of a rship
some people are obsessed with having children. one of my friends always tries for a a child within the first 5 months of a rship
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 10,477
- Location
- Bath, England
sausage down a hallway, anyone?
You joking? 4 people could live on 37k a year I reckon.
[TW]Fox;15612243 said:
It is when it's tax free (making it more like the equivilent of a £50k salary) and the other myriad of exemptions that those on benefits get.
A classic example of the benefits trap in action, benefits should never, ever be preferable to working.
They have included everything (even school dinners to the sum of >£1900) in the final amount. So I imagine there aren't a myriad of other benefits.
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 1,176
- Location
- by the sea
That's (roughly) what we take home after tax between 2 of us (& dog & cat) I can't imagine stretching it between 14 kids too!
Yes I can be outraged at the amount of 'free money' they're getting - but what sort of a life is that?! I'd rather do 37.5hrs a week + overtime and have my lifestyle too, thanks!
And yes - if he can give his family a better life by not working - then why should he? Daily mail readers - just think of it as a 'parenting wage' and remove your panties from between your cheeks!
Yes I can be outraged at the amount of 'free money' they're getting - but what sort of a life is that?! I'd rather do 37.5hrs a week + overtime and have my lifestyle too, thanks!
And yes - if he can give his family a better life by not working - then why should he? Daily mail readers - just think of it as a 'parenting wage' and remove your panties from between your cheeks!
As much as I hate people who do this sort of thing, I've also got to say the benefit wage they receive must be a real struggle to live on for 16 people.
But, they shouldn't really have had that many children to begin with.
I'd like kids one day, but I would never even consider it until I felt I could fully support a good upbringing for them.
But, they shouldn't really have had that many children to begin with.
I'd like kids one day, but I would never even consider it until I felt I could fully support a good upbringing for them.
They didnt mention, prescriptions, eye care and dental care
How can they include everything? Many of them are not fixed amounts (eg free prescriptions).
It does not excuse the fact that the family is being given way above their earnings potential in employment for doing nothing apart from failing to use contraception.
It's quite simple as far as I am concerned, you shouldn't have kids if you aren't in the financial situation to be able to look after them without significant help. There are genuine homeless people who would benefit from this money, who would actually work given the chance. Not that I'm saying people shouldn't get child benefit - but totally living off of the state is ridiculous.
People like this will always exist, I'm sure your own NIT idea would have the same problem. However to be fair, that system would not discriminate against single people, those aged 18-24 or childless couples.
Mr and Mrs Cain did actually work prior to the baby boom in the household...
The difference with NIT is that it does not give a benefit trap because everyone gets the same, and there are no real ways of increasing your state income, but work pays from the first moment.
Of course, you can choose to not work and sit there on the bare minimum income, but you'll always be the worst off in society if you do, as even those doing 8 hours a week will be better off than you.
Now we just need to have a real economy and stop offshoring jobs...
Beats watching folk lose their jobs, become homeless and have to come and shelter in the church I volunteer at, while we struggle to get enough blankets for everyone...
The only thing that irritates me about the story is the fact they're given the opportunity to take these benefits, not the fact they're actually taking them. You're always going to get skanks who feel the world owes them something for nothing :/
Whether they should have had 15 kids is irrelevant. The fact is they have. So what is the Mail suggesting, that the state let them stave?
Also you think they decided to have 15 kids to lead the easy life? Looking after 15 kids IS a full-time job.
Also you think they decided to have 15 kids to lead the easy life? Looking after 15 kids IS a full-time job.
You can't have entitlement without creating an obligation.
Why should others be obligated to pay for their lifestyle choices?
Well it's not realistic now but say they were working and only had 5, money might start to stretch then they'd think "probably best we leave it here". They've been given the opportunity to have so many kids they couldn't possibly support without state handouts and they've snapped it up.