live off £37,000-a-year benefits !

Raumarik · 29 Dec 2009 at 15:09

'People could call us scroungers but what would they do in the same situation?'

Stop having kids?

muon · 29 Dec 2009 at 15:09

HybridX said:
She needs scraping with an ice cream scoop to stop her or a good kick in the ovaries, 16kids and that range fo benefits is disgusting.

Why should I pay for them to Shag

Because you also pay for most other poor families who don't do this.

markweatherill · 29 Dec 2009 at 15:10

Oops! Given up looking for work because it's easier on the dole? Next time he goes to sign on for his Jobseeker's Allowance they should have a framed copy of the article to show him.

Raumarik · 29 Dec 2009 at 15:10

ghost101 said:
I'm appealing to a status quo which has come about due to decades of analysis. Analysis which I agree mostly with, and evidently so do most governments.

Most governments don't agree with it there's simply nothing they can do that wouldn't put them out of power at the next election or cause an uproar due to the number of spongers there are in society.

Dolph · 29 Dec 2009 at 15:11

Kami said:
Most governments don't agree with it there's simply nothing they can do that wouldn't put them out of power at the next election or cause an uproar due to the number of spongers there are in society.

Quite, it is truely terrifying that much of our lawmaking structure is based on the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, and yet people wonder why the majority want to take money from everyone but them and give it to themselves...

muon · 29 Dec 2009 at 15:12

Kami said:
Most governments don't agree with it there's simply nothing they can do that wouldn't put them out of power at the next election or cause an uproar due to the number of spongers there are in society.

I think you'll find, it's the middle class with the greatest influence in votes.

If there's a choice between upsetting people claiming benefits and the middle class, the choice is easy.

Martini1991 · 29 Dec 2009 at 15:12

He's obviously jacking off into her to get her up the duff, granted she's like a sleve, ain't going to be much friction.

Zenduri · 29 Dec 2009 at 15:12

ghost101 said:
Because you also pay for most other poor families who don't do this.

I have no issue paying for other families who really do genuinely need the support but i DO have an issue with paying for a family where the womans got bungeecord knickers and the guy need his manhood chopping off to stop them humping their way closer to 50k per year

Zenduri · 29 Dec 2009 at 15:14

Martini1991 said:
He's obviously jacking off into her to get her up the duff, granted she's like a sleve, ain't going to be much friction.

I here hes getting her to lay down and rent her out as a marquee for weddings... enough room in there

muon · 29 Dec 2009 at 15:15

HybridX said:
I have no issue paying for other families who really do genuinely need the support but i DO have an issue with paying for a family where the womans got bungeecord knickers and the guy need his **** chopping off

But there's no way to differentiate without making rules which are very dubious. Given that this family is nothing compared to overall benefit costs, this absolutely tiny piece of inefficiency doesn't really matter. If more people started doing it, then it would. But people don't and I can point you to studies showing this.

The greater problem with benefits is the effect there is on labour supply (affecting everyone). A £100 effect on every employed person is much more worrisome.

Martini1991 · 29 Dec 2009 at 15:16

Reckon he's ever worn her as a hat?

Dolph · 29 Dec 2009 at 15:16

ghost101 said:
I think you'll find, it's the middle class with the greatest influence in votes.

If there's a choice between upsetting people claiming benefits and the middle class, the choice is easy.

The true middle classes don't number that many. The number of wannabe middle class people who still act as net recipients of state benefits however...

The days where working in an office made you middle class are long gone.

muon · 29 Dec 2009 at 15:18

Dolph said:
The true middle classes don't number that many. The number of wannabe middle class people who still act as net recipients of state benefits however...

The days where working in an office made you middle class are long gone.

You have to look at net taxation and not benefits on their own. The middle class would be better off with no redistribution.

Every family with children receives child benefit, does that mean a middle class doesn't exist?

Dolph · 29 Dec 2009 at 15:24

ghost101 said:
You have to look at net taxation and not benefits on their own. The middle class would be better off with no redistribution.

Every family with children receives child benefit, does that mean a middle class doesn't exist?

No, that's why I used net recipients rather than recipients of benefits. Net recipients are those who receive more back in benefit than they pay in direct taxation. (I'll ignore indirect taxation for now because it gets much more complicated trying to work out what is inefficient recycling and what is actual spending).

The line between what people see as working and middle classes has been blurring for years (not a bad thing IMO) but so have the voting demographics in most areas of the country. The traditional middle classes don't hold the power in the elections these days, the expanded ones do, and hence relying on them to control and curtail unnecessary wealth distribution is going to fail.

Hatter The Mad · 29 Dec 2009 at 16:00

ghost101 said:
The idiot fails to realise that if he earns just £10k a year, most of the benefits will still exist. Child benefit will be exactly the same. Children's tax credits will be scaled back a tiny bit. Would have have to pay part of the council tax. He would lose JSA but gain working tax credits.

He wouldn't end up getting less. He's just stupid.

No. For every £1 he earns (even before £10k), he will lose about (effective) 90p in benefits (mostly housing contributions)

Dolph · 29 Dec 2009 at 16:03

Hatter The Mad said:
No. For every £1 he earns (even before £10k), he will lose about (effective) 90p in benefits (mostly housing contributions)

This is the single biggest problem with our benefit system at the moment... It traps people in dependency on the state, with little realistic prospect of escape. The social consequences of this have been known for decades, and yet we persist with it.

muon · 29 Dec 2009 at 16:05

Hatter The Mad said:
No. For every £1 he earns (even before £10k), he will lose about (effective) 90p in benefits (mostly housing contributions)

The housing contributions is the main factor as you have said at 50p on the pound earned. Everything else is staggered well.

All that means is we should stagger housing contributions properly. The problem with this is how you stagger this considering that rents are different depending on where you live.

Dolph · 29 Dec 2009 at 16:06

ghost101 said:
The housing contributions is the main factor as you have said at 50p on the pound earned. Everything else is staggered well.

All that means is we should stagger housing contributions properly.

Or introduce a fair support system that treats everyone equally by giving them the same equivilent benefits thereby not rewarding anyone for their failures?

britboy4321 · 29 Dec 2009 at 16:06

Dolph said:
This is the single biggest problem with our benefit system at the moment... It traps people in dependency on the state, with little realistic prospect of escape. The social consequences of this have been known for decades, and yet we persist with it.

What system would you have?

Dolph · 29 Dec 2009 at 16:09

britboy4321 said:
What system would you have?

Negative income tax.

Everyone gets the same basic support (or equivalent) from the government, there is an element of wealth redistribution, and employment always pays so the benefit trap is gone.

Combine that with a reduction in government spending and correctly managed and ringfenced indirect taxation and we have a much fairer, cheaper to administer and more efficient taxation system that is totally transparent.