£42,000 a Year Benefits.

[miserableoldgit]

Right/wrong?? Discuss.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265508/Peter-Davey-gets-42-000-benefits-year-drives-Mercedes.html

 

or is the Mail making it all up again??

[JustMike]

Right/wrong?? Discuss.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265508/Peter-Davey-gets-42-000-benefits-year-drives-Mercedes.html

 

or is the Mail making it all up again??

 

 

Wrong, very wrong!

 

She is moaning that she cant afford to take the kids on holiday....sell one of your 2 cars then!! Oh and really should have thought about it before you opened your legs for the 8th time!

[JustMike]

aarrgrhhh the more i read it, the more i want to punch them!

 

"11 seater mini bus and 7 seater merc"

 

she doesnt want to stop at 8, her target is 14!

 

Time for birthing licences!!

[carljack]

Wrong, very wrong!

 

She is moaning that she cant afford to take the kids on holiday....sell one of your 2 cars then!! Oh and really should have thought about it before you opened your legs for the 8th time!

 

I would pay her to em closed,sums up what is wrong with a system that rewards idleness and penalises thrift and endevour.The country just cannot afford to keep paying these lazy Fat Slags.

[Colinjb]

Blame a governement that bends over backwards to cater for these beings as much as the parasites themselves. All focus on the rights rather then the responsibilities. An excellent summary of everything that's wrong with Britain today.

[Baj]

Right or wrong, they are in this situation now, so what are they supposed to do? If he returns to work, they will not have enough money to survive on. We can joke about it, but that will mean those kids go hungry.

 

Do we blame this family for having so many kids, or the welfare state for putting the father in a situation where he can't work. How about a situation where the state subsidises his salary if he works to the equivelent of those benefits. That way he's working and contributing to society, his company get to pay his a lower salary because of his increased benefits, and because his benefits are subsidising his salary up to that level, he claims less in benefits each months. Seems to me that way everyone wins.

[Doctoroncall]

'It cost too much to carrying on working as we were actually better off unemployed,' said Mr Davey.

 

There we go in a nutshell. Also ,to think things as mobile phones, sky and the like are necessities rather than luxuries are wrong.

 

In principle, I have nothing against giving benefits to those that need it, but I do feel anyone who does receive them should do something in return be it low paid/voluntary/community work.

[Colinjb]

Right or wrong, they are in this situation now, so what are they supposed to do? If he returns to work, they will not have enough money to survive on. We can joke about it, but that will mean those kids go hungry.

 

Do we blame this family for having so many kids, or the welfare state for putting the father in a situation where he can't work. How about a situation where the state subsidises his salary if he works to the equivelent of those benefits. That way he's working and contributing to society, his company get to pay his a lower salary because of his increased benefits, and because his benefits are subsidising his salary up to that level, he claims less in benefits each months. Seems to me that way everyone wins.

 

A good interim solution, but a hard line must be taken in the future for 'society' to ensure that these situations do not recur.

[saint_stevo]

Disgraceful.

[miserableoldgit]

Right or wrong, they are in this situation now, so what are they supposed to do? If he returns to work, they will not have enough money to survive on. We can joke about it, but that will mean those kids go hungry.

 

Do we blame this family for having so many kids, or the welfare state for putting the father in a situation where he can't work. How about a situation where the state subsidises his salary if he works to the equivelent of those benefits. That way he's working and contributing to society, his company get to pay his a lower salary because of his increased benefits, and because his benefits are subsidising his salary up to that level, he claims less in benefits each months. Seems to me that way everyone wins.

Presumably sticking at 8 and not going for 14 would be a start.

[Hatch]

I'd slaughter the whole ******* lot of them, kids n all.

Kids will only grow up and spawn another 6 kids each, all on benefits.

 

Bolox to todays 'Shameless' society.

[JustMike]

Right or wrong, they are in this situation now, so what are they supposed to do? If he returns to work, they will not have enough money to survive on. We can joke about it, but that will mean those kids go hungry.

 

Do we blame this family for having so many kids, or the welfare state for putting the father in a situation where he can't work. How about a situation where the state subsidises his salary if he works to the equivelent of those benefits. That way he's working and contributing to society, his company get to pay his a lower salary because of his increased benefits, and because his benefits are subsidising his salary up to that level, he claims less in benefits each months. Seems to me that way everyone wins.

 

I know what you are saying Baj, but my beef with these people is that they know how much it costs to bring up a child, he used to work when they 1,2,3,4?....kids so why continue to have more if you know you are not going to be able to care for them? That in one shape or another is neglect.

 

Yes, they get their benefits but then why moan that they cant afford a holiday when they have 2 cars, 42" tv, countless game consoles etc etc. Its greed at best.

[Baj]

A good interim solution, but a hard line must be taken in the future for 'society' to ensure that these situations do not recur.

