bhaexpress
New member
Whilst I sound like a fascist I believe that people should be means tested before having children. These two should be sterilised.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
£42,000 per year and a Mercedes, why should I work?
- Thread starter clippedgull
- Start date
There is so much WRONG with this.
Why was she in a pub picking up blokes at SIXTEEN?
Why does she think its alright to expect the state to subsidise her hobby of giving birth?
Eighth on the way, and a TARGET of FOURTEEN. Lord save us.
Why does someone £20,000 in debt and declared bankrupt think it appropriate or indeed necessary to spen £2000 on xmas presents? That's more per child that I spend on mine, and I EARN slightly less that they garner in tax-free benefits.
Why the f*** do 'catalogue companies' allow someone to run up a £20,000 debt?
So wrong......
Why was she in a pub picking up blokes at SIXTEEN?
Why does she think its alright to expect the state to subsidise her hobby of giving birth?
Eighth on the way, and a TARGET of FOURTEEN. Lord save us.
Why does someone £20,000 in debt and declared bankrupt think it appropriate or indeed necessary to spen £2000 on xmas presents? That's more per child that I spend on mine, and I EARN slightly less that they garner in tax-free benefits.
Why the f*** do 'catalogue companies' allow someone to run up a £20,000 debt?
So wrong......
Tony Meolas Loan Spell
Slut Faced Whores
I agree. In fact ALL benefits should be means tested. It needs to be FAIR so those those that actually do need it get (and quickly) and those that dont get told to f*** off.
bhaexpress
New member
Unfortunately there are these sort of people about who know how to play the system. The trouble is that they give everybody in their situation a bad name. It might be the law but not for the first time the law is an ass.
Tooting Gull
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,033
So wrong, as you say, on every level. Not least because this is the one that gets in the paper and on here - while most people on benefits are a) more in need than that, and b) do not have that brazen attitude to taxpayers money. How thick do you have to be, you'd have thought at least keep you mouth shut and be bloody grateful in her position.
I do think this is an example of us all being mugged a bit with an agenda-led story, though - the timing is a bit too cute. Wouldn't we all lap up swingeing benefits cuts more easily after a few tales like this...
I do think this is an example of us all being mugged a bit with an agenda-led story, though - the timing is a bit too cute. Wouldn't we all lap up swingeing benefits cuts more easily after a few tales like this...
How on earth do you work that out? Aren't kids even more expensive to 'maintain' then if only because being bigger they will require more food.
And, practically, how would you implement that?
Vankleek Hill Seagull
Well-known member
This is where child benefit should be scrapped. If people want children, then they should bloody well take responsibility themselves and not have the taxpayer pay for them.
I realise that children SHOULD become future taxpayers, but if they're signing on at 16 and claiming benefits, then they're taking money out the system and not even contributing to it.
I realise that children SHOULD become future taxpayers, but if they're signing on at 16 and claiming benefits, then they're taking money out the system and not even contributing to it.
As above, this story is not current. So not quite as 'convenient' as you would like.
An article about this family was in the telegraph in april, promoting the full story in the then upcoming issue of closer, so it is a couple of months old.
Family on £42,000 a year benefits because they are 'better off unemployed' - Telegraph
Family on £42,000 a year benefits because they are 'better off unemployed' - Telegraph
Mr Everyone
New member
...but how/who do we choose to sterilise?
The amount of money lost by benefit 'cheats' is a drop in the ocean compared to MPs cheating the system and hedge-fund scamsters.
So should bankers and MPs be sterilised? How about Lewis Hamilton?
Blaming those poor bastards at the start of this thread is easy though.
The real benefit cheats? The Stasi ranks of Hard Labour | Zoe Williams | Comment is free | The Guardian
A cull?
bhaexpress
New member
Agreed, if anything they cost more as their clothes start getting VAT on them.
The Chinese managed it but there again they don't do religion.
John Bumlick
Banned
remove their benefits and make them eat the kids. when it came time to eat the one with the skin condition, i bet their attitude to work would change...
BRIGHT ON Q
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 9,248
Most normal working families only have 2 or maybe 3 kids because thats all they can afford and all they have room for.Its mainly the scummy scroungers that have all these kids and then those kids will be having more in their teens.God help us in 20 years time.
Is it OK because it is two months old Bozza?
bhaexpress
New member
I wish you were right but I think you;ll find there are a lot more people fiddling their benefits than MPs. One of the biggest scams are the people in Invalidity benefits, I've met more than a few who are 'On the sick' with 'depression'. Depression is very hard to quantify and one doctor may not see it the same as another.