How much have you spent this Christmas...

[G]

Genuine question...

and just to really wind you up; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340653/Christmas-benefits-Eloise-Littles-spent-3k-taxpayers-money-presents.html

[maviczap]

Think my wife needs to go on benefits and I need to disapear.

Typical Daily Mail I'm afraid, but it isn't right.

Just spent £150 on the food & drink for Christmas. Don't know how much my wife has spent on the kids, but I know there's no laptops or big expensive presents in their stockings, so probrably a couple of hundred quid, no more than that.

[Reeder]

About £150 all in because I don't have a GF this year.
I saw that story in the paper yesterday & it makes me a little angry.
I got £150 bonus this christmas (first time ever) and £47 of it went to the government. I wonder how much of it will get wasted!

[maviczap]

About £150 all in because I don't have a GF this year.
I saw that story in the paper yesterday & it makes me a little angry.
I got £150 bonus this christmas (first time ever) and £47 of it went to the government. I wonder how much of it will get wasted!

I'll spend it very carefully :p

[Specialone]

Trust the daily mail to release that story :rolleyes:
If its true, thanks G, thats p155ed me off :(

Me and the wife have decided to cut down a lot on pressies for each other this year, we normally spend around £500 each.
With food, drinks, pressies etc this year i bet we've spent £1200-£1400, which is a lot less than last year.

BTW, we dont have kids.

[Reeder]

I'll spend it very carefully :p

I don't mind you getting it. I like you :D

Trust the daily mail to release that story :rolleyes:
If its true, thanks G, thats p155ed me off :(

Me and the wife have decided to cut down a lot on pressies for each other this year, we normally spend around £500 each.
With food, drinks, pressies etc this year i bet we've spent £1200-£1400, which is a lot less than last year.

BTW, we dont have kids.

Can I come to yours for christmas next year?

[G]

I have spent roughly £250 on my (Dad, Mum, Sister and Nephew)... quite chuffed with my dads present as it's thoughtful and he might actually use them, doesnt look much but were expensive.

Then I paid for Kerry's half of the holiday we just got back from which was £500ish + spending money, airport parking and my own half of the holiday :( Hopefully she is not expecting anything else... as she hasn't got anything else coming!

Then I bought myself a bike, and then lots of extras for it which I classed as an early christmas present to myself... that would come to well over £9.5k... go to think of number one :D ha


Edit: Not spent anything on food and drink, we are going to my parents for Christmas dinner (my dad does an awesome stuffing)... then later in the evening we are going round to our friends (we should probably buy something to take there though)

[454697819]

not a lot to be honest and I have a big family...

its ok though all her kids are ginger... they deserve it

[Reeder]

http://holycrapthatsfunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/hahahahaha.jpg

[danf1234]

I have 3 kids and a wife, we normall spend about 150 - 200 each on them. However my wife was made redundant this year and gets her redundancy in December. So we thought One last year we will really push the boat out and we have spent about 500 on each.

The Children are 11, 3 and 1.5 so we promised to make it an christmas to remember.

I have also bought my wife a £500 eternity ring, after promising we would spend about £100 each.

HOWEVER, I work bloody hard so I am entitled to spend it. Most weeks are 60 hours plus for me including nights and weekends.

Articles like that like fook me right off!

[SoulKiss]

I have 3 kids and a wife, we normall spend about 150 - 200 each on them. However my wife was made redundant this year and gets her redundancy in December. So we thought One last year we will really push the boat out and we have spent about 500 on each.

The Children are 11, 3 and 1.5 so we promised to make it an christmas to remember.

I have also bought my wife a £500 eternity ring, after promising we would spend about £100 each.

HOWEVER, I work bloody hard so I am entitled to spend it. Most weeks are 60 hours plus for me including nights and weekends.

Articles like that like fook me right off!

Find out where she lives and take the XBox I paid for back then :)

The laptop, being fruit-based, they can keep :P

On a serious note, just shows that she is being "paid" about £3k too much.

The "Social" should be enough to exist on, not provide for luxuries...

[Owenski]

Find out where she lives and take the XBox I paid for back then :)

The laptop, being fruit-based, they can keep :P

On a serious note, just shows that she is being "paid" about £3k too much.

