mountain_tiger
Smash Champion
Link to original post: [drupal=3288]Family with seven children get 42k a year in benefits...[/drupal]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ets-42-000-benefits-year-drives-Mercedes.html
Bearing in mind that benefits aren't taxed, that ends up coming to the equivalent of... around 70-80k or so? It's at least 65k a year, that's for sure.
This family, with no fewer than SEVEN children and an eighth on the way, get a four-bedroom house, two cars and more, when neither of them work. Now, if it was a case of them being unable to work, that would be more understandable. But the father gave up his job deliebrately because he realised that he could get more from claiming benefits... So it's not a case of being unable to find a job as it's intended to be; he willingly gave up work.
What makes it even worse is that they seem to relish in this. In particular, some statements that stood out:
Quote:
'I don't feel bad about being subsidised by people who are working. I'm just working with the system that's there.'
Quote:
'We couldn't afford to care for our children without benefits'
So you shouldn't have had them then, should you? She's even planning on having 14 in total!
Quote:
'Most of the parents at our kids' school are on benefits.'
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was true. I mean, if everyone got the chance to get as much money as they do without working, I reckon quite a few people would take it. The fact that they were even encouraged to quit their job to get more money is terrible.
I can't help but think how unfair this is compared to people who actually work hard. My sister's 29, engaged but not yet married, no children, and they've been trying to get on the property ladder for a good two years now, trying to sell their flat to buy their house. They both do their jobs, pay taxes, but they haven't had much luck with that. But if they quit their jobs, had five or six children and asked for a council house, they'd almost certainly get it. The flaws in this system are sickening. It spits in the face of people of past generations who struggled to bring up their children through their work.
The problem is that in practice it's difficult to hem in on the system without being unfair to the people who genuinely need help whilst trying to find work. And the children as well. They've done nothing wrong; it's not their fault their parents are dossers. And their parents will use this argument no end, claiming that they need more money to look after their children.
The idea of forced sterilisation has been brought up. Now, at first it seems like a horrific idea, the sort of thing you'd expect from Nazi Germany rather than 21st century society. But if they can't afford to look after their children, and will continue to scrounge off the State in order to do so, perhaps it's best that those children are never brought into the world at all. A lot of these state couples don't give children the love and care they need; some simply see them as 'money cows', to milk more money from the state, which they waste on alcohol and cigarettes while their children are neglected.
The question is, can such an extreme proposal ever be justified? It's a very slippery slope, but on the whole, it could well be better for society...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ets-42-000-benefits-year-drives-Mercedes.html
Bearing in mind that benefits aren't taxed, that ends up coming to the equivalent of... around 70-80k or so? It's at least 65k a year, that's for sure.
This family, with no fewer than SEVEN children and an eighth on the way, get a four-bedroom house, two cars and more, when neither of them work. Now, if it was a case of them being unable to work, that would be more understandable. But the father gave up his job deliebrately because he realised that he could get more from claiming benefits... So it's not a case of being unable to find a job as it's intended to be; he willingly gave up work.
What makes it even worse is that they seem to relish in this. In particular, some statements that stood out:
Quote:
'I don't feel bad about being subsidised by people who are working. I'm just working with the system that's there.'
Quote:
'We couldn't afford to care for our children without benefits'
So you shouldn't have had them then, should you? She's even planning on having 14 in total!
Quote:
'Most of the parents at our kids' school are on benefits.'
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was true. I mean, if everyone got the chance to get as much money as they do without working, I reckon quite a few people would take it. The fact that they were even encouraged to quit their job to get more money is terrible.
I can't help but think how unfair this is compared to people who actually work hard. My sister's 29, engaged but not yet married, no children, and they've been trying to get on the property ladder for a good two years now, trying to sell their flat to buy their house. They both do their jobs, pay taxes, but they haven't had much luck with that. But if they quit their jobs, had five or six children and asked for a council house, they'd almost certainly get it. The flaws in this system are sickening. It spits in the face of people of past generations who struggled to bring up their children through their work.
The problem is that in practice it's difficult to hem in on the system without being unfair to the people who genuinely need help whilst trying to find work. And the children as well. They've done nothing wrong; it's not their fault their parents are dossers. And their parents will use this argument no end, claiming that they need more money to look after their children.
The idea of forced sterilisation has been brought up. Now, at first it seems like a horrific idea, the sort of thing you'd expect from Nazi Germany rather than 21st century society. But if they can't afford to look after their children, and will continue to scrounge off the State in order to do so, perhaps it's best that those children are never brought into the world at all. A lot of these state couples don't give children the love and care they need; some simply see them as 'money cows', to milk more money from the state, which they waste on alcohol and cigarettes while their children are neglected.
The question is, can such an extreme proposal ever be justified? It's a very slippery slope, but on the whole, it could well be better for society...