Policy is the only way of doing that, by adjusting the benefit system so that those that are *able* to work are better off working than not.

 

As for limiting the amount of children someone can have, ****ing hell, this isnt china.

[JustMike]

A policy is the only way of doing that, by adjusting the benefit system so that those that are *able* to work are better off working than not.

 

As for limiting the amount of children someone can have, ****ing hell, this isnt china.

 

no, but surely having kids you cant care for then becomes a social service issue?

[Baj]

I know what you are saying Baj, but my beef with these people is that they know how much it costs to bring up a child, he used to work when they 1,2,3,4?....kids so why continue to have more if you know you are not going to be able to care for them? That in one shape or another is neglect.

 

Yes, they get their benefits but then why moan that they cant afford a holiday when they have 2 cars, 42" tv, countless game consoles etc etc. Its greed at best.

You're talking about specifics, yes its wrong that he "moaned" about that, but I'm talking in general. Structure the benefit system accordingly so that having more children becomes a choice of love, not of benefits.

[Colinjb]

As for limiting the amount of children someone can have, ****ing hell, this isnt china.

 

True, but the culture of having kids irresponsibly needs to be addressed. People have to understand and learn that they must live within their means!

[JustMike]

You're talking about specifics, yes its wrong that he "moaned" about that, but I'm talking in general. Structure the benefit system accordingly so that having more children becomes a choice of love, not of benefits.

 

yes i agree the benefit system needs changing but also in this families case, to carry on having kids when they know they cant afford the ones they have, even with the benefits, becomes neglect.

[Baj]

True, but the culture of having kids irresponsibly needs to be addressed. People have to understand and learn that they must live within their means!

And again, implementing policy to restructure the benefit system will do that. There's no point moaning about it now, like the Daily Fail do, wagging fingers and crying "its an outrage". At the end of the day its up to us as the electorate to choose a party that suits our means. What's the tories/lib dems view on the benefits system in relation to large families? Do any of you actually know?

[JustMike]

And again, implementing policy to restructure the benefit system will do that. There's no point moaning about it now, like the Daily Fail do, wagging fingers and crying "its an outrage". At the end of the day its up to us as the electorate to choose a party that suits our means. What's the tories/lib dems view on the benefits system in relation to large families? Do any of you actually know?

 

its pretty much the same. May be the odd bit here and there that changes but the principles are the same

[Baj]

its pretty much the same. May be the odd bit here and there that changes but the principles are the same

Because its not a vote winner. Why should that drastically change policy on an issue that affects so few of the electorate and even fewer are upset about it.

 

We tend to be affecting by issues we can physically perceive, if we have to wait in A+E, if we see illegal immigrants walking up the m20, if our neighbours are burgled. Is this really such a big issue? If the Tories announced, for example, that come their (anticipated) GE win, they will implement my suggestion of subsidised salary/benefits, will anyone really care?

 

ps. I'm not saying theres a right and a wrong here, just how ****ing futile we all feel as the electorate, how can we all feel so bloody powerless when this is supposed to be OUR time.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Right or wrong, they are in this situation now, so what are they supposed to do? If he returns to work, they will not have enough money to survive on. We can joke about it, but that will mean those kids go hungry.

 

Do we blame this family for having so many kids, or the welfare state for putting the father in a situation where he can't work. How about a situation where the state subsidises his salary if he works to the equivelent of those benefits. That way he's working and contributing to society, his company get to pay his a lower salary because of his increased benefits, and because his benefits are subsidising his salary up to that level, he claims less in benefits each months. Seems to me that way everyone wins.

 

Far far too sensible!

[St Landrew]

The cat is most definitely out of the bag here. The system has supported families like these for years and years, through alternate goverments that have been pro-family orientated. There is very little that can be done with these people now, except advise them NOT to add to their family.

 

Of course, what we'd like to happen is for the bloke to have the snip; to have their benefits cut back to the minimum; to make their conditions such that they are much better off with one or both of the parents going to work, while the kids are in a creche when not at school. And for them to move into a smaller home. But to do this to them would affect other responsible families with perfectly legitimate hardships too. You can't make special cases.

 

But wait. This is the Daily Mail again, and the Daily Mail are providing you this revelation with what motive..? We knew this sort of thing was going on. If people play the system for all its worth, they can bend it to their purpose, and they'll do it whichever Chancellor is in charge of the purse strings, because we reward families with more children. How screwed up is that, in a world of diminishing resources..?

 

The system should require of people that the very most they pup is enough to replace themselves. That's 2 children, and no more, whatever happens afterwards.

 

BTW, I wonder if the Mail paid the family for their story..? Once again the Mail demonstrates its ability to find a story, and presents it in such a way that it either frightens you or angers you, and knows full well there is nothing you can do about it. I'm not at all sure the Daily Mail itself is in the public interest.

