£42,000 a year benefits

[keithd]

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

Daily Mail negative spin, or a family making the most of the "system"?

I have views about this which are quite strong, and involve some nasty words.

That said, is it her problem that the current system allows them to claim this amount of money?

I'll chuck it out there for the class to discuss if they wish. Or not.

[Specialone]

I cant write what i think :rant:
Yes it is her problem about the system, its called pride, responsiblity.
Keep ya legs shut and watch that big ass tv you bought more often !!!

[454697819]

ill get my gun

[metalangel]

*sharpens torch*
*lights pitchfork*

Whoops.

[malks]

i cant really write what i want to write on here. things like that really really p!ss me off. why do they feel the government should fund them to have children?

if i want a car, i have to make sure i can afford to run it and pay the bills that go with it. if i want a dog, i have to make sure i can afford to pay the bills that go with that and look after it to a decent standard.

maybe i should write a letter to gordon brown asking for some form of benefit to help me run my car? seeing he's making it so expensive for me to run!

[L3nny]

This is an exreme but there must be millions who are doing a similar thing with one or two kids. In the town where I grw up the cheapest house is over £200k and having kids rather than working is the only way anyone can afford to live there.

[kellyjo]

We've been here and done this one before and it just f***ing annoys me.

Im on benefits with three kids. Their father doesnt bother contributing much but then whats the point me forcing him when the government will only take it straight back off me.
I have to find £200 a month out of their food/clothing money just to keep a decent roof over their heads because housing benefit only gives me 75% of what i need to house them.
I maintain a 'car' because its 10 miles to the nearest tesco, but the car value is less than ive just had to borrow from family to get it through its mot. I only have my bike because someone fully funded it for me.

Im doing voluntary work at the local schools to give myself the best chance of employment in a school as ive had to give up my teaching degree in order to commit my time to the kids.

Now i know, nobody made me have 3 kids, i wanted them, but i never had them expecting to find myself in this situation, and i feel that im just claiming back some of the money ive paid into the system over the years.

Now im not sure how these families you see in the press manage it, because in my experience living on benefits is literally having to scrape together every penny just to feed and cloth us, and that usually means i go without most things just to give them the things they need, regardless of the things they want!

So please, when you read these articles, just bear in mind that this is not the reality for everyone. Living on benefits is frustrating, difficult, destroys your self esteem and NOT an easy ride.

And i dont want your sympathy, just putting my side of the story accross.

[Mr Farley]

I say give them no benefits and let Darwinism take over.

It gets on my nerves when people have kids knowing full well they can't afford them. It's for that very reason I haven't got any kids myself.

Everyone knows you've got a far better chance of getting a Council house if you've got a child.

The benefit system has no doubt helped many deserving people, but it has unfortunately also allowed a moronic underbelly to thrive in this country.

I'm not really talking about most people on benefits who do their best to work (or genuinely can't work for one reason and another) but don't quite have enough money to pay bills etc. There's a significant minority that just take the **** though.

[keithd]

stuff.

i dont think anybody on here would have a problem with you or people in the same situation as you, its the people who exploit the system. Its the likes of this couple who do nothing but reproduce ginger kids and demand a bigger house demand two cars demand sky tv and call them necessities and have to have them.

these are the people who should be stopped.

[Messie]

KellyJo - I completely support and understand your situation. I was in a similar position a few years ago.

Of course, there will always be a handful of people who abuse the system, rich and poor and every social class, however the majority of people are not 'on benefits' by choice, but as a fallback position because things just havn't gone to plan. Despite the abusers of the system I'd rather we ad it than the old workhouse way

[kellyjo]

The system does need changing though.

One of my best friends had a baby with her bloke, decided she didnt want to live with his other daughter so moved out. She signed over thousands of pounds to her mum so she could claim benefit and now has her bloke paying for everything else. So all the benefit she receives is disposable income and mostly spent on clothes, on top of all the money her mums 'looking after'. Its just wrong and our friendship is now suffering because shes lost my respect, but thats her choice i guess.

[cuffy]

Look on the bright side, they're all fat and ginger so they'll get ridiculed in later life :D

[keithd]

Look on the bright side, they're all fat and ginger so they'll get ridiculed in later life :D

think about it, 1 ginger kid reproduces 2.1 children. high probability of more ginge.

8 reproduce 2.1 - nearly 17 more gingers walking this planet.

when will the madness end....

anyway, back on topic...

[Sosha]

In the town where I grw up the cheapest house is over £200k and having kids rather than working is the only way anyone can afford to live there.

It's about time something was done to protect affordable housing for the people who work here. The whole "Property as an investment" is plain wrong.

All very well saying "We'll have subsidised housing for key workers but name me a non key worker. Teachers, nurses, busdrivers etc still need to shop, get their car MOT'd, go out for a meal etc.

Not sure how you'd go about it. Stop artificially inflating prices with "Part buy Part rent" schemes and restrict holiday homes/ non resident ownership and buy to let?

OFF TOPIC

[eviltwin]

It's about time something was done to protect affordable housing for the people who work here. The whole "Property as an investment" is plain wrong.

All very well saying "We'll have subsidised housing for key workers but name me a non key worker. Teachers, nurses, busdrivers etc still need to shop, get their car MOT'd, go out for a meal etc.

Not sure how you'd go about it. Stop artificially inflating prices with "Part buy Part rent" schemes and restrict holiday homes/ non resident ownership and buy to let?

OFF TOPIC

Sosha, if what you're suggesting is a socialist style intervention into free market economics, that's a fantastic advance on only page 2 of a thread started with a Daily Wail article - well done! :notworthy: :smt038 ;)

[keithd]

Sosha, if what you're suggesting is a socialist style intervention into free market economics, that's a fantastic advance on only page 2 of a thread started with a Daily Wail article - well done! :notworthy: :smt038 ;)

i dont even get close to understanding that sentence!! :D or :(

[L3nny]

I think it all started going wrong when council tennants were allowed to buy their houses.

The houses they bought in the early 90s for about 20k are now worth 200k, Every house on the council estates in the town are now privately owned and as it is a rural area there are tight restrictions on building new houses.

Therefore if a new estate is built some of the houses have to be designated for social housing, therefore the local workshy are given a brand new house on a vey nice estate for a monthly rent of about 10% of what the mortgage on the house over the road would be.

And just to make it even more laughable they are given £500 when they move in to decorate it how they like! It's a brand new house FFS!

IMO social housing should only be used as a temporary measure for people down on their luck while they are working to improve their situation. There should be a time limit on the amount of time you are allowed to stay there. The long term workshy should be made to live on a compound built on land where nowhere else wants to live, like next to the sewage treatment plant or something.

