DM: Woman spends £3k of benefit money on Xmas
- Thread starter Morba
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 11,307
Indeed, if snotty little kiddy doesnt like he doesnt get much for xmas, it may give him a kick up the arse to pull his thumb out and get himself on the track to a good education and hopefully good job, course its not a given but the attitude to succeed has never failed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,607
- Location
- Sussex, UK
Why don't they simply pay people's rent, water, gas and electric then give them a credit note to buy food and essential clothing and uniforms, then invoice it back the benefit office.
Therefore money couldn't be wasted on gambling, drink, drugs or Xboxes.
Therefore money couldn't be wasted on gambling, drink, drugs or Xboxes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
Sky would go bust though.
tbh she probably goes withotu a lot to give her kids its just the way she gets her money
Give them to people who are having NHS funded IVF.
i am afraid there is.
my sister is a single parent and on benefits.
she also got a loan of a doorstep loan company.
she borrowes £300 and had to pay £20 a week for 32 weeks ( WTF £640)
i couldn't believe it,
there should be a law against it, as companies like shopacheck or provident are preying on the weak
Fixed.
Absolutely no sympathy for them to be honest. Stupidity is not a valid defence.
Common sense should put a stop to such companies "preying" on people, not the government.
Pretending for a second that you can believe what the Daily Mail prints then the problem with this, in my opinion, is that a person who has never contributed into a system should never have the sense of entitlement that this person has.
For most having something to fallback on when times are tough would be a blessing, but for many it is seen as an acceptable way of live, and something that they deserve just for being born in this country. I find it out of order that someone would ever say "I'd get less money if I got a job". It should never be about making more money, it should simply be a case of making enough, although I'd happily back a sliding scale based on how much you've contributed.
The problem that most of the think of the children birgade have missed is that many of the kids with the very same sense of entitlement as their parents and live roughly the same lives thanks to the tax payer (based on my anecdotal personal evidence from being one of these children), and whilst our care system may be terrible it doesn't mean that leaving these kids with the parents is a great decision either.
For me its pretty simple, cut all child benefit. If you can't support a child, you shouldn't be having one, and if you have one anyway then this shows a pretty solid lack of judgement and thus you're deem to be an inappropriate parent. Sink the money saved into child welfare and riot protection gear.
For most having something to fallback on when times are tough would be a blessing, but for many it is seen as an acceptable way of live, and something that they deserve just for being born in this country. I find it out of order that someone would ever say "I'd get less money if I got a job". It should never be about making more money, it should simply be a case of making enough, although I'd happily back a sliding scale based on how much you've contributed.
The problem that most of the think of the children birgade have missed is that many of the kids with the very same sense of entitlement as their parents and live roughly the same lives thanks to the tax payer (based on my anecdotal personal evidence from being one of these children), and whilst our care system may be terrible it doesn't mean that leaving these kids with the parents is a great decision either.
For me its pretty simple, cut all child benefit. If you can't support a child, you shouldn't be having one, and if you have one anyway then this shows a pretty solid lack of judgement and thus you're deem to be an inappropriate parent. Sink the money saved into child welfare and riot protection gear.
What dos that mean? Benefits need to be reduced?
£21k for a single mum with 3 young children is hardly something you can reduce. You can't stop people borrowing either.
Parents don't want you? Live on the streets? I suggest they live at your front door.
Also a JC should not be working out for you what you need to be earning to be better off. After 6 months on JSA they should be forcing you to be taking jobs.
As for a voucher system, the problem is that it doesn't benefit the recipient as intended. Got food vouchers? Businesses are setup to turn that into liquid cash at say a 70% exchange rate.
Last edited:
People work full time for less.
If they have 3 children and are single, they'd be entitled to benefits.
The benefits system isn't a cutoff system. It tapers off.
There's also a minimum living standard to maintain.
Last edited:
own parents don't want to help you, why should the state?
Really? That's your argument.
erm, ok. lets roll with that.
Well unluckily for you, you won't find a country like this in the entire developed world. Accommodation will always be guaranteed where children are involved as well as money for food/clothes/bills.
Go live in the 3rd world if you want a country where people are thrown onto the streets.
Also note that council tax credits are hardly benefits.
Last edited:
Are you suggesting that the state should be responsible for that by providing benefits, but not to people who work and earn less?
Well you have 2 options. You reduce the minimum level you start at and then taper off with whatever taxation/benefit system you have. Or you taper off more gradually resulting in greater cost.
You decide. What should a single mum with 3 children be getting? Some people have suggested zero.
edit:
To help out. Let's remove council tax credits (£1300), since you don't tax someone that doesn't earn anything. Also since its council housing they are in, the rent paid for at £3172.
After that, what should they get for food/bills/clothes?
Last edited:
Yep Like two Xbox 360 consoles and a Apple Laptop
.I agree that the "Take the benefits away and let them fend for themselves" argument is stupid but you cannot really bring in the "minimum living standard" defence in this case.
She flat out doesn't work and yet still enjoys a better standard of living than my mother who is also a single parent with 3 children has enjoyed in the past. The difference is that my mother works (a low income) job and although her salary is topped up with the odd benefits the woman in the article still "takes home" more money than my mother does. With the added bonus of having a 3 bedroom property, something we've been on the waiting list for 7 years for.
Tell me how that is remotely fair or acceptable?