[swannymere]

You should only get child benefits for your first two children, after that don't have any more unless you can afford them.

[JustMike]

Because its not a vote winner. Why should that drastically change policy on an issue that affects so few of the electorate and even fewer are upset about it.

 

We tend to be affecting by issues we can physically perceive, if we have to wait in A+E, if we see illegal immigrants walking up the m20, if our neighbours are burgled. Is this really such a big issue? If the Tories announced, for example, that come their (anticipated) GE win, they will implement my suggestion of subsidised salary/benefits, will anyone really care?

 

ps. I'm not saying theres a right and a wrong here, just how ****ing futile we all feel as the electorate, how can we all feel so bloody powerless when this is supposed to be OUR time.

 

yes and i suppose its the same with anything. If you find a loop hole or an easy way out of doing something, then people will take it. In this case he has decided that he can get the same, if not more money by staying on benefits and not working but what I worry about is what state those kids will be in, especially if they have more.

[norwaysaint]

So much complaining about benefits. So little about tax avoidance. Here's some perspective for you.

 

The estimated cost of benefit fraud (Yes, I know we're not just talking about fraud) in 2008 = 12.6 million pounds

 

Estimated cost of tax avoidance 2008 = 25 billion pounds

 

So just stop whinging about benefit claimers, they are not where the money's leaking out of the system.

[JustMike]

You should only get child benefits for your first two children, after that don't have any more unless you can afford them.

 

child benefit is very little. its the child tax credit that can amount to a fair bit. Add to that your rent and council tax, free prescriptions and school meals. Thats how you end up getting £42,000 with 7 kids

[JustMike]

So much complaining about benefits. So little about tax avoidance. Here's some perspective for you.

 

The estimated cost of benefit fraud (Yes, I know we're not just talking about fraud) in 2008 = 12.6 million pounds

 

Estimated cost of tax avoidance 2008 = 25 billion pounds

 

So just stop whinging about benefit claimers, they are not where the money's leaking out of the system.

 

im not whinging about benefit claimers or benefit fraud. My beef with this case is that they openly know they cannot afford to live on what they get yet chose to have more kids, (7 at the moment, 8th on the way, planning to have 14!!)

[Scudamore]

A good case for bringing in ginger tax i'd say.

[JustMike]

A good case for bringing in ginger tax i'd say.

 

 

haha

[swannymere]

child benefit is very little. its the child tax credit that can amount to a fair bit. Add to that your rent and council tax, free prescriptions and school meals. Thats how you end up getting £42,000 with 7 kids

 

OK, To clarify i meant any cash available to parents should only be for the first two children.

[Doctoroncall]

So much complaining about benefits. So little about tax avoidance. Here's some perspective for you.

 

The estimated cost of benefit fraud (Yes, I know we're not just talking about fraud) in 2008 = 12.6 million pounds

 

Estimated cost of tax avoidance 2008 = 25 billion pounds

 

So just stop whinging about benefit claimers, they are not where the money's leaking out of the system.

 

You raise an interesting point so why not start another thread rather than "whinging" about it on here?

[Master Bates]

I will be willing to adopt 5 of them for £30,000 a year benefits, then he could go to work.

[Doctoroncall]

yes i agree the benefit system needs changing but also in this families case, to carry on having kids when they know they cant afford the ones they have, even with the benefits, becomes neglect.

 

I think they can afford to do it, however it means a change in their lifestyle which it seems they are unwilling to compromise on. The choice is still there... have the second car or another few kids?

[IamLeGod]

Right or wrong, they are in this situation now, so what are they supposed to do? If he returns to work, they will not have enough money to survive on. We can joke about it, but that will mean those kids go hungry.

 

Do we blame this family for having so many kids, or the welfare state for putting the father in a situation where he can't work. How about a situation where the state subsidises his salary if he works to the equivelent of those benefits. That way he's working and contributing to society, his company get to pay his a lower salary because of his increased benefits, and because his benefits are subsidising his salary up to that level, he claims less in benefits each months. Seems to me that way everyone wins.

 

Exactly.

 

As a parent your sole objective is surely to provide the best life you can for your kids. So, if your kids are going to have a better life living off the state can you really blame a parent for choosing to do this.

 

This has always been one of my bugbears with socialism (or at least the 'socialist' labour party we are lumbered with). Now Im not saying throw kids out on the street and let them fend for themselves. But this system really does seem to encourage this attitude.

 

From personal experience, I spent some time living on an estate as a child and saw several families who effectively saw having kids as a career. It provided them with an income and a house. "Hhmmmmm things are getting tight, lets have another kid."

 

Surely, surely surely it is more beneficial to get people like this back into work and supplement their income? If say Mr Davey could get back into work, and say earn apprx £600pw his benefits could be reduced to around £200(ish)pw without having a massive impact on the families standard of life. This also improves efficiency as if this is spread across the board, the money used to help this one family could be spread across a number of families in similar circumstances.

[saintfully]

You raise an interesting point so why not start another thread rather than "whinging" about it on here?

 

 

I think its called 'widening the debate by broadening its perspective'.

 

HTH.

[Bath Saint]

You raise an interesting point so why not start another thread rather than "whinging" about it on here?

 

He can't. He's only a registered user. He had to save his £5 (kroner or whatever comedy currency they have in Norwegianland) in order to pay for his hoard of offspring.

 

 

 

As do I, I might add.

[aintforever]

It's like reverse evolution.

 

Thick sponging chav scum like this get paid to reproduce, whilst sensible hardworking people live within their means. You can guarantee most of their vile offspring will end up doing the same - and so it goes on...

 

they should stop their benefits altogether, then Mum and Dad will go out to work and the oldest little **** can look after all the other little ****s like countries without a welfare state do. Then they might at least learn the value of money and sense in not spending your whole life just drinking, smoking and f**king at the expense of good working people.

[norwaysaint]

It's like reverse evolution.

 

Thick sponging chav scum like this get paid to reproduce, whilst sensible hardworking people live within their means. You can guarantee most of their vile offspring will end up doing the same - and so it goes on...

 

they should stop their benefits altogether, then Mum and Dad will go out to work and the oldest little **** can look after all the other little ****s like countries without a welfare state do. Then they might at least learn the value of money and sense in not spending your whole life just drinking, smoking and f**king at the expense of good working people.

 

 

The estimated cost of benefit fraud in 2008 = 12.6 million pounds

 

Estimated cost of tax avoidance 2008 = 25 billion pounds

 

 

Wrong

 

Those good sensible hard working people are stealing far, far more of your money so that they can live beyond their means than benefit scroungers.

[Block 5]

Some hilarious posts on here from the Nazis.

 

Well done to Baj for being the voice of reason.

[CB Saint]

Bl00dy hell - seven kids and 7months gone and only 29.

[badgerx16]

I blame the NHS - without cures for ricketts, TB, measles, & cholera, natural selection would have pruned back this particularly branch of human evolution. 8 kids may have been born, but only 1 or 2 would survive beyond the first 4 years of life.

[Mmm Donuts]

This is gonna be unpopular, but I don't post much anyhow. I think the system is to blame rather than the individual. Just because they don't want to work as it doesn't pay doesn't make them wrong. If the system allows that, then surely that is to question rather than their lifestyle choice. I agree with other posts showing there are far bigger financial problems with the system. Maybe it is the hard working people living on the breadline who have it wrong.

[View From The Top]

Wizards sleeve.

[Thedelldays]

my missus is a family health advisor and the number of free laptops and other bits and bobs that her colleagues dish out is alarming..mostly to "families" that can have a car parked on the drive...a big house, sky with all the channels etc etc..

 

also, familes get free bus passes..not only do they get them free..people from the centre go round to these houses, pick them up, go into town and then drop them off

 

talk about spoon feeding society

[CB Saint]

Wizards sleeve.

 

 

[miserableoldgit]

Some hilarious posts on here from the Nazis.

 

Well done to Baj for being the voice of reason.

Well done for branding those that disagree with you as Nazis. I am glad that you are demonstrating a great degree of tolerance.

[Baj]

Well done for branding those that disagree with you as Nazis. I am glad that you are demonstrating a great degree of tolerance.

 

Well, some others were talking about extermination of our "untermensch".

[Smirking_Saint]

Some hilarious posts on here from the Nazis.

 

Well done to Baj for being the voice of reason.

 

What a completely Myopic statement that really is.

 

Anyways, Baj does make a very good point and a way that could help curb the benefit culture, as did Swanny TBH.

 

Why should families be given monies per child ?? We live in a society within which you are perfectly able to pick up free contraception, why shouldn't families be given money for the first two and any further than that must be funded if you can afford them.

 

TBF it is f*cking disgraceful and they are shamefully abusing a system that rewards people like them, i do agree, you need to blame the system however i am not reserving blame for them for abusing it.

 

"i don't want my kids growing up on a council estate" - Should have perhaps thought about that after the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th.....................

[Mao Cap]

Shameful, even though the facts have no doubt still been skewed to make the case seem worse yet.

 

Still, I read a couple of months ago that people in the UK claim only £1 of benefits out of every £16 that they're entitled to. Office of National Statistics I think, though I might be wrong.

Not really in line with popular imaginings of half the country sitting on their arses milking the silly commie welfare state for all its worth, but since people enjoy frothing at the mouth they ignore such national statistics in favour of individual cases dredged up by the right-wing press.

[View From The Top]

It is true that far too many have fallen into a culture of benefit dependency, I see it every day.

 

However, you cannot punish the child for the sins of the parents. It's the finding the middle ground that is the most perplexing.