[CoolGirl]

Before the debate goes any further, may I refer you all to this...

http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=149292 (http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=149292)

I was in a similar position a few years ago.

me too. I was working at the time and on a low wage. But I kept my job and managed to make the mortgage payments. All in the days before financial help with childcare or working tax credits and with no maintenance payments fom Isaac's dad and no financial or childcare help from anyone else. But I worked extrememely hard to make it all work - I could easily have taken the benefits route but I'd still be there now rather than getting promoted, earning several times more than the average wage and being most of the way to owning my home outright. I think the defining factor was we went without things - holidays, gadgets, cable TV, latest toys and clothes etc. But we turned out OK. Where there's a will...

[Jabba]

To my mind the social security system was originally intended as a safety net to help those who, through not fault of their own, find themselves in need. Great - fully support that and am happy to pay my tax/NI on that basis.

The problem is that those in power have, over the years, allowed the system to change to the point where people, like the bloke in the Daily Wail's article, decide to give up work to live off the state. That is just wrong. Why should he have anything at all?

Grrr!!

[kellyjo]

Before the debate goes any further, may I refer you all to this... http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=149292 (http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=149292) me too. I was working at the time and on a low wage. But I kept my job and managed to make the mortgage payments. All in the days before financial help with childcare or working tax credits and with no maintenance payments fom Isaac's dad and no financial or childcare help from anyone else. But I worked extrememely hard to make it all work - I could easily have taken the benefits route but I'd still be there now rather than getting promoted, earning several times more than the average wage and being most of the way to owning my home outright. I think the defining factor was we went without things - holidays, gadgets, cable TV, latest toys and clothes etc. But we turned out OK. Where there's a will...

Thats why im giving myself the best chance of getting a job in school. My youngest starts full time in September and the day after he starts i want to get back to work, and i dont really care what i do, but i have a brain so hopefully it will be something with some prospects!!

[CoolGirl]

The problem is that those in power have, over the years, allowed the system to change to the point where people, like the bloke in the Daily Wail's article, decide to give up work to live off the state. That is just wrong. Why should he have anything at all?

Grrr!!

If only I was allowed to repsond to that! (you'll have to wait until 7 May)

[Jabba]

If only I was allowed to repsond to that! (you'll have to wait until 7 May)

You can respond, but not publically ;-)

Go on, I'd like to know. Cream cake in it for you :D

[Specialone]

I've said this before on here but...
When my dad died aged 52 my mom was left with 4 kids, three at home, i was the youngest at 7.
She hardly got any help from benefits and we didnt have a pot to urinate in, yet she still had 3 jobs at one point which went down to 2 after a while.
My mom worked damn hard in crappy jobs for crap pay but she still worked.
I dont begrudge anyone with help when needed but to have their lifestyle if its true in that article then that stinks.
If you wanna have 20 kids thats your perogative, but ONLY if you can support them dont leave it up to us, should be a legal limit or sterilise them.

[ranathari]

The story is complete nonsense and anyone who thinks anything the Daily Mail publish is in any way truthful and accurate is an idiot.

The reason why they're apparently well off is that they're funding their lifestyles via debt and topping it up with welfare payments. They've been shopping their story round the papers for a while now to try and get more money to pay off their credit card and loan debts.

More to the point, stories like this shouldn't prompt you to say that the welfare state should be cut back in any way. The minimum wage should be increased to the point where it becomes preferable to be in work as opposed to out of it or, ideally, we'd have a national living wage rather than a minimum wage.

edit: forgot to mention that he's probably lying about his reasons for quitting work. Currently the bailiffs/creditors cannot claim any debts owed via your welfare payments if you are unemployed so it's more likely that he quit work to avoid having to repay his debts. The minute he gets back into employment they'll come after him for the money and he'll be screwed.

There's also the fact that most councils have sold off their larger properties to the private sector thanks to that mad bitch in the 80s so if he were to work then they'd lose their housing payments and have to pay commercial rates, which are impossible to meet for a family with that many children.

[Specialone]

The story is complete nonsense and anyone who thinks anything the Daily Mail publish is in any way truthful and accurate is an idiot.

The reason why they're apparently well off is that they're funding their lifestyles via debt and topping it up with welfare payments. They've been shopping their story round the papers for a while now to try and get more money to pay off their credit card and loan debts.

More to the point, stories like this shouldn't prompt you to say that the welfare state should be cut back in any way. The minimum wage should be increased to the point where it becomes preferable to be in work as opposed to out of it or, ideally, we'd have a national living wage rather than a minimum wage.

Just out of interest, who pays for the minimum wage?
What about companies that can barely stay afloat due to being heavily taxed by the government, foreign competition undercutting them etc etc.
This issue goes further than the dss payments.
Import duty will cure all, we've lost all our manufacturing, lots of companies now manufacture abroad then import back in, high import duty would discourage this.

[anna]

Not sure how you'd go about it. Stop artificially inflating prices with "Part buy Part rent" schemes and restrict holiday homes/ non resident ownership and buy to let?


I fail to see why you should do this considering a lot of people use this as an alternative to the failing pension schemes.

Any system you put in place will fail on some levels, that isnt to say that they should be abolished.

L3nny I disagree, the scheme was set up so that people might get a chance to get onto the property ladder, yes their properties are now worth a lot more then they first brought it for, but that might easily have gone the other way, and indeed in our current climate did for a lot of people who brought their houses in the 90´s!

Getting people back into work incentives are good, and there should be more for those in the nursing, education, police and fire services.

Social services might even save themselves a bit of money if they set up nurseries so that parents might be able to drop kids off at free day care centres whilst they work, for those that are trying to get back into work, and for those that earn less then x amount.

I am sure these arent new ideas and that they have been tried to some varying degrees.

You are never going to rid yourselves of people who will find loop holes in the system, either in the benefit system at the bottom of the chain, or the tax system at the top of the chain. The only thing you can do is to make sure that a system is set up so it is transparent and works to help the majority of those who genuinely require it.

I think that for all the complaints the UK systems are the best in the world, and whilst we havent got it completely right, we are far from being the worst.

[Zombie Jesus]

1) Impose breeding resistrictions for fat, stupid, or socially irresponsible people.
2) Failure to comply with breeding restrictions incurs forced sterilisation after 2 children.
3) Welfare provided in the shape of trailer parks and food rations provided to meet minimum nutritional and calorific requirements.
4) Problem solved.