The "Social" should be enough to exist on, not provide for luxuries...

ding ding ding ding ding BINGO! SK wins.

Read the article, all I saw was "I dont do owt but get laid and I can buy crap you can only dream of, hahhahahahhahhhhaaa chocolate scoff scoff hahahahahhhaa"

cant even remember the point of this thread.

Entitlement my ass, your entitled to bugger all ya slly fat biatch what kind of ethic are you teaching those kids by acting in that way arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

ps merry christmas, mwah x :D

[Bri w]

With 6 kids, and their partners, and our brothers and sisters and mum-in-law I guess its heading towards a tidy sum.

[fastdruid]

The trouble is that its not (really) her fault. Seriously. As she says, there is *no* benefit to working as she'd be worse off and the entire system is skewed towards single mums with big families. There is no advantage (and *very* significant disadvantage) to being in a stable relationship with a working partner!

As an example I've a single mum friend and she was 'recommended' to have another child by the 'job centre'...

I'm actually on her side with this, if she chooses to save up what she gets to blow it in one go at Christmas that's up to her. It's not her fault the entire system is wrong and I defy anyone in the same situation to do anything else[1]!

Druid

[1] "No, I'm going to work so that I don't see my kids and end up worse off", yeah right!

[SuzukiNess]

wow, i'm on benefits - not by choice - i would love to go out and work - and the money i get hardly covers my rent.. yikes... oh yeah, i dont have kids.. maybe i should go out and have 4 or 5 in a row and then i'll be made for life.. ... any volunteers?? :)

[Reeder]

Me

[hindle8907]

its 4 digits that's all I am saying.

[dizzyblonde]

We bought a wii for son no1...but its for family time, so we all benefit. I'm on half wages now, so its been a bit hard, but I'm good at find bargains, shame I didn't wait a fortnight and save 50 quid on the wii which is advertised all over :(
I reckon on top of the wii stuff I spent around 50 quid on bits and bobs for him.
Neither me nor Peg have bought each other anything this year, money is tight...I'd far rather make sure theres good food in the cupboard and the roof over our heads paid for!
I told all the family this year not to bother getting anything for us, which has provided much relief for most....its getting too damn expensive! The only thing we've contributed to is a canvas of the four grandkids for mum and dad.
I am providing all the food for the family dinner at my parents, I think its money well spent, quality family time is much more important.

BAH HUMBUG! 3k on her kids......I'm in the wrong job! Oh she don't have one.

[Viney]

If just on presents, £115 thats all. The shopping bill lst night wasnt far off a normal month shopping, and included a new raosting tin.

[SuzukiNess]

Me


go back to your room... :cyclops: i old enough to be your mother :santa:;):D

[barwel1992]

£35 ..... :d

[fenjer]

I reckon I've spent about £500 all in, thats mum, dad, small person, and a few close family friends.

There'a a lot I could say on that article, but I'm not about to, because I'm a single mother on benefits, and I'm exactly the sort of person you're laying into. :(

[Shellywoozle]

I can't say what I spent on Rob but he has 6 pressies and the most expensive is the smallest and was a chance.(fingers crossed)

It it not about how much it costs it'd the thought behind it.

My brother keeps reproducing so each year Xmas gets more expensive but I love buying for others.:)

[Viney]

I have spent roughly £250 on my (Dad, Mum, Sister and Nephew)... quite chuffed with my dads present as it's thoughtful and he might actually use them, doesnt look much but were expensive.

Then I paid for Kerry's half of the holiday we just got back from which was £500ish + spending money, airport parking and my own half of the holiday :( Hopefully she is not expecting anything else... as she hasn't got anything else coming!

Then I bought myself a bike, and then lots of extras for it which I classed as an early christmas present to myself... that would come to well over £9.5k... go to think of number one :D ha


Edit: Not spent anything on food and drink, we are going to my parents for Christmas dinner (my dad does an awesome stuffing)... then later in the evening we are going round to our friends (we should probably buy something to take there though)Oh dear, you really think that women think like that? You are in BIG trouble mate :lol:

[Viney]

wow, i'm on benefits - not by choice - i would love to go out and work - and the money i get hardly covers my rent.. yikes... oh yeah, i dont have kids.. maybe i should go out and have 4 or 5 in a row and then i'll be made for life.. ... any volunteers?? :)

Me*Brushes Reeder aside*

Me?

