Spongers on Benefits! Rant..

[ QUOTE ]
I think the other thing that would make the system fairer is to add to the above is if someone earns over 40k per year as a household income then they get nothing for their children at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely do not agree with that!

40k for a household income is not really a huge amount, and people earning that amount have worked hard for it. By refusing to give them any support for children, you are basically penalizing the people who work hard and who put more money back into the system.

This was the situation at college. My parents combined earn a fair bit over that amount, so we are over the bracket for receiving EPA. We live comfortably, but are by no means rich. I had a Saturday job all through college to pay for my horse and social life, and people whose parents who earned under the bracket were given £30 a week simply for going to classes and in my experience, spent it mostly on alcohol and didn't have to work.

I think if cash support is going to be given like this, it should be for everybody. It seems to be the case often, that the harder you work and the more successful you are in this country, the more gets taken away and the less you are given.

I actually think Tia's idea of giving everyone a set amount is very good, and much fairer IMO.
 
Where can I get this job at £360 per week? Thats more than I earn, & more than my husband earns too!!! Obviously our BIG mistake is being happily married & choosing to work hard to buy our own home & not have any children, but 2 horses & a dog instead!! I expect if I had multiple births & neither of us worked we'd be given a house & loads of money. By the way we are SAVING UP (remember that) to decorate our bathroom.
 
glad I didn't watch this, I would have been getting all angry! There are loads of scroungers around here, simple fact is it's easier than going to work! I know a fair few people who have never worked a day in their life, have a kid, and dammit they have a home and more disposable income than I do! I personally think if you cannot afford to support a child, then don't have one, let alone 18!
 
but is the 40k a year a combined total? because if so my dads been in the police service for 23 years + so we havea household income over 40k because both my parents work, which means when i come to go uni i wont be able to apply for any grants because i apparantly come froma rich home. which is a lie. we dont go away often infact the only reason we do is because we were left some money!

whereas a friends friend (who i hasten to add is going through prosectuction for benefit fraud to the tune of 60k) had a husband on 50k+, she doesnt work and hasnt for the last 20 years her daughter who is now a single teenage mum (shes 19 but yeah) asked our friend to fill out her working tax credit and god knows what other forms depsite the baby going to spain to live! needless to say the friend said no as she doesnt want to be caught up in it and no-one realised she was still on benefits!
 
[ QUOTE ]


Dr J has to pay for education and child benefit, despite having no children. However, since Dr J pays for them, he should have more say in them than Ms B who benefits from them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly!!!

Does anyone remember the case earlier this year about Anna Taylor in Cornwall. She had 5 children under five (she was 26) and received £501 per week in State Benefits. Her partner is a qualified nurse, but they both refuse to work. Anna kicked up a stink becasue she was told to find work, but refused to look and was therefore denied Job Seekers Allowance.
The ridiculous excuses she came up with for all suggestions was beyond belief.
They claimed:
There were no jobs available - instantly over 36 suitable jobs were found on-line
They had to have a car and spent £30 a week on petrol, to do a five minute walk to school (yes, 5 minute WALK not drive)
Partner could not work because he had to look after the two babies while Anna drove the others to school (and remember, they are all under five)
She had an internet connection, but she claimed this was free because she had no landline.
She spent £30 a week on her mobile phone, which she only had for emergencies.

It went on and on.

It is this sort of people that I detest. genuine claimants I am fine with. My hubby was made redundant early last year. he finished the job on Sunday and started a new job on Monday. Six months later he was made redundant again, because his employer moved to France. Hubby applied for a few jobs buit, with a mortgage etc, he decided to apply for JSA. He got nothing, despite the fact he has paid Tax and NI since he left school over 22 years ago.

I personally agree with the stopping of any extra payments for more than two children, if you want that many, then fund them yourself.

Then we would get the NSPCC saying children are deprived
 
You have to be aware that the majority of the people working in benefit offices are not very bright and their stupidity encourages spongers.
Take this example. many years ago I was in the DHSS office in Bradford about a P61 query, all the Asian taxi drivers were complaining about their dole and benefits and then getting into their taxis and going back to work. The staff knew what was going on but couldn't be bothered to blow the gaff. However, the best one was when a West Indian walked in with a scrap of paper with a National Insurance number on it and demanded his benefits. The wonk behind the counter said, "Are you sure this is your NI?"
The man said yes, the wonk said, "This is a womans NI have you got the letters right?"
This exchange went on for a while and the man eventually left, now I was unemployed at the time and I was furious that an idiot was actually being paid for being a moron. To me the man should have been asked to wait in an office and the police called in.
This was over 20 years ago and now the wonks idiot kids will be working for the DSS and so the cycle of stupidity and sponging carries on.
By the way I made the point about the nationality of the defrauders because in Bradford the Council and the Civil Service was so terrified of all and sundry shouting "RACE!" that they allowed this to happen.
Also the housing department had no ceiling on repair grants so any moron could demand £100,000 pounds to make good housing stock and no questions were asked and no follow up investigations ever made neither were repayments necessary, so people just bought more houses and asked for more money and not a penny was spent on repairs. When the idiots run the asylums corruption is just bound to flourish.
 