[ranathari]

Just out of interest, who pays for the minimum wage?
What about companies that can barely stay afloat due to being heavily taxed by the government, foreign competition undercutting them etc etc.
This issue goes further than the dss payments.
Import duty will cure all, we've lost all our manufacturing, lots of companies now manufacture abroad then import back in, high import duty would discourage this.

Would you like to point out some of these companies who are struggling to stay afloat thanks to our (surprisingly low) taxation levels? Most of the opposition to increased taxes on businesses like the proposed national insurance raise is coming from larger companies where the executives stand to have their enormous salaries reduced. Screw the bosses, support the workers instead.

If you're seriously advocating increasing import duty and don't understand why that's a stupid idea then you're just buying into nationalist idiocy.

[Jabba]

The minimum wage should be increased to the point where it becomes preferable to be in work as opposed to out of it or, ideally, we'd have a national living wage rather than a minimum wage.

I can't agree with this; in the present economic climate, this will price people out of jobs. Employers don't currently have the margins to support this.

An overhaul of the benefit/social security system is the way forward. Simplify it at the same time. Ditto with incapacity benefit.

[Specialone]

Would you like to point out some of these companies who are struggling to stay afloat thanks to our (surprisingly low) taxation levels? Most of the opposition to increased taxes on businesses like the proposed national insurance raise is coming from larger companies where the executives stand to have their enormous salaries reduced. Screw the bosses, support the workers instead.

If you're seriously advocating increasing import duty and don't understand why that's a stupid idea then you're just buying into nationalist idiocy.
Im not talking about large companies, im talking about small ones, with 20 or so employees, i have a friend with an engineering company, whose order book has almost gone due to customers all buggering off to foreign countries.
He pays more than minimum wage but is struggling and with the national insurance being talked about going up it could mean the difference between staying afloat.
Are you an employee by any chance???
Do you think its a good idea that all our trade has buggered off to be made cheaper in other countries?? where do you think it will end???
Dont you think its a coincendence that all the manufacturing has gone that the number of jobs thats available has fallen.

[ranathari]

Do you not understand how the concept of a living wage works? The idea is you set a minimum wage that must be paid by businesses and then set a minimum annual income that's required to meet all the necessities of living. If someone doesn't earn enough to meet the living wage then the government tops up their income to that level.

The minimum wage is a failure because it fails to account for part time and seasonal workers as well as ignoring regional differences in living costs (especially in London).

As it stands, the majority of businesses can afford to stomach a £1 increase in the minimum wage. Opposition is mostly being headed by the large businesses who stand to lose the most money, not because their income will decline but because the executives will have to tolerate reductions in expenses and bonuses. That so many people are willing to cheat themselves out of a better life because of the hideous propaganda and talking points pushed out by the Tories and the rich is just depressing.

[Specialone]

Just to add, foreign companies call our country the money pit cos they make all their profits here while paying peanuts to the poor souls manufacturing their products for them, import duty would sort that out, bring back trade here and we could become more self sufficient.

[thefallenangel]

Vote BNP/IPUK anyone but the main 3 if you want this to change.

[ranathari]

Im not talking about large companies, im talking about small ones, with 20 or so employees, i have a friend with an engineering company, whose order book has almost gone due to customers all buggering off to foreign countries.
He pays more than minimum wage but is struggling and with the national insurance being talked about going up it could mean the difference between staying afloat.
Are you an employee by any chance???
Do you think its a good idea that all our trade has buggered off to be made cheaper in other countries?? where do you think it will end???
Dont you think its a coincendence that all the manufacturing has gone that the number of jobs thats available has fallen.

You're going to have to source your claim that jobs have declined since the fall of manufacturing in the UK because everything I've seen has shown the opposite. Manufacturing in the UK has not died because it's too expensive here but because it's cheaper elsewhere, thanks to other countries having lower costs of living (which is not a product of taxation levels).

If you increase import duties then it won't spur a resurgence of manufacturing in the UK because you've managed to increase the cost of raw materials that manufacturers need. On top of that, it encourages retaliatory tariffs overseas and throttles global trade, which is, funnily enough, what tipped a recession into depression in the 20s.

More to the point, why do we need a rise in manufacturing industries in the UK? They actually earn less money than service-based industries and contribute less to the GDP. Just accept it - Britain has, like most of the developed world, transitioned from a manufacturing to a service economy.

[Messie]

The story is complete nonsense and anyone who thinks anything the Daily Mail publish is in any way truthful and accurate is an idiot.

The reason why they're apparently well off is that they're funding their lifestyles via debt and topping it up with welfare payments. They've been shopping their story round the papers for a while now to try and get more money to pay off their credit card and loan debts.

More to the point, stories like this shouldn't prompt you to say that the welfare state should be cut back in any way. The minimum wage should be increased to the point where it becomes preferable to be in work as opposed to out of it or, ideally, we'd have a national living wage rather than a minimum wage.

edit: forgot to mention that he's probably lying about his reasons for quitting work. Currently the bailiffs/creditors cannot claim any debts owed via your welfare payments if you are unemployed so it's more likely that he quit work to avoid having to repay his debts. The minute he gets back into employment they'll come after him for the money and he'll be screwed.

There's also the fact that most councils have sold off their larger properties to the private sector thanks to that mad bitch in the 80s so if he were to work then they'd lose their housing payments and have to pay commercial rates, which are impossible to meet for a family with that many children.

Absolutely agree. And your explanation of the living wage makes sense too.

1) Impose breeding resistrictions for fat, stupid, or socially irresponsible people.
2) Failure to comply with breeding restrictions incurs forced sterilisation after 2 children.
3) Welfare provided in the shape of trailer parks and food rations provided to meet minimum nutritional and calorific requirements.
4) Problem solved.

I think you're living in the wrong country hun. At least, please could you take your views to another country:rolleyes:

[Jabba]

Do The idea is you set a minimum wage that must be paid by businesses.....

For so long as they employ people. Lay people off = no wages. Simples.

It also means, no output, no income and no company. This leads to unemployment, more benfits being paid for by less people in work via the tax system. And so on.

The minimum wage was a great idea in prosperous times.

You also need to remember that the majority of people in work at the moment are employed in SMEs...... the very companies that are struggling to stay afloat at the moment.

[L3nny]

Vote BNP/IPUK anyone but the main 3 if you want this to change.

The only problem with that is most of their party members are racists nutters.

Shame really as a lot of their proposed policies I agree with, although I am not silly enough to believe they are not a friendly front for their real agendas.

[gettin2dizzy]

The story is an advert for a lady-brain-rot pink-top magazine. It's meant to rile you.

£42k for 10 people is a pretty dire situation, never mind having a munter of a wife.