[Specialone]

Oh dear, you really think that women think like that? You are in BIG trouble mate :lol:

I thought the same when I read that lol

Tip, if your gonna buy holidays as presents, arrange them after the date, so you can 'give' it as a present.
I pay for our holidays most of the time anyway, wife does contribute now she earns better money.

[G]

Oh dear, you really think that women think like that? You are in BIG trouble mate :lol:

Secretly I know that... but I am going to play dumb... again ;)

[Reeder]

go back to your room... :cyclops: i old enough to be your mother :santa:;):D

Exactly... :p;):D

[SuzukiNess]

Exactly... :p;):D

hehehehe wanted to make me own not adopt them ;)

[SuzukiNess]

*Brushes Reeder aside*

Me?
:smt112

apologies for the thread hijack!!! :)

[timwilky]

Rewrite as I went into rant mode.

We have a government that has gone on record that they want to make work pay. I suggest IDS investigates the circumstances of this woman as she has gone high profile. establish what can be put in place to make her responsible for her own income generation (start with compulsory sterilisation) and show publicly that work can be and should be the preferred option for all.

Maybe a return to the unmarried mothers hostels of the 50s/60s instead of a council house would be a way to stop girls getting deliberately pregnant for instant accommodation/benefits. Additionally what is wrong with compulsory contraceptive implants for all girls aged 12-18?

A child is a gift of love, not the consequence of a casual sh*g with god knows who. They deserve to be brought up in stable loving relationships and not to simply be cash cows to the benefits system.

[Reeder]

hehehehe wanted to make me own not adopt them ;)

So what finer specimen to use than a young man in his prime!

Sorry for thread hijack also. I shall now stop.

[SoulKiss]

So what finer specimen to use than a young man in his prime!

Sorry for thread hijack also. I shall now stop.

Is that the new Aftershave range from Reeder?

Désespoir pour Homme?

[maviczap]

I reckon I've spent about £500 all in, thats mum, dad, small person, and a few close family friends.

There'a a lot I could say on that article, but I'm not about to, because I'm a single mother on benefits, and I'm exactly the sort of person you're laying into. :(

You're not even in the same field as the one in the Daily Mail article Fenjer, in fact you've spent no more than some folk would.

The fact you're on benefits does not mean we're having a direct go at you :rolleyes:

Its the systems fault, not neccessarily yours, until you start producing sprog after sprog ;)

[fenjer]

Well, unless it's a Christmas miracle and/or immaculate conception I'm not about to be having sprog after sprog...lol

I realise that it's not a direct "go" at me, but when people generalise these things I find myself included by definition.

[Wideboy]

8 quid on a CD as I've made nearly all my gifts

[maviczap]

Well, unless it's a Christmas miracle and/or immaculate conception I'm not about to be having sprog after sprog...lol

I realise that it's not a direct "go" at me, but when people generalise these things I find myself included by definition.


Don't forget the article has been sexed up by the Mail and who's to say that the figures are correct :rolleyes:

I know Kellyjo has 3 kids and never had a brass shilling to spend on the kind of presents that that woman has bought.

If you want to get on the gravy train I'm sure Reeder would be a willing volunteer ;)

[-Ralph-]

HANG ON A MINUTE FOLKS!

This is the Daily Mail we are talking about here. Think MCN levels of credibility?

Look at the list of benefits

Housing Benefit £3172
Council Tax Benefit £1300
Child Benefit £2808 (which everyone with kids currently gets working or not)
Child Tax Credits £9880 (which any working parents is entitled to apply for)

If what the Daily Mail has reported is true and she doesn't work, where is her income support in these figures? Anyway £21,528 is as quoted from the horses mouth, as is the fact she doesn't work, so lets assume it is correct. Maybe there is something I'm not understanding about the benefits system, but what it has done is make me question what the Daily mail are presenting as facts.

She doesn't pay rent or council tax, but this is not cash in her hand either, so cash in her hand she is getting £16786 or £322 per week. Sounds sufficient, but then it costs a lot to keep 4 kids.

The issue here is that she is better off on benefits than on working, but that is a government issue. How many on here, who have kids and know what keeping 4 kids must be like, can HONESTLY say that if they were suddenly magic'd into her situation that they would go out and get a job, work 40 hours a week to make profits for their bosses so the boss can spend £3k on xmas, and have significantly less to spend themselves?

As for how much she spends on xmas presents, that is sweet FA to do with anybody else except for her. The government has decided to give her a finite amount of money. She then has to manage her household budget accordingly. She has taken out a £1500 loan in order to afford these presents and is paying it back across the year so that's at least a £35 a week repayment, (bad money management you may say, she'd be better paying that into a savings account and having £1800 in there each December), then she's got to find another £30 a week out of her finite pot of money for the other £1500

So if she is spending £65 a week out of her £322 on xmas presents, or 20% of her income, that must mean that she is making choices and sacrifices throughout the year to afford it, and if that's what she wants to do, then that's her prerogative. Fitted shoes from Clark's and £100 on xmas presents, or shoes from Adsa and 3 grand on xmas presents?

As for her job?

"In fairness to Eloise, her offspring do seem a polite, well-behaved bunch - something which, Eloise insists, is a direct result of the fact she is a full-time mum.

‘I’m always here for them - I take them to school, I’m here when they get back and, of course, I’m looking after Billy until he goes to school full-time,’ she says."

Those kids are the future of our country, and it sounds like she is doing an OK job of it. One of them is below school age, and I have certainly discussed with my wife who gets £21.5k as a teacher, whether it's worth her working given that we pay £850 a month in nursery fees, then we have to run her car, pay her petrol, etc, etc

Discuss how much money she should be getting, or whether other things can/should be done to help her back into work and make it attractive, but don't question how she chooses to spend the money she is given.

[Reeder]

Yeah, I'd help out :D

[DaveyF]

I've spent about £300 this year. Trying to save for a new house so the GF and I decided to not go extravagent this year.

Luckily all bought before my xmas beer money bonus of £500 of which Mr Taxman took £205. At least my redundancy pay next year is tax free!

[-Ralph-]

Discuss how much money she should be getting, or whether other things can/should be done to help her back into work and make it attractive, but don't question how she chooses to spend the money she is given.

I also wouldn't judge her for the choices she has made over whether or not she finds a job. If I had a way of providing more for my kids, I'd take it.

And I also wouldn't judge her for how many kids she's had. She may be a devout Catholic for all we know. All four kids are with the same bloke, who has now left them! Why should you be forced to use contraception with someone who you are in a long term relationship with?

The father doesn't contribute a penny to the upkeep. Probably because he's left his job as he's better off not working than paying child support for four kids. OK the article makes him sound like a t**t, but ultimately, it's the system again!

The article is bollox and those ranting on here at the woman herself need to rethink where they direct the rant.

[anna]

Did everyone just miss the bit that said she had taken out a loan to cover this :confused:

[-Ralph-]

Did everyone just miss the bit that said she had taken out a loan to cover this :confused:

Nope, see my post above.

But the loan is irrelevant really, it's just her way of financing it, she still has to pay the loan repayments with interest out of her benefits, so actually you could argue doing it that way costs the taxpayer more (of course it doesn't because we don't give her more to cover that)

It just means that she has chosen to spend some of the money she has been allocated in loan interest, again that's her prerogative.

[carelesschucca]

Did everyone just miss the bit that said she had taken out a loan to cover this :confused:

as long as she can cover her loan who's issue is it bar her own?

Just think how many idiots with well paid jobs took out mortgages above their means and have defaulted on them and caused more grief.

Its not as if she's cheating the system just using it well.

I love the fact that the tabloids love juicing things up like this but never mention how much people are dogging paying tax!!!

[G]

People dodge tax because 'the system' is so ****ed up. People work damn hard for their money, for it to then be taken from them and wasted on cretins that milk the ****ed up and way to generous system for every penny they can.

[kitkat]

not much more to say except I agree with ralphs comments. being on benefits myself and not being able to afford to work is difficult, I have worked for last 25 years and have decided to stay at home to look after Libby as oppose to paying £50 a day for a nursery to "look after her". I have spent about £300 on xmas and birthdays (all happen about xmas). I started buying stuff in July and bought some toys from ebay as Libby is young enough not to realise its 2nd hand. That includes stuff for my daughters 18th. would love to give her more but cant afford it and she does realise that. luckily her daddy is loaded and will give her a nice wadge of cash. hope you all have a lovely xmas x

[SoulKiss]

Even if she IS a complete work of fiction, there has to be some truth in those numbers?

Even if she is an amalgamation of half a dozen things - ie how much child support she gets, how her accomodation is paid for etc, then its still an interesting insight into those who know how to game the system.

I didn't know the system and because of this I lost out on money that I was ENTITLED to because they refused to backdate my claim because I didn't know that if you were let go you didn't have to wait 6 weeks before you could claim.

Yet there are those that do not work, nor do they want to - and that in many cases is because they would lose out due to the disparity of wages vs dole, who can live as comfortably, if not more so than I do, just because I don't have kids to provide an extra income, or pay out more than 4 times what her accomodation costs for a smaller place, just because I want to live about 5 miles from my work?

This piece, I feel is perhaps an artifice, designed to put peoples thinking into the same slant as the Governments thinking - that those on benefits live a little too comfortably, and are a place where tax-payers cant complain about cuts coming from.

Personally, my thoughts are that the State is responsible for putting a safe roof over peoples head, keeping clothes on their backs and putting nutritious food in their stomachs.

Beyond that - the internet, TV, SKY, XBox, iPods etc, well sorry, but you cant have them - and you need money for cigarettes? Try quitting.

[carelesschucca]

People dodge tax because 'the system' is so ****ed up. People work damn hard for their money, for it to then be taken from them and wasted on cretins that milk the ****ed up and way to generous system for every penny they can.

But not paying your taxes is milking the system. its just an exceptable way to do it. In reality its just the same using the system to your advantage. Its all about perspective...

Oh I've spent about £300, but I've still got a Motocross bike to buy and because of that an engagement ring which means a wedding too...

Jesus its getting expensive!!!

[G]

But not paying your taxes is milking the system. its just an exceptable way to do it. In reality its just the same using the system to your advantage. Its all about perspective..

Oh yes of course... It's exactly the same... Except one person is doing lots of hard work for the money that is being 'TAKEN' off them... Whilst the other does nothing for the money that is being 'GIVEN' to them.

[slark01]

Exactly £100 has been spent on presents for my daughter. I'm getting nothing from the wife and the wife is getting nothing from me. This is typical in my house.
However, the grandparents have bought loads for my daughter, so she will have a good christmas.
The story from the Daily Mail is typical in this country. Just off the top of my head I can think of at least 2 families from my neighbourhood that do this.

If anyone can get me the address I know a few people that would be seriously interested in a free Xbox360 ;-) . ( better state :- i'm joking! )

Ste.

[anna]

SK I dont think £21k per year for a family that size is lavish.

I do think however there should be greater help for those that are working. Perhaps help with childcare costs that normally ensure that the cost of returning to work is higher then staying at home with the children.

[carelesschucca]

Oh yes of course... It's exactly the same... Except one person is doing lots of hard work for the money that is being 'TAKEN' off them... Whilst the other does nothing for the money that is being 'GIVEN' to them.

working means your being given money for a job, just so happens her job is in the home looking after her children.

Does it make it right though to dodge tax because you feel some 'slacker' is getting your money?

Once again its perspective.

[-Ralph-]

Perhaps help with childcare costs that normally ensure that the cost of returning to work is higher then staying at home with the children.

+1

This would crack the nut in a lot of cases. Private nursery care costs a fortune. A state run nursery within each primary school premises, with free or heavily subsidised places allocated on a means tested basis would get a political party my vote.

[Viney]

I do think however there should be greater help for those that are working. Perhaps help with childcare costs that normally ensure that the cost of returning to work is higher then staying at home with the children.Now that statement i do agree with. Set a sensible 'cost of living' and if the person wants to get back to work and are willing to take any job, within reason, then the government will top up the money to that set level.

However, i remember reading a while back that they reckon a good living can be achieved on £14,400 per year!!

[G]

working means your being given money for a job, just so happens her job is in the home looking after her children.

Does it make it right though to dodge tax because you feel some 'slacker' is getting your money?

Once again its perspective.

That frankly is a bollox arguement. Looking after your own kids is not a job that you should be paid to do, and certainly not a career like some think of it to be.

[SoulKiss]

SK I dont think £21k per year for a family that size is lavish.

I do think however there should be greater help for those that are working. Perhaps help with childcare costs that normally ensure that the cost of returning to work is higher then staying at home with the children.

I am not talking about the amount.

Its the fact that she has enough spare to buy XBox360's and Apple Laptops.

THOSE are lavish/luxury items...

[carelesschucca]

Now that statement i do agree with. Set a sensible 'cost of living' and if the person wants to get back to work and are willing to take any job, within reason, then the government will top up the money to that set level.

However, i remember reading a while back that they reckon a good living can be achieved on £14,400 per year!!

is that before or after tax? :D

[G]

I am not talking about the amount.

Its the fact that she has enough spare to buy XBox360's and Apple Laptops.

THOSE are lavish/luxury items...

And even if she has saved... That means she is being paid to much in other areas... Not working a minimum of 15 hours a week to survive should not be an option!

[anna]

I am not talking about the amount.

Its the fact that she has enough spare to buy XBox360's and Apple Laptops.

THOSE are lavish/luxury items...

The point is that she cant afford them, she has borrowed the money.

The bank has ALLOWED her to borrow money off them when she has no job and no way of paying it back.

[Reeder]

is that before or after tax? :D

Most likely after isn't it! :p

[hindle8907]

Need shooting.

[timwilky]

I pay for my grandsons nursery. He went for two days a week. Cost £22.50/week

Now his mum has gone back to full time work, she has asked if he can do a 3rd day.

£48/week.

The problem is that even with free entitlement for nurseries it is only 15 hours per week for 38 weeks a year. The one my grandson attends have a 10 hour day, so the free entitlement covers 13.5 hours a week assuming a 50 week year and then becomes damm expensive as soon as you have a kid there for more than 1.5 days/week.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out with the announced requirement that people will have to work for 24+ hours/week in order to qualify for working cash handouts

[Specialone]

This thread has veered off a little since I last visited ;)

Tbh, this type of thing makes my skin boil, knowing what my mother went through when my dad died, she had 3 jobs, a puny widows pension and 3 kids at home.

She had to save to buy me clothes etc, low income families think they have it tough now, try going back 20,30,40 years they wouldn't know what hit them.

I don't begrudge her buying her kids presents tbh, but not the amount she's spent, especially not with tax payers money.
Income support should be a stop gap while your looking for work or on maternity leave etc, not a long term wage solution.

I do sympathise with parents though cos it's hard to work then pay it all out on childcare, I do think there should more help along these lines.

I just wish my mother and other parents would have had the help back then that parents get now.

Merry christmas :)

[dizzyblonde]

However, i remember reading a while back that they reckon a good living can be achieved on £14,400 per year!!

If you're single, with no mortgage and bills etc and live at yer olds house!
My singular wage isn't much more than that and I have survived when I was a lone parent. Yes I had good tax credits and thankfully grandparent care when I was at work, other wise I wouldn't have been able to work due to not able to afford fees.
I am currently having to try and use the 'flexible working hrs' rule, to try and get onto another shift pattern. Weekends aren't an option now, so much as I hate them weekday nights are much more appealing for our family life. I am keeping my fingers crossed that I don't need to rely on childcare every day, as this will not be viable if we have to pay a fortune for it. Neither can we afford for me to be at home and be a proper mum.

[Viney]

is that before or after tax? :DThe way the article read, that was Gross!

I think it was an average in the UK. I reckon London would be about £25k minimum with the increased rents and travel.

Edit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10510360

[SoulKiss]

The point is that she cant afford them, she has borrowed the money.

The bank has ALLOWED her to borrow money off them when she has no job and no way of paying it back.

Yes the bank should have done better checks.

End of the day if she does pay the loan back (and I am giving the benefit of the doubt here) then it is STILL our money that bought the luxuries.

