£42,000 a Year Benefits.

[bridge too far]

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.

 

Absolutely right. This is the question I posed to DellDays but he's chosen not to answer.

 

I suppose it would probably cost more for those children to put into care than it would to sustain this level of benefit.

[Johnny Bognor]

The cost of this young lady and her kids is a cool £5 million+

 

(according to the Daily Hail)

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262425/5million-The-extraordinary-sum-cost-taxpayer-support-single-mother-benefits.html

[Baj]

The cost of this young lady and her kids is a cool £5 million+

 

(according to the Daily Hail)

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262425/5million-The-extraordinary-sum-cost-taxpayer-support-single-mother-benefits.html

 

What a lovely thought provoking article from the peoples favourite newspaper...

[lettuce]

I just got a little bit of sick in my mouth reading that article.

[JustMike]

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?

 

..or in this case, do both! And then some

[IamLeGod]

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.

 

I did hear something along the lines of those figures also. Though I thought they were related to the elderly, I could however be wrong.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I did hear something along the lines of those figures also. Though I thought they were related to the elderly, I could however be wrong.

 

That's right, the forms for winter fuel allowence and other elderly benefits are so complicated (delebrately so in my opinion), that a large % of people dont take what their entittled to. Added to some elderly people's dislike of being on benefits, means the take up of benefits targeted at the elderly is quite poor. It is quite disgraceful, but nobody on either side of the political divide seems willing to do anything about it.

[bridge too far]

That's right, the forms for winter fuel allowence and other elderly benefits are so complicated (delebrately so in my opinion), that a large % of people dont take what their entittled to. Added to some elderly people's dislike of being on benefits, means the take up of benefits targeted at the elderly is quite poor. It is quite disgraceful, but nobody on either side of the political divide seems willing to do anything about it.

 

Rubbish - the winter fuel allowance is paid automatically. There are no forms to fill out. It goes to everyone who receives a state pension.

 

Age Concern offer a service whereby they help elderly people fill out claim forms for other benefits as do, for example, charities for the blind and disabled.

 

Citizens Advice Bureau offer the same sort of service. But the reluctance to take up entitlement is worrying.

[View From The Top]

That's right, the forms for winter fuel allowence and other elderly benefits are so complicated (delebrately so in my opinion), that a large % of people dont take what their entittled to. Added to some elderly people's dislike of being on benefits, means the take up of benefits targeted at the elderly is quite poor. It is quite disgraceful, but nobody on either side of the political divide seems willing to do anything about it.

 

It's because it would cost them ££.

 

They get the headlines and plaudits when they announce it and then make things so complex that people don't claim it.

Edited 13 April, 2010 by View From The Top

[Lord Duckhunter]

Rubbish - the winter fuel allowance is paid automatically. There are no forms to fill out. It goes to everyone who receives a state pension.

 

.

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pensions/article.html?in_article_id=398317&in_page_id=6

 

 

The majority of people over 60 get their fuel payment automatically, as long as their circumstances haven't changed since they received last winters payment or they are in receipt of a State pension or other social security benefit.

 

But people who are not receiving the state pension or other social security benefit, or who did not receive a payment last year need to make a claim before 30 March.

 

Claim forms are also available at http://www.thepensionservice.gov.uk/winterfuel

[bridge too far]

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pensions/article.html?in_article_id=398317&in_page_id=6

 

 

The majority of people over 60 get their fuel payment automatically, as long as their circumstances haven't changed since they received last winters payment or they are in receipt of a State pension or other social security benefit.

 

But people who are not receiving the state pension or other social security benefit, or who did not receive a payment last year need to make a claim before 30 March.

 

Claim forms are also available at www.thepensionservice.gov.uk/winterfuel

 

If you look at the direct gov website it is quite clear. If you get a state pension you will automtically get the winter fuel payment. If you got it last year (for reasons other than being a pensioner) you will continue to get it automatically. If you didn't get it last year for reasons other than being a pensioner, you will have to apply. But if you didn't get it last year because you weren't a pensioner last year, you will automatically get it this year if you have now become a pensioner.