[Biker Biggles]

If British manufacturing has been written off as not economicly feasable in the modern world why is it that Germany,France and even Italy still have their huge manufacturing base and many other European countries do too?They tend to have a higher standard of living than us too,and strong trade unions and better healthcare.What went wrong here?

[ranathari]

For so long as they employ people. Lay people off = no wages. Simples.

It also means, no output, no income and no company. This leads to unemployment, more benfits being paid for by less people in work via the tax system. And so on.

The minimum wage was a great idea in prosperous times.

You also need to remember that the majority of people in work at the moment are employed in SMEs...... the very companies that are struggling to stay afloat at the moment.

SMEs are the minority of employers. Currently the majority of people in the UK are employed by the private sector, followed by multinationals and then large UK employers.

Also your argument that increasing the minimum wage results in job losses has been disproven time and time again by history. The only small employers that lose out when the minimum wage goes up are those that were on the verge of being financially unsustainable and would have eventually gone out of business with a rise in inflation anyway.

If British manufacturing has been written off as not economicly feasable in the modern world why is it that Germany,France and even Italy still have their huge manufacturing base and many other European countries do too?They tend to have a higher standard of living than us too,and strong trade unions and better healthcare.What went wrong here?

Thatcher. Pretty much any ****ty policy or trend in modern Britain can be traced back to her or her ideology. Even the current financial problems stem from her ardent deregulation of the financial industry 20 years ago.

[timwilky]

Several issues about this and the comments from Org members.

Morally this is so wrong, to breed for income and expect the state to pay.

Re other stuff minimum wage etc. I have a real issue with the whole way this works out. The system provides little incentive for claimants to benefit from working. The mimimum wage is an excuse to permit unscrupulous companies to pay the minimum and expect the state to make up the rest to reward them for breeding.

Politically I am slightly to the right of Genghis Khan and dont understand why we tolerate the won't work attitude of some. We should create an environment where claimants have to demonstrate they cannot work rather than have no work before we provide free money. I would then use the benefit money saved to create community work for those without work and pay them their wage through that. No work, no money.

[Luckypants]

£42k for 10 people is a pretty dire situation,

I haven't posted yet in here but these were my thoughts also (which will surprise G2D and others!). £42K to keep a family that size is not a huge amount and with the economic situation on Anglesey there is almost no way they could afford to live if they were working, I doubt they would earn that much with a full time job each. 2 cars? Necessary in a rural location and with so many kids needing to be taken hither and thither IMO.

I do object most strongly to her attitude where she sees it as a 'right' to have as many kids as she likes with no way of supporting them and it is up to 'those working' to pay for her kids. This aspect of benefits drives me crazy and I have some sympathy for those who want to limit benefits to these kind of families. I object to anyone who thinks it's OK to live on benefits and makes a choice to do so - the system as it stands makes this an option though.

The being 'better off on benefit' mentality is a result of the system going wrong. I don't think benefits should be withdrawn as soon as you start to work, you should feel the benefit of work financially so it is worthwhile to find a job.

[slark01]

I'm far too annoyed with the attitude of the family to be able to write anything sensible, but...I Wish to god someone would bring in a law to stop people having more that 1 or 2 children.
I hate people like them, seriously I do.
Goddamn, I could crush a grape!!!

Grrrrr
Ste.

[PsychoCannon]

The way my Wife put it is perfect imho.
A family member has just been given a brand new £400,000 house because her, her husband (both of whom have never worked a day), their 20 various pets, 5 kids + 1 on the way, can't all live in their current house.
The council WAS going to change 1 room into another bedroom to allow them to stay but needed to move a boiler to do this, they simply denied the council entry to do this and ended up having to be moved to a brand new house....

This is a very nice place that me and the wife who have both been working since before it was legal for us to work and bust our butts, will probably NEVER be able to afford.
Combined with the benefits they recieve they should be quite well off, yet live in pretty squalid conditions....which ironically...gets them more money/sympathy from the council.....

Now her words were, in the early days, when they were on benefits, and not very well off, they survived but I had nicer things than them because I worked for them, it was OK....
Now they keep popping out kids and are in the situation now where they have a house, and disposable income the two of us combined can only dream of...and its coming out of our tax money, and THAT ****es her off, (and me also).

Sounds a bit eletist in some respects (I'm fine with the benefits system as long as they are not better off than me)...but it kind of makes sense really!
It's our tax money paying for it, why should we pay for someone perfectly capable of working, to NOT work AND live better than us who are paying for it!.
Where is the incentive for them to work and improve their lot.

When I was close to loosing my job a while ago the council told us effectivly that as we had both paid into the system and worked all our lives, we were entitled to nothing and would have to be given notice of eviction, our stuff reposesed, and bankrupted before they would even put us on a council housing list, despite her being pregnant.

Luckily I didn't loose my job but it cement our anger than had we never worked a day in our lives, the coucil would have immediatly paid most of our rent FOR US (something about means based or income bases testing...), and we wouldn't have had to go through all the legal guff destroying our lives and any chance of every recovering, just to get on a council housing list....
The system seems to favour the lazy and the work shy.

Don't even get me started about "depression" being counted as a disability...

Don't get me wrong I know that for many people on benefits, it sucks, I've tried to live during 6 months of joblessness after redundancy on job seekers and had to quit my flat, sell almost everything I own and move in with my mum just to survive..forget raising a family!

The trick is it tends to suck more for those that find themselves on the system due to circumstance after having worked for much of their lives, and often want to get off the system.

The ones that seem to rake it in don't work and have never worked, and seem to get given so much more for it and as such, don't want to get off the system, in fact in our family members case, they would be STUPID to come off it as they would have to earn a FORTUNE between them both to have the life style they have now!, oh sure honour, decency etc are all well and good...but if I had 5 kids, 3 dogs, a dozen snakes, several birds etc to look after and a £400,000 house on the council...I would think twice about starting work ....

[Biker Biggles]

The way my Wife put it is perfect imho.
A family member has just been given a brand new £400,000 house because her, her husband (both of whom have never worked a day), their 20 various pets, 5 kids + 1 on the way, can't all live in their current house.

This is a very nice place that me and the wife who have both been working since before it was legal for us to work and bust our butts, will probably NEVER be able to afford.
Combined with the benefits they recieve they are quite well off, yet live in pretty squalid conditions....which ironically...gets them more money/sympathy from the council.....

Now her words were, in the early days, when they were on benefits, and not very well off, they survived but I had nicer things than them because I worked for them, it was OK....
Now they keep popping out kids and are in the situation now where they have a house, and disposable income the two of us combined can only dream of...and its coming out of our tax money, and THAT ****es her off, (and me also).

