Nice to know our Tax money is being spent prudently

[Barrel of Fun]

What about crime levels? Crime is linked to poverty.

 

[drew]

The most intriguing fact to come out is that Carlzeiss reads the daily mail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


As for all those muppets banging on about why this is what's wrong with the benefits system you're all a joke. This story represents a very very small minority, I for one don't know of any family on benefits with that many children yet the way some of you go on you would think that they occupy every single property in every housing association. It's a bit like using the example of Starbucks and Google as representatives of why capitalism is wrong when there are plenty of other companies paying fair tax.

The question you need to ask yourself is how do you now deal with the situation that exists, not some fantasy land where everyone works, they only have 2.4 children and they, during their formative years are raised by a nanny who is therefore another earner out of the situation. Seems to me that you all want to penalise the kids for the actions of their mother.

 

[Nibble]

The children exist. They have to be housed. There is no getting around that. Irresponsible mother or not.

 

[drew]

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.

Add to that the fact they have no crime and poverty doesn't exist it is surely the best society to live in!!!! (just make sure that you don't lose your job or get ill and you'll be fine).

 

[Simster]

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.

There are always winners and losers with any benefit system. I don't think there will be many who disagree with you when you say that having 11 kids and expecting the rest of society to foot the bill is an appalling mindset.

But look at it this way; having a safety net that also catches those who are less deserving appears to be the price we pay for ensuring that everybody in society is looked after when necessary. I don't want to live in a society where those who can't afford health cover during hard times are left to rot. The American system is awful.

 

[mikeyjh]

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.

Okay, so that's it, the benefit system doesn't cost the taxpayer as much = Good.

So, by way of an example, most people would agree that crime levels are closely linked to poverty right? Do crime levels not come in to your calculation? A quick wiki search tells me that there are 2.3m people in prison in the US - 97,000 in the UK. That costs an awful lot of money..... I know this isn't a terribly complete argument but hopefully it helps you to understand that you can't always draw such simplistic conlusions.

 

[willyfantastic]

The children exist. They have to be housed. There is no getting around that. Irresponsible mother or not.

they had a house - in fact they had 2 houses and a paddock with a horse in it

 

[CheeseRolls]

Recycled hatred from a story that broke back in February.

Blog from a local bloke, no idea who he is or what he represents, but seems to be a little more measured.

http://stevehynd.com/tag/heather-frost/

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Interesting that the article states the house is 'custom built', but the house next door appears to be identical.

Its 2 semis knocked into one. The question that needs to be asked is does she have a "right to buy" on this housing association property ?

 

[Nibble]

they had a house - in fact they had 2 houses and a paddock with a horse in it

How odd. In fact I think I remember reading about this a while back. A horse? I consider myself to be rather left wing but even I would draw the line at allowing benefit claimants to spend tax payers money on such flummery as horses.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

How odd. In fact I think I remember reading about this a while back. A horse? I consider myself to be rather left wing but even I would draw the line at allowing benefit claimants to spend tax payers money on such flummery as horses.

Would you deprive all those kids the choice of eating a burger every week ?

 

[mikeyjh]

Recycled hatred from a story that broke back in February.

Blog from a local bloke, no idea who he is or what he represents, but seems to be a little more measured.

http://stevehynd.com/tag/heather-frost/

Indeed, a good summary of the situation. Also worth mentioning that if you total up the cost of all those 'scrounger' families with > 10 kids, it would cost each tax payer an average of....

9p a year. Well worth getting worked up about in anyone's book

 

[Hotchilidog]

Recycled hatred from a story that broke back in February.

Blog from a local bloke, no idea who he is or what he represents, but seems to be a little more measured.

http://stevehynd.com/tag/heather-frost/

That was a very good read. Well spotted.

 

[keaton]

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.

Ok. So what you want to happen to her and her children?

 

[Creaky]

Aren't the house and other benefits provided for the children's upkeep and well being?

It's not their fault they are members of that particular family,

 

[Nibble]

She's had 11 kids. She could probably house them in her fanny. And the horse.

 

[pastafarian]

pushing the benefit points to one side for a moment, every time i see these stories in the press my first thought is why do people still think its acceptable to bring 11 children into the modern world.

this isnt 1850 anymore.......space and resourses are getting scarce.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

She's had 11 kids. She could probably house them in her fanny. And the horse.

Is the horse called Jordan

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

pushing the benefit points to one side for a moment, every time i see these stories in the press my first thought is why do people still think its acceptable to bring 11 children into the modern world.

this isnt 1850 anymore.......space and resourses are getting scarce.

150 years ago how many of those 11 kids would have lived past the age of 14 ?

 

[Tom Bombadil]

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.

GDP per capita 2012 Sweden $55,245
GDP per capita 2012 USA $49,965


Unemployment benefit rules sure must be tough in Sweden. Or perhaps there are other more important factors involved in a complex economy, cos i'm pretty sure Bangladesh has limited employment benefits, yet somehow they haven't managed to become a global economic superpower.