I don't disagree, but it's a parents decision, not the governments, like I said, short of sterilisation what can be done. The answer is very little, you can't just say "stop having kids"
DM: Woman spends £3k of benefit money on Xmas
- Thread starter Morba
- Start date
I don't really have a problem with what she's doing, although surely it's a bit dumb to take a £1500 loan for christmas then spend the majority of the next year paying it off instead of having one 'cheap' £1500 christmas and then having more money for the next one...
My main problem is how on earth someone who is essentially a leech on society can even come close to affording £3000 at christmas, and how it's not 'worthwhile' to work. The system is quite clearly broken in this case, yes she should be given enough to live on, but I disagree with my taxes being used to give her such a comfortable existence.
My main problem is how on earth someone who is essentially a leech on society can even come close to affording £3000 at christmas, and how it's not 'worthwhile' to work. The system is quite clearly broken in this case, yes she should be given enough to live on, but I disagree with my taxes being used to give her such a comfortable existence.
OcUK forums must be a warehouse full of dildos then by the looks of it.....
Sadly you are right. It should come down to having a conscionse (I can never spell that) and some common sense from the individual to decide it for themselves.
They're probably not in reality though, as I said she probably has some kind of other income that provides for the kids luxuries, child support from the father would be a legitimate form. Supporting multiple kids alone is going to be a stretch on a decent income, more so if you're on benefits essentially equating to minimum wage + rent/council tax.
The problem is that the system allows people to do this, you also have to remember that some peoples circumstances change, so although the future might have looked rosey and having 4 kids seemed ok at the time sometimes things go wrong, people split up, a spouse dies, breadwinner gets made redundant, etc and ultimately these people are going to legitimately claim from the benefit system.
Totally agree with you but in this case she's always been a sponger and has no intention of getting a job. The system is mainly at fault but there seem to be plenty of individuals who have no issue with that.
Yep, I have no issue with her as I would probably do the same in that position, my issue is that the system allows it in the first place although changing the system could affect people in legitimate hardship as my previous post. In a positive light the system looks after those less fortunate and although hard workers are indirectly paying for it I suppose it's a better system than some poor or third world countries where the rich are rich yet the poor suffer terribly.
Geniune question, I claimed JSA for a few months when I was unemployed and I had to go in every week and after 6 weeks or so, I had to attend a meeting. In that article it says she's been in a Job Centre once, how does that work?
she's not claiming JSA?Geniune question, I claimed JSA for a few months when I was unemployed and I had to go in every week and after 6 weeks or so, I had to attend a meeting. In that article it says she's been in a Job Centre once, how does that work?
child labour camps
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
Doesn't look like any of the current ones. Keyboard looks a bit Fisher Price!
Seriously how thick do you have to be in order to agree to doing one of these interviews?
I understand that the Daily Mail don't contact them directly saying "Hi, we're the Daily Mail and we want to do a bias piece on your blatant disregard for the Tax Payer and benefits system" but they still have to fall for something, most likely something along the lines of:
"Hi, we're from a news paper and want to interview you because we heard you're such a fantastic mum and was able to buy all of the presents your kids wanted despite only having your pittance of benefits to spend"
Seriously, do they think for a slight second the papers are interested in doing a positive story whilst asking them to brandish expensive merchandise and big smiles in photos.
It is people this thick and naive breeding that worries me the most.
Celebrity culture at it's absolute worst - "I'm going the paper!!!
"
I understand that the Daily Mail don't contact them directly saying "Hi, we're the Daily Mail and we want to do a bias piece on your blatant disregard for the Tax Payer and benefits system" but they still have to fall for something, most likely something along the lines of:
"Hi, we're from a news paper and want to interview you because we heard you're such a fantastic mum and was able to buy all of the presents your kids wanted despite only having your pittance of benefits to spend"
Seriously, do they think for a slight second the papers are interested in doing a positive story whilst asking them to brandish expensive merchandise and big smiles in photos.
It is people this thick and naive breeding that worries me the most.
Celebrity culture at it's absolute worst - "I'm going the paper!!!
"
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
Yes, and why are you shocked, its very very simple.
Risk VS Reward, charge people with poor credit rating 30%-40% APR and if 20% of them dont pay back you still make profit.
Indeed.
Benefits should just be basic food,water,basic clothing,basic comfort/heating e.t.c. I don't know what workable solution would make that possible but it needs to be developed pronto!
The fact that people can sit at home and not work at all and afford more luxuries than your average full time worker is disgraceful.