Sounds a bit eletist in some respects (I'm fine with the benefits system as long as they are not better off than me)...but it kind of makes sense really!
It's our tax money paying for it, why should we pay for someone perfectly capable of working, to NOT work AND live better than us who are paying for it!.
Where is the incentive for them to work and improve their lot.

When I was close to loosing my job a while ago the council told us effectivly that as we had both paid into the system and worked all our lives, we were entitled to nothing and would have to be evicted, our stuff reposesed, and bankrupted before they would even put us on a council housing list, despite her being pregnant.

Luckily I didn't loose my job but it cement our anger than had we never worked a day in our lives, the coucil would have immediatly paid our rent FOR US, and we wouldn't have had to go through all the legal guff destroying our lives and any chance of every recovering, just to get on a council housing list....
The system favours the lazy and the work shy.

Don't get me wrong I know that for many people on benefits, it sucks, but the trick is it tends to suck more for those that find themselves on the system due to circumstance after having worked for much of their lives, and often want to get off the system.

The ones that seem to rake it in don't work and have never worked, and seem to get given so much more for it and as such, don't want to get off the system, in fact in our family members case, they would be STUPID to come off it as they would have to earn a FORTUNE between them both to have the life style they have now!, oh sure honour, decency etc are all well and good...but if I had 5 kids, 3 dogs, a dozen snakes, several birds etc to look after and a £400,000 house on the council...I would think twice about starting work ....
Hes right you know.:)
It cant be right that being on benefit makes you better off than working.Thats insane if its true.But it was in the Daily (hate)Mail so who really knows?:thumbdown:

[ranathari]

Before more people start banging on about £400,000 houses remember the following.

Councils must house families in flats or houses that have one room per child because, quite rightly, we set very high standards for the welfare of children (and if you're the kind of horrible ******* who wants children to suffer because their parents make bad decisions then please go die in a ditch). Because of our absurdly overpriced housing market and because Thatcher encouraged councils to sell off their larger houses in the 80s, the only place where those houses can be found is the private sector. The private sector has a vested interest in driving prices up so it's inevitable that councils have to house large families in expensive places. On top of that, most of the families that the Daily Mail and other rags like to bang on about are in areas like Kensington where there is no cheap housing for councils to rent when needed.

Combine that with the number of children per family tending to be higher in social classes I and II, it's not surprising that we end up with the kind of problems people are moaning about in this thread. The correct solution is not to bitch about the benefits system and demand that it gets cut to the bone while advocating for the return of poorhouses/workhouses. It's to advocate for a living wage and a higher minimum wage along with a stronger welfare state to prevent families from ever getting to the stage where they're totally dependent on the state.

[Biker Biggles]

How much would a living wage be for a family of 7 kids?
There is an issue of responsibility here too dont you think?Just how much should responsible people who have a couple of kids and support them be forced to fork out for those who sprog out as a career move and contribute nothing?Im not saying there shouldnt be benefits,but there needs to be a reasonable balance struck.IF this story is true,the balance is not in the right place.

[PsychoCannon]

Good point well made, and I apologies if I come across as advocating stripping the poor and going back several generations to the dickenson era poor houses!

I fully support a saftey net and "benefits system" though I think we need a new name for a system that has been dirtied as it has.

And I also agree that it sucks that it involves these children who are not at fault.
(I won't get started on this whole generational work shy families thing...)

I also agree that the housing situation is crazy! but I can't see that resolving any time soon :(.

My anger is more at those deliberatly gaming the system to "upgrade" their lives and think hmm...need a bigger house, one more kid should do it...
In fact forget that, it's more at those that are prefectly capable of working but just WON'T and aren't made to.

Raising basic wage etc may get some of the genuine cases back into the work system, but it simply has to be raised too high to make it in the worst abusers benefit, and even then...they probably won't bother...

It needs to be combined with a filtering out those abusing the system, not just gaming the rules but just churning out kids for income and bigger houses...but how do you do that without hurting the kids....

I remember one woman who kept having kids taken away by social services and vowed to just keep pumping them out until social let her start keeping them....
I know I don't want to be the one who has to fix this problem...

[timwilky]

You know, it was only a couple of years ago that I found out that local councils provide for the housing of the idle. WTF is that?

I had to pay my own mortgage, nobody helped me why rates went upto 15%. So WTF is my council tax going to put a roof over the head of the work shy. No wonder they have no incentive to get off their backside. If I was to have lost my job, they wouldn't have paid the interest despite it being less than current rents.

Bring back work houses. Make them work for their gruel. Separate them into single sex dormitories to stop them breeding. and if they transgress, throw them out to fend for themselves.

[L3nny]

Why should kids be entitled to a room each? When I was growing up every family I knew of who had 3 kids or more had to share rooms, they all managed fine.

All the people who are defending the benefits system seem to forget it is their money that is being given to these people. Money they have worked for money that is taken from them without asking and means they have to go without some of the luxuries the people receiving the benefits take for granted.

[Specialone]

If there is no reason why they cant work then community work in exchange for benefits would be acceptable imo.
Im not talking about mothers with kids younger than school age cos that opens another debate, but if they are at school then why not do a few hours a day, would help keep the communities upto scratch and maybe, just maybe, instil some pride into the area.

[thefallenangel]

Surely there should be some system designed similar to a Time Constant graph where one kid gives you a big chunk but the more kids you have the less money you get and once you get to 5, get bent for more money.

You look now and the younger you are the more your looked down upon. I'm 21 and managed to swindle getting my own house, bike and car. I am currently £85k in debt and literally have everything through the back door.

My house was bought because of land problems and the need to get rid of it, my bike was 0% dealer clearance and my car was bought off a guy i work with and cost me £500. I've worked to get my apprenticeship completed and now should get a job at the end which will hopefully allow my debts to fall down and then i can start to look into travelling etc . . but to see clowns like this have 2 big cars, a big house worth more than i could ever afford.

Another problem to throw into the equation, Average house price is £160k and average wage is £22k compared to 13 years ago i imagine the ratio was 6/7 years wages to a house price not 7/8 years, which is a hell of a lot more money.

Another idea, why not make these mothers help working mums out by looking after their kids for free?

[gettin2dizzy]

We all need to take responsibility for the situation. Closing our eyes to it, or looking down upon them will never resolve the issue. It'll only push us further to a society like the USA with such appalling differences in living conditions.

No one would ever choose to live an entire life on benefits, which begs the question what other choice do they have?

[Specialone]

We all need to take responsibility for the situation. Closing our eyes to it, or looking down upon them will never resolve the issue. It'll only push us further to a society like the USA with such appalling differences in living conditions.

No one would ever choose to live an entire life on benefits, which begs the question what other choice do they have?

I dont look down on people in that way, but i dont buy that above statement, if you do you you live in a different land to me.
There are loads of people around who think this world owes them a living and they are not prepared to work to get it.
There is always a choice, might not be the one you want but there is always one.
I agree about the states though, there is a big gap between the middle class and working class.

[thefallenangel]

i also believe rich kids should be forced to earn money and not be spoon fed.

Look at Bransons boy or as much as i hate to give praise to the germans i mean the royal family Harry and William have paid their dues.

[gettin2dizzy]

I dont look down on people in that way, but i dont buy that above statement, if you do you you live in a different land to me.
There are loads of people around who think this world owes them a living and they are not prepared to work to get it.
There is always a choice, might not be the one you want but there is always one.
I agree about the states though, there is a big gap between the middle class and working class.

What are their other options? A huge amount are illiterate, they have never had an adult figure demonstrating a work ethic, leaving benefits to work leaves you out of pocket (and getting back on to them does this again), no support network of working friends.

Put simply, it's an alien world. They can try to go for a job, but who would employ a chav who is incapable of presenting himself due to their social circumstances? To maintain any dignity they can present it as their 'choice', but really they have no other options.

[BanditPat]

The whole benefit thing needs to change to be honest its not worth working when you can get the same amount or more from being on benefits. I'm on job seekers allowance after I lost my job a little bit ago so I'm getting £50 a week, i found another job but the max amount of hours im doing is 9 a week(glass collector friday and Saturday if some one wants the day off) then the money that I earn which is basically a maximum of 42 quid is taken off what i can get off being on benefits bar a fiver that they let you earn before you get money deducted from your benefits so because im not earning more than what i would be on job seekers allowance in real terms I get paid a fiver a week to work because no ones taking on around here (not for lack of trying) the only reason I do go do the work is because i would rather be doing it than sitting on my ****.

[Specialone]

What are their other options? A huge amount are illiterate, they have never had an adult figure demonstrating a work ethic, leaving benefits to work leaves you out of pocket (and getting back on to them does this again), no support network of working friends.

Put simply, it's an alien world. They can try to go for a job, but who would employ a chav who is incapable of presenting himself due to their social circumstances? To maintain any dignity they can present it as their 'choice', but really they have no other options.

But being illiterate is another problem that would need to be solved, but just paying people to sit on their backsides is just a kop out, i dont think it needs to be that way, like i said earlier, if they can work but cant get a job, its not the end of all problems to give them benefits, community service would give them training, job skills, a bit of acheivement and pride in what they are doing, ok not for some, but some.

[PsychoCannon]

Likewise I work two jobs to pay the bills, I've sold everythign I have that can be sold to stay afloat, I've even lost out on a few expensive bits in shipping them for sale but swallowed the cost, my situation's only going to get worse as the missus is now on maternity leave and on 90% pay, and that will go down fast to the point we are probably only going to have 2 weeks for me and 6 months for the wife before we both go back to full time :(

I'm trying to sell my bike, we've cut down on all expenses, we've borrowed, we've begged, I've even sold stuff that I shouldn't have just to stay afloat.

I COULD claim disability and depression from my accident injury (I can't stand up and still for more than a few minutes without my spine being very painful), pump out another kid or two after this one, and go on benefits, but I won't, like my parents I'll work myself to the bone before I give up and try to leach off the system (not that I will get much if I do as I'll be "income" based benefits, Ie, faff all because you earnt this much which means you should be fine for x years..., instead of means tested, IE, we'll provide everything you need)*

*this may not be an accurate description of the system, it's just based on my talks with the coucil about my own situation and may be biased ^_^

[ranathari]

Why should kids be entitled to a room each? When I was growing up every family I knew of who had 3 kids or more had to share rooms, they all managed fine.

All the people who are defending the benefits system seem to forget it is their money that is being given to these people. Money they have worked for money that is taken from them without asking and means they have to go without some of the luxuries the people receiving the benefits take for granted.

I don't have a problem with my money funding people on benefits and I probably pay more tax than most people here because I'm only one bracket below the highest tax level.

The welfare system is akin to insurance - we pay into it in the knowledge that others will receive our money as a bet against the possibility that we may end up relying on it in the future. What's more, it's a symbol of our humanity and compassion as a nation that we are willing to care for our weakest and poorest members. I'm proud to be part of a compassionate society that believes in that notion and I'm ashamed that some of you resort to blind Daily Mail esque "our money" ranting to hide your naked "f*ck you, got mine" mentality.

[Messie]

I am happy to pay money back into the system. It's paid out enough for me in the past, from benefits, to education all the way up to university, to amazing health care. And all this for my family too.

I see it as one of the responsibilities of living in a free,advanced and civilised society.

[carty]

I don't have a problem with my money funding people on benefits and I probably pay more tax than most people here because I'm only one bracket below the highest tax level.

The welfare system is akin to insurance - we pay into it in the knowledge that others will receive our money as a bet against the possibility that we may end up relying on it in the future. What's more, it's a symbol of our humanity and compassion as a nation that we are willing to care for our weakest and poorest members. I'm proud to be part of a compassionate society that believes in that notion and I'm ashamed that some of you resort to blind Daily Mail esque "our money" ranting to hide your naked "f*ck you, got mine" mentality.

The reason people rant is because they see these people in the article have things that they can not afford themselves. For instance, whilst I am (fortunately) not on the breadline, if I had several kids I may be. And I certainly wouldn't be able to afford new big screen tv's, SKY, a nintendo wii, a DS for each of them, etc. These people are getting all of that FOR FREE.

Conversely,you, by the sounds of it, are in a financial situation where you don't want for much so it's actually you who has the 'I'm all right jack' mentality. You can afford these things that the benefits family get but a lot of people can't without sacrificing something else.

[L3nny]

The thing I object to is that both me and my girlfriend have what most people would class as reasonably paid jobs (about the national average). We live in a council house but we bought it and pay a mortgage.

The mortgage we pay is about 4 times what we would pay if we were renting from the council.

If we were to hae a child and one of us had to give up work to care for it we would not be able to pay the mortgage and would lose our house.

In other words we cannot afford to have children of our own but are paying a huge chunk of our income on taxes which are being used to pay for the upbringing of other people's children.

I know I will have a house which is paid for in 20 years time (provided interest rates stay as they are and we can continue paying the mortgage) but how is it fair that we who work are in a worse situation than someone who doesn't.

