DM: Woman spends £3k of benefit money on Xmas

The dilemma is that we can't practically stop these people having kids (we're not in the business of enforced medical procedures), and the kids are fundamentally innocent so why should they QUITE LITERALLY starve because they were unlucky enough to be born to scum parents? I know it's corny to say 'think of the children' but beyond that these are 100% COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF ANYTHING vulnerable members of our society.

Then add into the mix it is of course more expensive to take the kids into care than give the parents more benefits.

So it's a catch 22 we're in. Unless you adopt a 'let the innocent kids starve who gives a monkeys' attitude, or a 'hire big burly men to physically force medical procedures on some undesirable members of society' attitude - neither which, frankly, doesn't belong in the 21st century. So we're kinda stuffed ..
 
Nobody with anything remotely resembling a brain cell is suggesting that we let the kids or even the parents starve. What I imagine most are suggesting is that we change the system so that:
1) A life on benefits is not a rewarding career choice
2) That the benefits cannot easy be used to pay for frivolous items such as 2 xboxs and an Apple Laptop
3) That people who are on benefits should never, ever enjoy a better standard of living than those of us who actually work (regardless of if these people's salaries are topped up by benefits or not - Working is better than not working)

You can moan about the children living in "poverty" but I personally think that may actually be a good thing. It'll hopefully inspire them to do something with their lives.

If you think benefit culture is bad now wait until those children who have been bought up in households who think that it is perfectly fine to stay at home start breeding. Then we are well and truly stuffed.

The benefit system should be a crutch for those of us who fall on hard times, not a viable career path.
 
Joshy said:
Yep Like two Xbox 360 consoles and a Apple Laptop :rolleyes:.

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?
Click to expand...

You certain the mother is getting less net of benefits/taxes? Remember that council tax credits vary due to where you live and is money you will never see.

Childrens' benefit is a universal benefit and hence the same. Childrens' tax credit will be lower due to work, but a low income job gets working tax credit as well. The UTC system coming in 2013 should make comparisons easier, but the mother in your post shouldn't have less overall income. Admittedly, she might not benefit from the extremely low rent council housing tenants have.

The 360 and laptop is with borrowing though. This family will have to live more frugally for the rest of the year than the mother in your case because she values good quality food and clothes over the odd gift at Christmas.

The council housing point you've made you have to admit is a separate issue. The allocation mechanism has little to do with the overall taxation/benefit system.
 
Last edited:
I really hate threads like this as it reminds me how cold and heartless I feel about certain people.

I'm afraid i'd evict them, cut their benefits totally and let them starve. :/
 
Joshy said:
Nobody with anything remotely resembling a brain cell is suggesting that we let the kids or even the parents starve. What I imagine most are suggesting is that we change the system so that:
1) A life on benefits is not a rewarding career choice
Click to expand...

You have a good solution to a decades old problem? Its simple to say but EITC system in the states everyone models off is supposedly the best we have.

2) That the benefits cannot easy be used to pay for frivolous items such as 2 xboxs and an Apple Laptop
Click to expand...

Always will I'm afraid. Vouchers will always be easily converted to cash. Lets take food vouchers for example. I'm an entrepreneur, I sell the customer say sugar using the food vouchers and then buy the sugar back at a reduced price. Benefit recipient gets cash and I make a margin. Unless you're going to start making it illegal for benefit recipients to sell stuff, this will happen. You may as well put the cash in the hands of the benefit recipient than me the entrepreneur.

3) That people who are on benefits should never, ever enjoy a better standard of living than those of us who actually work (regardless of if these people's salaries are topped up by benefits or not - Working is better than not working)
Click to expand...

The fact is, you can't compare situations to single adults. Single adults on benefits get pittance.

You can moan about the children living in "poverty" but I personally think that may actually be a good thing. It'll hopefully inspire them to do something with their lives.
Click to expand...

This quite simply is empirically false. Childhood income has a bearing on life outcomes (that's not to say the marginal returns from having more generous benefits don't decline). Where studies tell us, society is failing is in education.

If you think benefit culture is bad now wait until those children who have been bought up in households who think that it is perfectly fine to stay at home start breeding. Then we are well and truly stuffed.