Simple answer - everyone in the country gets X amount - X being an amount you can live on. For each dependant (unable to work, age, disabled etc), then they get Y amount.

When you get a job, if it pays less than X amount then the employer pays your wage to the Government and you still get your X from the State.

If you get a job paying more than X amount, the employer pays the X amount, plus income tax and national insurance to the Government, and anything left over they pay to you.

Ok so there are probably a few flaws in the scheme - but some of the cost WOULD be recovered by the simplification of the system.

[anna]

SK I think our tax would go up because of the compensation the government would need to pay people who are in employment below the threshold of that they could claim if on benefits.

I also dont see how that would attract people into work.

They would get the same amount for working as they would for sitting on their backside, which has always been the problem. Your solution of simplification is a great idea, however, it wouldnt encourage more people back to work.

[SoulKiss]

SK I think our tax would go up because of the compensation the government would need to pay people who are in employment below the threshold of that they could claim if on benefits.

I also dont see how that would attract people into work.

They would get the same amount for working as they would for sitting on their backside, which has always been the problem. Your solution of simplification is a great idea, however, it wouldnt encourage more people back to work.

The incentive is that the "Social Wage" is the bare minimum to survive on.

No spare cash for holidays, plasma TV's, even mobile phones.

You want more than that - get a job, any job.

Its simple and its fair - everyone gets the same, so no need to worry about cheats and the like.

[toxic]

I haven't spent anything on Christmas this year, tomorrow night I fully expect to be visited by the ghosts of Christmas past, present & future.

[anna]

The incentive is that the "Social Wage" is the bare minimum to survive on.

No spare cash for holidays, plasma TV's, even mobile phones.

You want more than that - get a job, any job.

Its simple and its fair - everyone gets the same, so no need to worry about cheats and the like.

I feel that we are coming full circle with this argument.

Yes I agree that no one on benefits should be able to afford those luxuaries that people in work wouldnt be able to afford, but honestly as has been proven they cant afford it.

They use loans and credit cards to do this.

Do you honestly think that they will be paying those loans back any time soon? How do you think the banking system got into such a mess, and yet they continue to lend money to those that have no income.

Everyone does get the same, there is a set amount for housing in each area, there is a set amount per child and there is a set amount of income you can claim. I fail to see where you would make any adjustments to the current system within your argument that would be any fairer.

Housing benefit obviously is different in different parts of the country due to pricing structures. The rest however is a set amount.

The amount given to these families really is the social bare minimum. What more would you do?

If you suggest taking their mobiles away from them you restrict a possibility of being contacted for a job.

[dizzyblonde]

People in these sort of situations don't go to banks for loans. They go elsewhere.

[Bibio]

hhhhmmmmmm. i'm on benefits and i dont know how the hell she is able to spend 3k on prezzys. there is no way i would be able to spend that much and i'm on a fair income due to the wife being disabled.

sons each have been given £200 each plus the 'change' jars which was a whopping '£265' but thats been sitting on the kitchen bunker for about 3 years.

my wife £150

my muminlaw £50

my mum £50

my brother £20

me nowt. oh wait a sec a pair of leavers from hong kong £30

so thats £700 by my calculations of which i have been saving all year as i dont do credit. but in my defence i'm a tight git and we do without a loooot of stuff threw the year. being on benefits is not easy. i have not decorated my house in probably 10 years (i've not been on benefits that long BTW) cant remember the last time we bought a new suite/carpet/curtains etc.etc. but we dont go cold or hungry and we dont dress in designer clothes either unless you class ASDA as designer.

yes i would rather be working and earning a decent wage but i cant as i would have to earn £40k+ to break even as the care of my wife would be a crippling expense. for it to work and have a semi decent life style i would have to be earning closer to £60k+. i dont own my house and i drive second hand bashed crap cars. the only thing i have of value is my bike which i saved for and the family have done without because of it. selfish well in a way yes but in another way no.

so dont sit there thinking its all cash and good times being on benefits.

your hard earned tax that goes to the government is greatly appreciated by this individual and without it my family and i would otherwise not survive.

if it helps think of your tax as charity to help those less fortunate as yourselves. as you never know, one day you might just need it yourself.