How to get your Winter Fuel Payment

 

You should automatically get the Winter Fuel Payment without applying if you have reached the qualifying age by 26 September 2010, and either:

 

• you got a Winter Fuel Payment last winter and you still meet the conditions for getting it
  
• you got State Pension or another benefit except Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit or Child Benefit during the week of 20–26 September 2009
  

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Pensionsandretirementplanning/Benefits/BenefitsInRetirement/DG_10018657

[Block 5]

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

 

As Baj pointed out, there were some very extreme views from people.

I wasn't branding people for disagreeing with me, but rather for having intolerant attitudes.

 

I am a pretty tolerant guy really, except when it comes to racists, fascists etc.

Why? Because I have learnt from the mistakes made by others and because I know the difference between right and wrong.

 

A truly civillised society should be judged on how it treats it's most vulnerable citizens; regardless of sex, race, creed etc and also regardless of circumstance.

So what if the family in the article have lots of kids and the tax payer foots the bill? Each one of those kids is full of potential and could go on to great things. Let's prove we're a civillised people and give them the best start we can.

 

Perhaps if this government and the next government and governments in perpetuity weren't committed to wasting our tax dollar on weapons of mass destruction then there really wouldn't be an issue with this family?

[stevegrant]

Perhaps if this government and the next government and governments in perpetuity weren't committed to wasting our tax dollar on weapons of mass destruction then there really wouldn't be an issue with this family?

I'm pretty sure there would be, to be fair.

 

The benefits system was - to my knowledge - put in place to support those in our society who are UNABLE to work to provide for themselves and their family. It was not put in place to support those in our society who are UNWILLING to work to provide for themselves and their family.

[Hatch]

I bet these scum get robbed tonight, now that the neighbour scum know they have all that gear in the house.

[Scudamore]

Just imagine never working a day in your life...surely everyone must have some form of ambition? Mindboggling to think that isn't the case.

[miserableoldgit]

As Baj pointed out, there were some very extreme views from people.

I wasn't branding people for disagreeing with me, but rather for having intolerant attitudes.

 

I am a pretty tolerant guy really, except when it comes to racists, fascists etc.

Why? Because I have learnt from the mistakes made by others and because I know the difference between right and wrong.

 

A truly civillised society should be judged on how it treats it's most vulnerable citizens; regardless of sex, race, creed etc and also regardless of circumstance.

So what if the family in the article have lots of kids and the tax payer foots the bill? Each one of those kids is full of potential and could go on to great things. Let's prove we're a civillised people and give them the best start we can.

 

Perhaps if this government and the next government and governments in perpetuity weren't committed to wasting our tax dollar on weapons of mass destruction then there really wouldn't be an issue with this family?

I don`t disagree with much of what you say, but how are these kids getting a good start in life? A person is formed from a very early age by the influences immediately around him (or her). If a child is brought up learning about responsibility, respect for others and a difference between right and wrong, then they have a good chance. What chance do theses kids have when the parents seem to have abdicated all of their responsibilities to the State? What role models are they to impressionable young kids. They will grow up thinking that you don`t need to work to get what you want. It will all be given to you.

[aintforever]

So what if the family in the article have lots of kids and the tax payer foots the bill? Each one of those kids is full of potential and could go on to great things. Let's prove we're a civillised people and give them the best start we can.

 

It's that sort of attitude which gets the country in this mess.

 

Do you really think they are getting the best start by being taught that all you have to do to get life's luxuries is get up the duff and sit on your arse claiming benefits all your life?

 

You could remove ALL their benefits tomorrow, their parent(s) would be forced to work and those kids would have less luxury now, but a much brighter future.

[View From The Top]

You could remove ALL their benefits tomorrow, their parent(s) would be forced to work and those kids would have less luxury now, but a much brighter future.

 

In your opinion.

[View From The Top]

I don`t disagree with much of what you say, but how are these kids getting a good start in life? A person is formed from a very early age by the influences immediately around him (or her). If a child is brought up learning about responsibility, respect for others and a difference between right and wrong, then they have a good chance. What chance do theses kids have when the parents seem to have abdicated all of their responsibilities to the State? What role models are they to impressionable young kids. They will grow up thinking that you don`t need to work to get what you want. It will all be given to you.

 

This is an issue I see often in my work. Generational benefit claimants.

 

I wouldn't describe them as living in the lap of luxury through.

[daveygwyatt]

You can't take away their right to have as many children as they like.. How ever he should be forced to work to reduce the level of benefits they get.. It shows how wrong the system is. I have 4 kids and 1 on the way and would be no worse off on benefits, how ever what sort of example would not working set the kids. I work 6 nights a week and encourage my kids to have a strong work ethic. So in short if the fella chooses not to work.. Half his benefits!! Maybe they would struggle with 1 family car and no sky tv.. But the rest of us make do.

[mightysaints]

What ****es me off is that they have Sky...nice TV.....Mobiles....and think that they are the norm. Told my kids that as soon as possible get out of this screwed up country. Work all your life,pay tax,NI and get screwed over. Do bugger all apart from create tons of kids, get a house,get a tv,get sky,get a car..we are total mugs

[Block 5]

How do you......

 

 

I don`t disagree with much of what you say, but how are these kids getting a good start in life? A person is formed from a very early age by the influences immediately around him (or her). If a child is brought up learning about responsibility, respect for others and a difference between right and wrong, then they have a good chance. What chance do theses kids have when the parents seem to have abdicated all of their responsibilities to the State? What role models are they to impressionable young kids. They will grow up thinking that you don`t need to work to get what you want. It will all be given to you.

 

 

Or you........

 

 

It's that sort of attitude which gets the country in this mess.

 

Do you really think they are getting the best start by being taught that all you have to do to get life's luxuries is get up the duff and sit on your arse claiming benefits all your life?

 

You could remove ALL their benefits tomorrow, their parent(s) would be forced to work and those kids would have less luxury now, but a much brighter future.

 

.......have any idea about how those children are being raised or taught by their parents?

 

What you're doing there is making a massive assumption that is based on your own prejudices.

 

Isn't there a word for that?

[CB Saint]

One thing that struck me in the articel is that they spent two grand on christmas presents. Two grand. This is why people take issue with the system. Benefits should be there to help you keep your head above water not to provide a good lifestyle.

[miserableoldgit]

How do you......

 

 

 

 

 

Or you........

 

 

 

 

.......have any idea about how those children are being raised or taught by their parents?

 

What you're doing there is making a massive assumption that is based on your own prejudices.

 

Isn't there a word for that?

I would say "experience" rather than "prejudices".What is your opinion on the most likely way that the children are being raised? Your opinion (if you have one) is as valid (and based on the same amount of knowledge) as mine or anyone elses but I bet that I am not far from being right. Having bought up two children (both now in their 30`s) I know how they are influenced and formed by how the parents act and their attitude. If the parents whole life is based on the fact that they have no responsibility to provide, and that the State/World/taxpayer owes them a living then it HAS to have an influence on the children. Nature v Nurture.

Edited 14 April, 2010 by miserableoldgit

[Smirking_Saint]

One thing that struck me in the articel is that they spent two grand on christmas presents. Two grand. This is why people take issue with the system. Benefits should be there to help you keep your head above water not to provide a good lifestyle.

 

Nail on head

[Hatch]

One thing that struck me in the articel is that they spent two grand on christmas presents. Two grand. This is why people take issue with the system. Benefits should be there to help you keep your head above water not to provide a good lifestyle.

 

Benefits should be in the form of vouchers for food and other essentials.

[Scudamore]

Benefits should be in the form of vouchers for food and other essentials.

 

Silk sheets?

[miserableoldgit]

Benefits should be in the form of vouchers for food and other essentials.

Condoms??

[Smirking_Saint]

Silk sheets?

 

And a sky HD subscription obviously

[saint_stevo]

And a sky HD subscription obviously

 

Mercedes, and room for a pony

[saint_stevo]

The cost of this young lady and her kids is a cool £5 million+

 

(according to the Daily Hail)

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262425/5million-The-extraordinary-sum-cost-taxpayer-support-single-mother-benefits.html

 

She is pretty hot tbf

[norwaysaint]

It's worth noting that one of the reasons Britain and other countries have needed immigrants has been an aging population. Most couples these days do not have more than 2 children, meaning that the aging generation is larger than the young one. Economically that's disastrous as the result is a large non-working, non-earning generation being cared for by a small one and the numbers don't add up.

 

If the "native population" dwindles then the shortfall in working, earning people has to be made up by working immigrants, or else there won't be money in the system for pensions, healthcare etc.

 

Having a large family is one of the biggest contributions you can make towards lowering immigration.

 

(Yes I know about the million holes in all of that and I'm cherry picking parts of an argument on purpose, but there is an interesting point there for the people on this thread who both complain about immigration and complain about the kind of people who have lots of kids too.)

[miserableoldgit]

It's worth noting that one of the reasons Britain and other countries have needed immigrants has been an aging population. Most couples these days do not have more than 2 children, meaning that the aging generation is larger than the young one. Economically that's disastrous as the result is a large non-working, non-earning generation being cared for by a small one and the numbers don't add up.

 

If the "native population" dwindles then the shortfall in working, earning people has to be made up by working immigrants, or else there won't be money in the system for pensions, healthcare etc.

 

Having a large family is one of the biggest contributions you can make towards lowering immigration.

 

 

(Yes I know about the million holes in all of that and I'm cherry picking parts of an argument on purpose, but there is an interesting point there for the people on this thread who both complain about immigration and complain about the kind of people who have lots of kids too.)

 

I know that you are being deliberately controversial but that would apply if the 14 kids this woman wants, eventually all went out to work and paid there taxes like most of the rest of us. If they decide to use their parents as role-models and (ab)use the system, we will be even deeper in the mire. Some sense of balance is required both on the immigration and benefits front

[Scudamore]

And a sky HD subscription obviously

 

Subscription to Sky television is in the upper echelons of Maslow's hierarchy of sloth it is true

[Arizona]

Benefits should be in the form of vouchers for food and other essentials.

 

Agree with this.

 

Just have a special supermarket in every town which only sells essentials, namely food and cheap clothing*. Everything else is a luxury. The shop should trade only using vouchers, not cash, which are handed out weekly to people on benefits.

 

Also agree with the policy of only having benefits for the first two children in each family. Obvious if it were implemented it would have to apply to children conceived after the law came into force.

 

The retirement age will also need to go up. If over the next few decades, people are living to averages of 85 and 90, they can't just retire at 65. Having adults on benefits for 20 years plus just isn't going to be feasible.

 

*Under no circumstances should this include cigarettes or alcohol. People feeding their drug habits with my wages ticks me off a tad.

[Thedelldays]

And a sky HD subscription obviously

dont forget the free brand new laptops/computers dished out

[Scudamore]

Agree with this.

 

Just have a special supermarket in every town which only sells essentials, namely food and cheap clothing*. Everything else is a luxury. The shop should trade only using vouchers, not cash, which are handed out weekly to people on benefits.

 

Also agree with the policy of only having benefits for the first two children in each family. Obvious if it were implemented it would have to apply to children conceived after the law came into force.

 

The retirement age will also need to go up. If over the next few decades, people are living to averages of 85 and 90, they can't just retire at 65. Having adults on benefits for 20 years plus just isn't going to be feasible.

 

*Under no circumstances should this include cigarettes or alcohol. People feeding their drug habits with my wages ticks me off a tad.

 

Christ you have some "interesting" ideas...please tell me you won't ever be getting into politics!

[bridge too far]

Here's what is happening with regard to laptops

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8449485.stm

 

May I respectfully suggest people read the whole article.

[Thedelldays]

Here's what is happening with regard to laptops

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8449485.stm

I can tell you that my missus' colleagues give away free laptops to families with at least one car in the drive..all the sky channels..big house etc...basically, the ones getting the laptop are probably living a better life style than the person handing them over (in some cases)

[Johnny Bognor]

Agree with this.

 

Just have a special supermarket in every town which only sells essentials, namely food and cheap clothing*. Everything else is a luxury. The shop should trade only using vouchers, not cash, which are handed out weekly to people on benefits.

 

Also agree with the policy of only having benefits for the first two children in each family. Obvious if it were implemented it would have to apply to children conceived after the law came into force.

 

The retirement age will also need to go up. If over the next few decades, people are living to averages of 85 and 90, they can't just retire at 65. Having adults on benefits for 20 years plus just isn't going to be feasible.

 

*Under no circumstances should this include cigarettes or alcohol. People feeding their drug habits with my wages ticks me off a tad.

 

You forgot that you

1) Are not allowed in Pubs

2) Can't go to the cinema

3) Can't go to theme parks

4) Can't go nightclubbing

 

But in return, you can have free taxis to job interviews

[Smirking_Saint]

Subscription to Sky television is in the upper echelons of Maslow's hierarchy of sloth it is true

 

Maslow can f*ck off and take his pyramid with him

[Arizona]

Christ you have some "interesting" ideas...please tell me you won't ever be getting into politics!

 

You can rest assured that I wont, however I am intrigued as to which part you find disagreable? Are you suggesting that people on benefits SHOULD be allowed to buy mobile phones, booze, fags, designer clothes etc. using our wages?

 

P.S. My other policies include the legalisation of ALL recreational drugs to adults over the age of 18. Tax the heck out of them, like fags and let natural selection take its course on the users.

 

You forgot that you

1) Are not allowed in Pubs

2) Can't go to the cinema

3) Can't go to theme parks

4) Can't go nightclubbing

 

But in return, you can have free taxis to job interviews

 

The whole point of the voucher system is that only the shops would accept them.

[1576]

The whole point of the voucher system is that only the shops would accept them.

 

If only, I was a milkman for a while and there used to be milk vouchers worth £2.80 (7 pints), which obviously gave the recipient a pint a day. Some people had more than one voucher dependent on how many kids they'd produced.

 

Now with most people it was fine but the problem starts when the local shop is allowed to also except them (for milk) but decides it is a good idea to either sell the milk or do them as let's say £2 for cash.

 

Easy decision for the punter £2 towards your fags get your milk from me and don't open the door when I call for the money.

 

Always someone out there who will take advantage of the situation. Who's to blame milk token recipient or dodgy shop owner.

[Arizona]

If only, I was a milkman for a while and there used to be milk vouchers worth £2.80 (7 pints), which obviously gave the recipient a pint a day. Some people had more than one voucher dependent on how many kids they'd produced.

 

Now with most people it was fine but the problem starts when the local shop is allowed to also except them (for milk) but decides it is a good idea to either sell the milk or do them as let's say £2 for cash.

 

Easy decision for the punter £2 towards your fags get your milk from me and don't open the door when I call for the money.

 

Always someone out there who will take advantage of the situation. Who's to blame milk token recipient or dodgy shop owner.

 

Obviously you would need regulations preventing people from selling the vouchers. Have under cover sting opperations, much the same as the police use with under 18s going into off liscences at the moment.

 

If people are living by these voucher's they might not be so willing to give them away. Going without fresh milk is one thing, but I doubt many people would chose fags and booze over food.