The benefit system should be a crutch for those of us who fall on hard times, not a viable career path.
Click to expand...

The benefit system can encourage large families. However, it also benefits people. There is a cost benefit analysis to perform here, and the causation between benefits -> large families has been shown to be weak. Other factors more easily explain large families.
 
Last edited:
ghost101 said:
The benefit system can encourage large families. However, it also benefits people. There is a cost benefit analysis to perform here, and the causation between benefits -> large families has been shown to be weak. Other factors more easily explain large families.
Click to expand...
Who benefits most, people who work or people who do not?
 
OldCoals said:
Who benefits most, people who work or people who do not?
Click to expand...

I don't get this point. The very structure should be that those who are unemployed benefit the most. They are the poorest in society.

Ignoring housing benefits (which is highly dependent on location), I want someone to show me where you are worse off with regards to childrens' benefits, childrens' tax credits, working tax credits and JSA, if you work.

Must be a like-for-like situation.
 
Last edited:
Daily Mail appears to be telling fibs

If you go to the child tax credits calculator

http://taxcredits.hmrc.gov.uk/Qualify/DIQHousehold.aspx

Assuming she's not earning a penny and just claiming child tax credits, the calculator says you'll receive £2145 a year, not well over £9k.

so why the discrepancy ?

The only one i can think of is that she claims the child care component of the tax credits. But at least 2 of her 4 kids appear to be school age !
 
MrLOL said:
Daily Mail appears to be telling fibs

If you go to the child tax credits calculator

http://taxcredits.hmrc.gov.uk/Qualify/DIQHousehold.aspx

Assuming she's not earning a penny and just claiming child tax credits, the calculator says you'll receive £2145 a year, not well over £9k.

so why the discrepancy ?
Click to expand...

Did you use 3 children?

edit:

I get the same with 3 children. Good catch.

edit2:

She has 4 children. Whoops, in which case I need to alter a lot of my previous posts to indicate 4 instead of 3 children.

~£2808 now. Still way below DM figure.

This corresponds with their childrens' benefit figure which is a different type of benefit. What is the £9800 figure they've given?

edit3:

DM figure is correct, see MrLOL post.
 
Last edited:
Dont really care about this story. It's a complete one off and yet another DM benefits incendiary piece of which i'm not sure how much I believe anyway. I would'nt be surprised if the paper had turned up with all those toys to give the story more impact. Seeing as they appear to have them before christmas anyway.

And even if it is true, for every family on benefits who have a christmas like this, there are thousands on run down council estates who barely get anything.

I really dont care. I'd much rather my taxes go on this than mosques.
 
ghost101 said:
Did you use 3 children?

edit:

I get the same with 3 children. Good catch.

edit2:

She has 4 children. Whoops, in which case I need to alter a lot of my previous posts to indicate 4 instead of 3 children.

~£2808 now. Still way below DM figure.

This corresponds with their childrens' benefit figure which is a different type of benefit. What is the £9800 figure they've given?
Click to expand...

Just reading this

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTa...hers/Entitlementtablesfortaxcredits/DG_174821

I guess that £2800 figure is per child ?
 
Last edited:
MrLOL said:
I've no idea where they get it from.

Unless they're assuming that she is claiming the maximum full ammount which you get to cover child care costs but

A) how can she claim them when she doesnt work

and

B) at least 2 of them are full time school age. It reads as though 3 of them are.
Click to expand...

I hope they haven't just asked her what she is entitled to. I know according to the article JC did a calculation for her looking at different scenarios. I wonder if she understood it.

It's possible the JC wrote the child care benefits down assuming she was going to work (possibly in the past) and she somehow has added that on. Also if the childrens' benefit figure is actually tax credits, where is the actual childrens' benefit figure which she'd be getting.

edit:

Nope figures are correct. See MrLOL.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Thing is, all the people with stupid ammounts of benefit have kids.

The people who are single, with no kids, and are out of work have it really hard. But the ones with kids don't.

Is it fair to punish the children for their parents mistakes / misfortune ? or should we be ensuring that the youth of tomorrow have a proper start in life ?

Theres a balance to be struck. But when it comes to the fact that a women with a (only slightly larger than) average family, needs to earn 30k before she can earn as much as she gets in benefits now, the balance clearly isn't right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom