£42,000 per year and a Mercedes, why should I work?

[clippedgull]

Will these two scroungers be worse off when George delivers his nation saving budget next week?

Father-of-seven Peter gave up work because he could make more living on benefits. Yet he and his wife Claire are still not happy with their lot.
With an eighth child on the way, they are demanding a bigger house, courtesy of the taxpayer.

'It's really hard,' said Mrs Davey, 29, who is seven months pregnant. '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.'

Mrs Davey has never had a full-time job while her 35-year-old husband gave up his post in administration nine years ago after realising they would be better off living on the state.

At their semi on the Isle of Anglesey, the family have a 42in flat-screen television in the living room with Sky TV at £50 a month, a Wii games console, three Nintendo DS machines and a computer - not to mention four mobile phones.

With their income of more than £42,000 a year, they run an 11-seater minibus and the seven-seat automatic Mercedes.

But according to the Daveys they have nothing to be thankful for. 'It doesn't bother me that taxpayers are paying for me to have a large family,' added Mrs Davey.

'We couldn't afford to care for our children without benefits, but as long as they have everything they need, I don't think I'm selfish.

'Most of the parents at our kids' school are on benefits.'


She added: 'I don't feel bad about being subsidised by people who are working. I'm just working with the system that's there. If the government wants to give me money, I'm happy to take it.

'We get what we're entitled to. I don't put in anything because I don't pay taxes, but if I could work I would.'

The couple met in a pub 13 years ago. A year later, at the age of 17, Mrs Davey gave birth to Jessica, now 12. She was followed by Jade, ten, Jamie-Anne, eight, Harriet, six, Adele, four, the couple's only son Tie, three, and Mercedes, two.

'It cost too much to carrying on working as we were actually better off unemployed,' said Mr Davey.

In addition to income support, housing benefit, child tax credits and a council tax discount, the couple receive carer's allowance and disability living allowance for Tie, who suffers from a severe skin disorder.

Despite filing for bankruptcy 18 months ago after racking up £20,000 of debt on mail order catalogues they still insist on splashing out on four presents per child at birthdays and last Christmas spent £2,000 on gifts alone.

'Santa is always generous in our house,' said Mrs Davey, who once applied to join the police but was turned down.

She insists her husband would do any job 'as long as we could still afford the lifestyle we have now'.

Mrs Davey, who spends £160 a week at Tesco, says she does not intend to stop at eight children. Her target is 14.

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.

 

[adrian29uk]

I want the tories to get tough with this sort of thing. I voted Labour, but this is what happend in the end.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Bitch

 

[mcshane in the 79th]

Good on them

 

[Trigger]

I pay for these fat lazy ***** to have their lavish lifestyle, why should I work?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Her kids are ginger. And Welsh. Need all the help they can get.

 

[mikeyjh]

Just for a bit of balance, they are 24hr a day carers for their son whose "Skin Condition" is Epidermolysis bullosa, potentially fatal, but the Torygraph or more likely Mail wouldn't let that get in the way of a good scrounger story.

 

[Rookie]

She's 29, that is one hard life

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Just for a bit of balance, they are 24hr a day carers for their son whose "Skin Condition" is Epidermolysis bullosa, potentially fatal, but the Torygraph or more likely Mail wouldn't let that get in the way of a good scrounger story.

They did already have FIVE kids before him though....

 

[nwgull]

I have real problems with stuff like this. The kids didn't ask to be born, so it would be unfair to let them live in poverty just because their parents are selfish spongers. However, I hate the attitude that these parents have in thinking that they are somehow doing society a favour in popping out a sprog every year. In that respect I would love to see their benefits removed and the kids put into foster care unless they get up off their lazy arses and try to work for a living.

 

[Mr Everyone]

As opposed to this chap who conned the country out of £4m in tax bills in 2008 by cheating his way out of the system.

 

[Simster]

Just for a bit of balance, they are 24hr a day carers for their son whose "Skin Condition" is Epidermolysis bullosa, potentially fatal, but the Torygraph or more likely Mail wouldn't let that get in the way of a good scrounger story.

Can anyone really justify the state having to support a family of SEVEN kids?

These people are ruining the state safety net for everybody else. Nobody wants the kids to suffer, nobody wants vulnerable families to go starving, but having SEVEN kids and then expecting the state to pick up the tab for EVERYTHING is taking the piss. The result of which will be a cost cutting backlash felt by the genuinely vulnerable.

 

[Bozza]

I have real problems with stuff like this. The kids didn't ask to be born, so it would be unfair to let them live in poverty just because their parents are selfish spongers.

That's the nub, isn't it - just what is the solution to these situations?

Withdrawal of state support will directly impact the children and most likely deprive them of the start in life they need in order to have the opportunity to flourish.

(They've got the kids now, so 'stop them having kids' is not the answer)

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Can anyone really justify the state having to support a family of SEVEN kids?

These people are ruining the state safety net for everybody else. Nobody wants the kids to suffer, nobody wants vulnerable families to go starving, but having SEVEN kids and then expecting the state to pick up the tab for EVERYTHING is taking the piss. The result of which will be a cost cutting backlash felt by the genuinely vulnerable.

Eighth on the way...

 

[Bozza]

BTW, this story is ages old - I saw it some months back. I assumed it was on here, maybe not.

 

[wellquickwoody]

I really, really hope this is a wind up.........please?

If not my answers will follow.

 

[Simster]

That's the nub, isn't it - just what is the solution to these situations?

Withdrawal of state support will directly impact the children and most likely deprive them of the start in life they need in order to have the opportunity to flourish.

(They've got the kids now, so 'stop them having kids' is not the answer)

If they can afford an 11 seat minibus, a 7 seat Mercedes and £42k a year in benefits, it sounds like a limited withdrawal of state support is the obvious answer.

For a start, I don't see why the state should give hands outs for kids over 13 years old, and I think there should be a cap on the number of kids per family it should support - 3 or 4 tops.

 

[Mr Everyone]

I really, really hope this is a wind up.........please?

If not my answers will follow.

That was a quicker response from you than I thought, Woody!

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

I have real problems with stuff like this. The kids didn't ask to be born, so it would be unfair to let them live in poverty just because their parents are selfish spongers. However, I hate the attitude that these parents have in thinking that they are somehow doing society a favour in popping out a sprog every year. In that respect I would love to see their benefits removed and the kids put into foster care unless they get up off their lazy arses and try to work for a living.

Exactly. The trouble with this is that all their children will think this is ok as well and so the cycle perpetuates. My ex works for the job centre and she used to despair that on the 16th birthday the grandchild would be brought in to sign on by the parents and grandparents who had also been sponging all their lives/as long as they could get away with it.