Tetrach, I find your story a little hard to believe. I worked in the civil service for 18 years and I am pretty sure that neither I nor any of my colleagues ever gave anyone £100,000 to repair their house. Or maybe I have just forgotten that we did if all civil servants really are as stupid as you say? I think you may be surprised by my educational qualifications actually and I am now the MD of my own limited company so this "idiot" hasn't done too badly for herself considering - lol.
 
Tia, I vote you for the next prime minister. Topping idea!


Atilia - or is it Attila? - go to India and see what poverty really is, then tell me you still think the benefit system should be scrapped.


The comment about the benefit system in Italy: same in France. That's why begging is LEGAL over there - loose your job = loose your home = on the streets. The UK benefit system is a life-saver; and yes, it's open to abuse, but we're damn lucky to have it.

Stay-at-home-mothers: for children to have a mother (or father) staying at home to look after them in their pre-school - their most vulnerable years - should be A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT. If this government truly cares about family values they should pay a wage (not to be called benefits - how demeaning - it's earned, as every mother knows) to a parent of a pre-schooler as an incentive for them to bring their children up as they should be in the stability of their home environment. You want to prevent the breakdown of society and family infrastructure? It starts right here.
 
Well, up here we have a few factories. They actually pay pretty good money and benefits. Odd that there are people saying 'I can't find a job' and yet half the staff at the factories are polish (and also very nice and polite in my dealings with them where I am). My Mum still works full time, is on her own and is 64. She doesn't even get help with rent. I know people the same age (or younger than me) with one child who get more than me on benefits, I'm a bank manager and I get so wound up with customers who reckon I get paid loads. Yeah right, in my dreams.

Oh this subject really annoys me. I remember trying to sign on while I was looking for work (for all off 2 weeks) and they refused because I was married. Would be different if I had a sprog!
 
[ QUOTE ]
If this government truly cares about family values they should pay a wage (not to be called benefits - how demeaning - it's earned, as every mother knows) to a parent of a pre-schooler as an incentive for them to bring their children up as they should be in the stability of their home environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously?!
ooo.gif


No way! That would just encourage more spongers.
crazy.gif


I don't want my taxes being spent on such an idea.
crazy.gif
If you can't afford children, then don't have them
crazy.gif
 
I know a young lass who is on for her second child....and she has never worked a day sinse she left school
crazy.gif
mad.gif
....I dont tink she should be given a wage....she should never have had a second child whilst still on benefits
crazy.gif
she sits on her hump all day and does sweet bu**er all
crazy.gif

However she feels its fine to have another child even though she cant support the one she has without the aid of benefits.
I agree that mothers who have worked for x amount of years, should maybe have a bigger top up on their maternity pay to help out until the child is old enough so that the parent can retun back to work.
But I dont think this should apply to everyone...esp those with no work history
crazy.gif
 
Hear hear FinellaGlen. Actually it's not a case of not being bothered or being dim Tetrach, am I dim? I think not.

Having worked for the DSS before joining the Police a number of years ago it's got more to do with the constraints of the goddam Human Rights Act which means you can't just go and spy on people any more to gather your evidence.

Any kind of 'intrusive' surveillance (cameras, phone tapping etc) has to be authorised by every man and his dog before it can go ahead so give us a break FFS, we get just as frustrated as any other tax payer!
 
Can someone please explain to me why the hell people who CHOOSE to have children should be paid to stay at home & look after them with my taxes?? If you can't afford them DON'T BL****Y HAVE THEM THEN!!! I am sick & tired of hearing how difficult it is to care for your children blah blah blah, remember there is a choice, & I really don't see why I should work hard to support other people's kids, pay for the schools I don't use etc etc. I haven't got kids, don't ever want any, & definately don't receive any benefits to pay for the dog & horses I CHOOSE to have. In Jamaica if the parents don't work to pay for the schooling, the kids don't go, strangely enough the children are really proud of the uniforms their parents have worked so hard to buy & appreciate how lucky they are to be at school at all. Unlike here where all I hear is "I am entitled" WTF!! why are you "entitled" when you are contributing sweet FA!!! No doubt many of you will be ourtraged that I am so ungrateful not to be overjoyed to give 23% of my wages to support your kids, but guess what, I'm not!!! However, I do strongly believe in help for those in GENUINE need.
 