Another thing that winds me up is we are currently going without luxuries because we need to save up in order to get double glazing fitted and do some essential repairs in the bathroom. All the council houses in the street have had new windows and doors, new bathrooms and new kitchens fitted all for free.

I am all for people on welfare having to live in an acceptable basic conditions but many (if not all) live way above what most would consider a basic level.

Oh and while I am at it, I rent my garage off the council, if I were a council tennant I would pay half what I am paying, now if you can afford a car or bike good enough to need to be garaged you hardly need any help do you.

[CoolGirl]

These people are getting all of that FOR FREE.

Yes, I see them queuing round the corner from the dole office on Tuesday mornings waiting for their free tellys etc to be handed out :rolleyes: . I think you'll find it's more about what people choose to spend their money on (whether eanred or given thorugh benefits). You have a holiday, they don't. You spend your money and free time on books improvign your mind, they while away hours pi$$ing it away at the pub. They buy cheap mince at the supermarket, you buy a posh chicken.

The thing I object to is that both me and my girlfriend have what most people would class as reasonably paid jobs (about the national average). We live in a council house but we bought it and pay a mortgage. etc...

Great, and youll have a valuable asset, that you've used your earnings to pay for, that you can pass on to your kids.

Show some perspective here, people!

[Jabba]

Post deleted. Can't read properly!!

[Sosha]

Which brings us back to the ridiculous price of property... If the average house wasn't 10 times the average wage people wouldn't spend all their money on ridiculous mortgages. Or Private rent.

Edit: At leat at london leves anyway

[Bluefish]

And she adds: 'I've always wanted a big family - no one can tell me how many kids I can have whether I'm working or not.

No but they could make her pay for them, they won't though.
£42000 a year no doupt that is after tax, me and the mrs don't even earn that befor tax, and we both work at least 40hrs a week, that's it i'm giving up work and having loadsa sprogs, will even be able to afford a merc as well, ****s.

[Dave20046]

I say put 'em all down.
...filthy gingers

[Specialone]

The reason people rant is because they see these people in the article have things that they can not afford themselves. For instance, whilst I am (fortunately) not on the breadline, if I had several kids I may be. And I certainly wouldn't be able to afford new big screen tv's, SKY, a nintendo wii, a DS for each of them, etc. These people are getting all of that FOR FREE.

Conversely,you, by the sounds of it, are in a financial situation where you don't want for much so it's actually you who has the 'I'm all right jack' mentality. You can afford these things that the benefits family get but a lot of people can't without sacrificing something else.

Exactly, well said :thumleft:

[Dave20046]

And she adds: 'I've always wanted a big family - no one can tell me how many kids I can have whether I'm working or not.

No but they could make her pay for them, they won't though.
£42000 a year no doupt that is after tax, me and the mrs don't even earn that befor tax, and we both work at least 40hrs a week, that's it i'm giving up work and having loadsa sprogs, will even be able to afford a merc as well, ****s.
It gets even more depressing when you have to deal with the families that this affects, it's mostly not the kids fault they're the ones stuck in the middle, going without and misbehaving because the foul parents don't give two ****s about them or anyone else. When kids come to school with shoes they've found and their parents refuse to come and collect them when they're ill it's bad enough but when you know full well that their parents went out of their way to get each child screened for disabilities just to fatten up their paycheque it's even worse.

[carternd]

Vote BNP/IPUK anyone but the main 3 if you want this to change.

Don't vote BNP or UKIP, they're FASCISTS.

We're better making a mistake in helping people, than making a mistake in leaving people in penury.

A living wage would be lower if there weren't so many parasites living off our body politic. This is the problem.

The article is probably biased to the point of untruth, so I can't judge on that basis, but why that man can't work for his benefits, if not for an actual wage is beyond me.

[Sid Squid]

So please, when you read these articles, just bear in mind that this is not the reality for everyone. Living on benefits is frustrating, difficult, destroys your self esteem and NOT an easy ride.For you perhaps it is, but that would be because you are a decent person. For many people nowadays it's an entirely acceptable way of life - and there'll soon be an eighth child growing up in a household where no-one does a stroke and money is their 'right', and when they grow up more families who don't see a problem with you and I funding their lazy existence.
The couple in the article are scrounging b'stards. They want a bigger house becuse they have another one on the way! And I wonder if the lady is aware of the reaction to her risible whining:

'We can't afford holidays and I don't want my kids living on a council estate and struggling like I have. 'The price of living is going up but benefits are going down. My carer's allowance is only going up by 80p this year and petrol is so expensive now, I'm worried how we'll cope. 'We're still waiting for somewhere bigger.'
My heart bleeds. Do they not realise that their entire living is paid for by ordinary people's taxes rising higher and higher? And they're still not happy?

But they're far from unique in our screwed country.

Words fail me.

[Biker Biggles]

Yeah but its in the Daily Mail.Gutter press no more reliable than MCN.They probably made it up cos theres an election going on and they need to demonstrate "broken Britain"

[fizzwheel]

It cant be right that being on benefit makes you better off than working.

Unfortunately it does. My Ex's sister has 5 kids. Her partner at the time sat down and worked out how much they were bringing home in benefits, he wrote it down for me because he was boasting about how much money it brought it. It was a bl**dy ridiculous figure, not far off what I was taking home. Even I had to agree with his logic of what was the point of going to work.

[Dave20046]

Yeah but its in the Daily Mail.Gutter press no more reliable than MCN.They probably made it up cos theres an election going on and they need to demonstrate "broken Britain"
Having seen it first hand it's not a made up nor uncommon scenario.

[Biker Biggles]

Oh yeah Im sure it happens.I just mean the specific story with the inflamatory quotes sounds so Daily Mail gutter press to me.I bet they made that stuff up for their own political reasons.

[Sid Squid]

The minimum wage should be increased to the point where it becomes preferable to be in work as opposed to out of it or, ideally, we'd have a national living wage rather than a minimum wage.
Would that be the same minimum wage that's already made a number of our country's inhabitants effectively unemployable?

A minimum wage is a perfectly laudable idea which seems quite reasonable - the reality is rather different.

[Dave20046]

Oh yeah Im sure it happens.I just mean the specific story with the inflamatory quotes sounds so Daily Mail gutter press to me.I bet they made that stuff up for their own political reasons.
Ah yeah, I'd be shocked if they hadn't twisted/ made up some stuff for a better reaction but there are people worse than that in the world and you kind of wish something would get done about it. It goes round in viscous circles the offspring are either in or on their way to HRM's hotel or are playing the same game with many booze/smoke damaged,dropped sprogs.

[Specialone]

Ah yeah, I'd be shocked if they hadn't twisted/ made up some stuff for a better reaction but there are people worse than that in the world and you kind of wish something would get done about it. It goes round in viscous circles the offspring are either in or on their way to HRM's hotel or are playing the same game with many booze/smoke damaged,dropped sprogs.

I absolutely guarantee that their daughters will have kids before 18 years of age.

[ranathari]

Would that be the same minimum wage that's already made a number of our country's inhabitants effectively unemployable?

A minimum wage is a perfectly laudable idea which seems quite reasonable - the reality is rather different.

Funnily enough the minimum wage has repeatedly been shown to be an effective tool with minimal effect on employment levels by the economists and social scientists. No-one who claims that the minimum wage is a bad idea has ever been able to produce evidence to substantiate it, just hand-wringing about how their mate had to fire a worker or go out of business.

If you abolish the minimum wage then there is no way in hell large businesses will continue to pay sensible wages. Look at America for a good example - people working full time as entry-level workers in Wal-Mart earn so little that they're classified as being below the poverty line and are eligible for food stamps.

Like I've said before, small and medium sized businesses that have the most to worry about from the minimum wage are actually the minority of employers in the UK. The minimum wage is an essential part of a civilised society and the only bulwark against unscrupulous corporations who seek to enrich their executives at the expense of the ordinary worker.

[ranathari]

In addition for those of you thinking of voting Tory over this "broken Britain" rubbish, bear in mind that poverty, social inequality and other metrics of an unequal society were worse under every previous Tory administration. Labour has gone backwards on social inequality (not poverty) in recent years but that is mostly attributable to their abandonment of the left as they slavishly seek voters from the middle-right and become little more than Tory-Lite.

[Sally]

More importantly, after 7 kids, and with a target of 14, when he gives her a seeing to, it must be like throwing a sausage up an alleyway.

[Specialone]

More importantly, after 7 kids, and with a target of 14, when he gives her a seeing to, it must be like throwing a sausage up an alleyway.
Giving her one once could be excused as a drunken dare, but 6 times more, i dont know how he could, i bet even their dog has no repsect for him.

[metalmonkey]

If British manufacturing has been written off as not economicly feasable in the modern world why is it that Germany,France and even Italy still have their huge manufacturing base and many other European countries do too?They tend to have a higher standard of living than us too,and strong trade unions and better healthcare.What went wrong here?

Labour and Tony Blair? Maybe...

Wow long thread too much too read but I wouldn't get exicted about what that **** wipe paper calls news, its like MCN but with a different name:rolleyes:

I don't belive life is easy for people on benfits, I have seen this happy to someone I care deeply about, but I can't exactly get involved in sorting out as much I would like. But what do you do when s*** happens through no fault of that person?

Then problem is now we are on the third generation of people now who have never worked in their worked in their life, these people need to be made to work. The system is messed up where people who really can't be arsed to work seem to get everything, where people who need that suppourt don't get anything. I mean try going to the job centre as a professional, they habe no clue what to do with you apart from smile and nod casue well lights on no one home sitaution.

Something needs to happen, however how to sort out this mess.

The public sector is a mess, its black hole that cost us all a lot of money since Labour got in we have more public sector workes than ever!

It like having a cake, if I give you all piece of it how will I get to eat any, you can't keep taking and expect there something to be left for later on.

If you want something to be outrage about, I suggest you get mad at the money wasted in the public you don't need to look far to see how money is being wasted and not being spent in the right way. Since 97 you have all been lied to, thats a good start. But hey you guys are outraged about this, so the imortant stories don't get the air time they should have...

[Biker Biggles]

Now Im no apologist for Tony Blair but you really cant blame him for shutting down our manufacturing base.Thatcher did that and that is why we have second and third generation unemployed.
The awful truth is both parties have conspired together to take this economic route to failure and neither of them can or should be trusted with power.

[anna]

Like I've said before, small and medium sized businesses that have the most to worry about from the minimum wage are actually the minority of employers in the UK. The minimum wage is an essential part of a civilised society and the only bulwark against unscrupulous corporations who seek to enrich their executives at the expense of the ordinary worker.

I understand your logic, however, I would like your sources for you stating that SME´s are the minority business´s in the uk.

I might be wrong but back in my insurance days, SME´s outnumbered the big cats at least 3 to 1.

Whilst I understand that you could be saying that the big companies employee far more people, how is it that we can continue to grow economically and technologically if as a country we dont support the SME´s?

Increasing minimum wage certainly does not put our SME´s in a financial position to be able to grow, or even sustain their current market positions.

[Sid Squid]

In addition for those of you thinking of voting Tory over this "broken Britain" rubbish, bear in mind that poverty, social inequality and other metrics of an unequal society were worse under every previous Tory administration. Labour has gone backwards on social inequality (not poverty) in recent years but that is mostly attributable to their abandonment of the left as they slavishly seek voters from the middle-right and become little more than Tory-Lite.
Wake up. We've created a new underclass who may never work - this is an extreme example, but that fact that it can happen at all is simply shameful, the longer we keep kidding ourselves that our present situation is anything like acceptable the worse it gets. The last thirteen wasted self serving years of goverment have done little to improve anyone's lot in any sustainable way.
Whether by accident or design the only significant effect of the welfare state's excesses and the frightening level of our GDP publically spent has been to create a substantial number of voters who can be relied upon to deliver at election time. Gerrymandering on a national scale - these are not votes bought from the middle classes by any method of accounting.

[-Ralph-]

Look on the bright side, they're all fat and ginger so they'll get ridiculed in later life :D

And most of them have eyes that are too close together, I never trust folk like that!

1) Impose breeding resistrictions for fat, stupid, or socially irresponsible people.
2) Failure to comply with breeding restrictions incurs forced sterilisation after 2 children.
3) Welfare provided in the shape of trailer parks and food rations provided to meet minimum nutritional and calorific requirements.
4) Problem solved.

Even better, just cut the tubes on every male at birth, then make them apply to have children before the operation will be reversed! Test could be like that for adoption. ;)

[lukemillar]

....reproducing ginger kids.....

these are the people who should be stopped.

See, this is what jumped out at me after reading the article. It's just not right ;)

(I apologise to all the .org gingers in advance :p)

[carternd]

I have to take a stand against this gingerism. I'm not ginger, but you are being mean picking on them.

To make a point, small and medium businesses are the backbone of employment. Where do these big companies come from? Who provides employment in small towns?

The minimum wage is good, I have often benefited from it. 5.80 an hour is hardly anything, given the cost of living and taxation. Maybe if the public sector wasn't spoonfed and expanded to provide a solid Labour base, taxes could be reduced, and a living wage brought nearer for those at the bottom of the pile.