Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Nice to know our Tax money is being spent prudently
- Thread starter carlzeiss
- Start date
Tooting Gull
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,033
Congratulations. You have reacted exactly as the Daily Mail would have wished you to. It's like pushing a sheep into a pen.
Don't you realise that if the rest of us are hoodwinked into hating each other, the real beneficiaries of the current system (ie those owning the Mail and the rest of the super-rich) will continue to sit back laughing their heads off?
Don't you realise that if the rest of us are hoodwinked into hating each other, the real beneficiaries of the current system (ie those owning the Mail and the rest of the super-rich) will continue to sit back laughing their heads off?
mikeyjh
Well-known member
Ha! The Mail rarely lets the facts get in the way of a good story. Funny how the headline isn't "Nation looks after cancer survivor"
GreersElbow
New member
"She and her family currently live in two houses in Churchdown, Gloucestershire, which have been knocked through to make one home."
I'd imagine there's also internal modifications made.
Absolute bullshit, but this is what happens when living on benefits is more financially sound than working. I fundamentally believe this says more about our tax system than the benefits system, if you're unskilled and can only work on minimum wage, which is taxed. Not working appears to be the better alternative, so, if we were to bring minimum wage workers out of tax, this would minimise benefit claims, as people would have more money in their pocket. This would bring down the benefits bill.
This is a lifestyle choice for this woman, I don't think the national average salary would cover 11 children.
Billy the Fish
Technocrat
Bit of a c**ty article. It just looks like any other housing association new build, she looks like a right pikey but that's no reason to smear someone in the national press.
Paul Reids Sock
Well-known member
This sort of thing does annoy me a bit. Due to the fact we are a single income family since my partner was made redundant. She is now re-training as a nurse and we struggle month by month. We have a son who is 3 and a half and know that we wouldn't be able to afford another child while my partner is not working despite the fact we would love to have more.
I struggle to see how a society produces someone that can make the decision to have ELEVEN children and never think about how they will be paid for.
The benefts system in this country can do a lot of good for people that genuinely need it. I am not one for these sensationalist storied that only concentrate on the minority, however cannot hide that initial anger after reading it. Which, as previously stated, is exaclty what the Mail are trying to do.
I struggle to see how a society produces someone that can make the decision to have ELEVEN children and never think about how they will be paid for.
The benefts system in this country can do a lot of good for people that genuinely need it. I am not one for these sensationalist storied that only concentrate on the minority, however cannot hide that initial anger after reading it. Which, as previously stated, is exaclty what the Mail are trying to do.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Woohoo another shared article from the Daily Mail....
Czechmate
Well-known member
As well as the house isn't she entitled to CSA payments from her 11 former partners ? 
Paul Reids Sock
Well-known member
As well as the house isn't she entitled to CSA payments from her 11 former partners ?
Isn't that only if they, themselves, are working as it is taken as a proportion of earnings?
yxee
Well-known member
It's clearly not for the mother, it's for the kids. The mother is just collateral. Spending a bit of money on giving 11 kids a decent place to live isn't the worst waste of taxpayer money, especially if their mother quite clearly can't provide for them on her own.
For me this just seems like pragmatism. Expensive, but you never know how much 11 kids without a father and a pretty poor mother role-model will end up costing the state in prison sentences and crime.
For me this just seems like pragmatism. Expensive, but you never know how much 11 kids without a father and a pretty poor mother role-model will end up costing the state in prison sentences and crime.
willyfantastic
New member
- Mar 1, 2009
- 2,368
'It's a council house. A big one, but still just a council house on a council estate. They haven't even given her a shed'
best comment ever
best comment ever
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
Exactly
Exactly. That's what is wrong with the benefit system in this country. A benefit system which costs you and I a fecking great amount of money so that people can go off and have ELEVEN children comfortable in the knowledge that the State (i.e the taxpayers; i.e people who WORK and PAY TAXES) will take care of them. There's a lot to be said for the American system.
No it's not bloody "fair enough". She has absolutely no right to have a football team of kids and expect hard-working taxpayers to pay for their upbringing. That is absolutely not how a FAIR system should work.
mikeyjh
Well-known member
What is your measure of success of the 'american system' ( a quick paragraph on the 'american system' would also be useful)?
My measure of the success of the American system? For a start, in the USA: "You are only entitled to a maximum (depending what state) of 99 weeks of unemployment compensation".
And another quote: "How is it that the American economy manages year-in-year-out to outperform its European neighbours in economic terms? There is no simple answer, of course, but this chart might hold some of the clues. It shows the comparative generosity of long-term unemployment benefits around the world – and guess who is right at the very bottom?" And at the bottom is? THE USA.
The success of the US system is that it doesn't cost the taxpayer as much money. Therefore it is good.
And another quote: "How is it that the American economy manages year-in-year-out to outperform its European neighbours in economic terms? There is no simple answer, of course, but this chart might hold some of the clues. It shows the comparative generosity of long-term unemployment benefits around the world – and guess who is right at the very bottom?" And at the bottom is? THE USA.
The success of the US system is that it doesn't cost the taxpayer as much money. Therefore it is good.