Lance

[Specialone]

Relevant stuff
Lance

Mate, you are exactly the type of person who the benefits are for and should have wages topped up to help your situation.
A lot of working people would probably agree as well, what does seem to wind people up is the ones who have never worked a day in their lives, have 4 kids by 5 fathers (joke ) and then seem to have more than a family who work.

Imo benefits should only be a short term solution, not a long term one, its the whole ethos that needs to change, i know a few people like you who would love to work, but its not cost effective, so thats where improvements need to be made in the system.

[Bibio]

i think what this society really needs is more devotion to ones partners. looking at her kids i would say they were all from the same father so where is he? (i haven't read the whole story so he might be dead)

call me old fashioned but when you get married you sign a contract of devotion/love/care. but is seems that means nothing these days and people think that it should be all roses and romance. if that were the case then my wife and i would have split up years ago. there is too much of 'we aren't compatible' nowadays and less of the 'we'll stick together threw thick and thin'. maybe its me but i feel that a large majority of people these days are selfish and self obsessed and if their partner cant provide then they seek another partner regardless of the facts if they have kids or not. far to many people place to much on material values rather than life.

[Bluefish]

Recon we will have spent about £800 all in, £400 of that on a laptop for the daughter which the wife will use as well.

[lily]

in terms of presents we have spent £240 on the family which is presents for

my mum
my dad
sister
brother-in law
niece
Drew's mum
Drew's stepdad
Drew's father & stepmum
Drew's brother
Drew's sister-in-law
Drew's niece
Drew's grandma
Drew's step niece
Drew's step nephew
3 presents for the family friends were we are for xmas dinner
and 4 boxes of chocolates for people at my work

Think that is quite good!

We don't need to get any food as at Drew's parents family friends that Drew has known since he was born (also hence the presents for them!)

For each other we where not going to get anything, but I got a bonus we were not expecting so Drew got me a new lenses for my DSLR and he has had a new external hard drive. Which in total came to £200... so still under the £500 mark for everything.

[-Ralph-]

I'm glad to see people seem to have stopped bashing the woman herself. You hear stories of people making £40-£50 on benefits, with kids from different fathers, etc, and those pee me off, but £21k isn't excessive. She doesn't decide how much she is paid.

There is a definite argument though to say that she gets £3k per year too much, you shouldn't have that much disposable income on benefits. Having said that we don't know what he has skimped on that the rest of us may consider 'essential' in order to save that £30, and pay £35 in loan repayments every week. Maybe she buys the kids clothes in charity shops, including the jumpers and woolly pyjamas they need to turn the central heating off unless absolutely necessary. Unlikely maybe, but we don't know, so we shouldn't judge.

I think generalising and saying that she will never repay her loans is unfair. A lot of people in those situations religiously pay their repayments, because they know they rely so heavily on credit to buy everything from washing machines to furniture. Having a good credit history is a lifeline. The article does say she has loans all the time and takes a new one as soon as she has paid the last one off.

Some benefits are a temporary solution, ie: Job Seekers Allowance, and some are not ie: Income Support and Disability Allowance. For some people working simply isn't possible or practical, depending on where they live, what the circumstances are in their family, and I think society has a responsibility to support them and see them through where they have a fair case. Having 4 kids with the same father, then he leaves you on your own with them is a pretty fair long term case for benefits IMO, at least until the youngest turns 4 and goes to school.

As for her marriage, they had the first kid at 17. They screwed up in that respect. If my son got a girl pregnant at 17 I'd kick his rrrss for sure, but he'd still be my son and he'd still get any help and support that I was able to give him. Human beings make mistakes FFS. When a 17 year old boyfriend and girlfriend get thrown together, it is perhaps unrealistic to expect that they will last forever and stick together through thick and thin. I agree that people take marriage and relationships too lightly nowadays, but a lifelong partnership need to start with a solid foundation, or you need to be extremely lucky and happen to have got the right girl for you pregnant.

Just because there are the scum of the earth making a career out of living on benefits, there are a lot of very decent, honest people on benefits too, and we shouldn't tar all with the same brush. I think there are a few people on this thread who would benefit from being made to walk a mile in this woman's shoes.

[Bluefish]

can we have a go on her x-box too :D