I would happily see most benefits scapped but I don't have any problems paying my taxes so that a free enducation is offered to all. It is not the kids fault if their parents are lazy good for nothings and at least with an education they have a chance to be more.
 
See your point, but surely there are things that the tax system pays for that benefits you? The kids you pay to support may grow up to be your doctor or lawyer, taxes also pay for things like healthcare which I'm sure you'd want to use if necessary.

I don't agree with people who sponge off the system, but there is a bigger picture.
 
As a 26 year old mother of two, I am one of those....

With my first child I was a single parent. I didnt CHOOSE to be a single parent, in fact the guilt somehow lays on my shoulders that my son's father couldnt give a flying toss about him.
I met my current OH and WE CHOSE to have a baby. He CHOSE to take on my son. The CSA have never bothered to chase up my ex, despite having all his details.
When WE CHOSE to have a baby WE DECIDED that i would stay at home. We've chosen to have another baby, and again, I will stay at home.

It's all lovely saying "well if you can't afford kids don't have them". But in this country there aren't enough houses of which a family on a NORMAL income could afford. How many people here earn over 30k a year? In order to afford a morgage both parents need to work. (Unless one of you happens to be lucky enough to have a job which earns over 30k a year). If life was as you state it should be then everyone would be aiming for the best paid jobs. In which case you'd have no nurses, police officers etc etc.

If both parents work, they then have to pay childcare. If only one parent works, and only has a normally paid job, they need tax credits to be able to afford housing.

So effectively what you're saying is only the elite should breed?? Or those with the best paid jobs?
 
Not at all, I think what people object to are those who have never bothered to work so therefore have not paid anything in, but think it's ok to breed a few kids in order to receive a free house & money to buy DVD's. Obviously Katy you do not fall in to this bracket as you are in a committed relationship & 1 of you is able to work & contribute to the fund to help you look after your family. I did say in my earlier post that I think there should be help available for those in genuine need, as you were when you were left on your own with a small child. I agree that it's hard buying your own home, & even if we wanted a family, we couldn't afford 1, as we rely on both incomes, but what if everyone chose to have a family & not work to support them? The money would simply run out, so it's a good job good old hubby & me work so hard to subsidise those that do want to sit at home all day isn't it???!!
 
There are a couple of companies who offer al these 'freebies' to anyone on benefits. Want a widescreen telly? they'll deliver it the next day. Want 500 pounds cash? They'll give it to you. If you sign early enough in the day they'll bring it out that afternoon.

What they don't tell people is, a loan of 500 piunds has 42% interest on it. Whilst i see that people should have half a brain and not fall for these loans, I can see how tempting it would be.
Very rarely do people on benefits have enough money to buy these things outright.

The problem isnt always these "scroungers", it's society as a whole. Jobs ARE available, but usually people have no qualifications of skills, and to get these costs money. The DSS offer you help, but it's always just out of reach. ie you get a job, as soon as you start work (and most people work a week in hand) they stop the benefits. If you have a family this means going 4 weeks on nothing.

Just trying to explain it isnt always as simple as people think.
 
I think the minimum wage should be dramatically increased, think about it if you have two people who are in low paid work and want to have a family, what the hell is the incentive to work when you are better off on benefits! You would be daft to go to work, how a man can be expected to support his family on £6.50 an hour, your having a laugh. Most people on this forum will have a decent quality of living, so dont be to judgemental unless you have been in these circumstances. I dont work at the moment as i have 2 children, but my husband has his own business.
 
But surely people only deserve to be paid what they are worth? Industry would unsustainable otherwise. So does this mean that more low earners are going to drag up their kids on benefits as they are better off. Sounds like a self perpetuating cycle to me. Hmmn wonder how many of those kids will become doctors and lawyers. Maybe a low eaners benefit should be paid alongside their wages? Isn't that how tax credits work. I don't think they are worth much though. I have no idea how much income support is worth, but surely giving low wage earners enough benefits to make them "in credit" and better off workjng would be the way forward. This would improve self esteem and also give the sprogs a positive role to follow, thus halting the nurture circle?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top