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

[Bozza]

Is it OK because it is two months old Bozza?

No, and did I say it was?

I was only countering the "Tories spin machine pumped this out to help make us think that the upcoming cuts have justification" type line being spun.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

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.

Massive generalisation alert.

 

[Acker79]

There was a programme on bbc2 last year with two cooks, one guy who is recogniseable, and one woman who looked like jamie oliver, I can't remember their names or the name of the programme, but the premise was that they would help a family each week to reduce their shopping bills through cooking. It including structuring them so that they would plan their meals for the week, all coming from a weeklyu base, i.e. a mince sauce that would be used for lasagne one day, chile the next, shepherd's pie the next, etc.

Most of the families were spending in excess of the £160 this family are, and there was frequently two adults 2 - 3 kids. So, kudos to the family for keeping their grocery bills down.

 

[Simster]

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.

Because once a child is 13, the parent is perfectly capable of going back to work without the need for paying for childcare. Until then, the argument runs that working in a 9-5 job is difficult to hold down if your kid comes out of school at 3pm.

And, practically, how would you implement that?

Child benefit stopped as soon as the child is 13.

 

[Gwylan]

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.

Apart from the fact that there's a desperate shortage of foster carers at the moment, this would cost the state considerably more money - probably about three or four times as much per child.

 

[bhaexpress]

Because once a child is 13, the parent is perfectly capable of going back to work without the need for paying for childcare. Until then, the argument runs that working in a 9-5 job is difficult to hold down if your kid comes out of school at 3pm.

That's assuming the parent who has been freed up can actually get work or else they can claim dole. That would just swap one benefit for another as there's not exactly a plethora of jobs out there for people who have been out of the work place for a number of years whatever the reason, even more so if that person is unskilled. Also, it assumes that they only have one child as any younger siblings would still require care, the thirteen year old would still need to be fed and clothed.

 

[Spanish Seagulls]

He should be made to work to qualify for any further benefits. At least if he worked towards the upkeep of his family then it might be fairer for all, if he won't work then limit his benefits but if someone such as this man does actually contribute then the benefits are a top up which is a lot fairer to tax payers & his children could have respect for him as a man who actually supports his family.

I know the story is old but the problem is current, benefits should be available for those who contribute & require additional assistance rather than the way they are currently handed out. This just goes to highlight all that is wrong with Britains benefits culture today.
The Welsh are among the worst culprits, seeing as they have their own parliament & they can also pay benefits from the Welsh budget, it might actually get Wales working again & restore some pride.

 

[wellquickwoody]

No, and did I say it was?

No you did not, just checking like.

 

[Simster]

That's assuming the parent who has been freed up can actually get work or else they can claim dole. That would just swap one benefit for another as there's not exactly a plethora of jobs out there for people who have been out of the work place for a number of years whatever the reason, even more so if that person is unskilled. Also, it assumes that they only have one child as any younger siblings would still require care, the thirteen year old would still need to be fed and clothed.

The fact that for a minority of affected people, you're swapping one benefit for another, is not a reason not to change things.

I take your second point, so maybe you'd stop benefit once the second or third child reached 13. Not ideal, but something needs to discourage this reliance on the state.

 

[Bozza]

Because once a child is 13, the parent is perfectly capable of going back to work without the need for paying for childcare. Until then, the argument runs that working in a 9-5 job is difficult to hold down if your kid comes out of school at 3pm.

Child benefit stopped as soon as the child is 13.

So you have 3 kids aged 13, 7 and 2. You wouldn't need childcare and could work a full 9-5 every day?

 

[Mr Everyone]

I just wonder about the mental health of somebody who chooses to live a life on state handouts.

I was recently off sick for a number of weeks and in that time I missed work enormously. Having a job enhances one's well-being and health. Being in employment provides structure, routine and more importantly, money. I think we are programmed to actually want to work; there was a time when man hunted for food, we HAVE to work in order to live.

If individuals choose not to work, I believe them to be unwell mentally or emotionally.

 

[Acker79]

Apart from the fact that there's a desperate shortage of foster carers at the moment, this would cost the state considerably more money - probably about three or four times as much per child.

But isn't that only short term? In the long term attitudes to benefits would change and people would realise they can't live on them without trying to find work.

 

[Deleted User X18H]

Is absolutely f***ing disgusting. 'Why should I work' indeed! An absolute disgrace the sort of thing I so hope Cameron sorts out asap. I wish I could claim benefits but can I f***. No I have spent what should be our retirement fund and my children's education to fund to live on. Because I cannot find a permanent job in my industry. But I have been prudent and invested wisely, oh and paid thousand of pounds in tax, so of course I can't claim bugger all. Sort it out Cam. Get scroungers like this cleaning the streets 14 hours a day if they want some cash.

 

[Trigger]

She should be spending some of that FREE money getting her chuff sewn up if she can't afford all these kids.

 

[Gwylan]

But isn't that only short term?

There's been a desperate shortage of foster carers at least five years now and it's getting worse not better - that's why every time you look at the Argus (or any paper these days) there's an ad asking "Can you foster?" That doesn't that short term to me.

 

[Mr Everyone]

Is absolutely f***ing disgusting. 'Why should I work' indeed! An absolute disgrace the sort of thing I so hope Cameron sorts out asap. I wish I could claim benefits but can I f***. No I have spent what should be our retirement fund and my children's education to fund to live on. Because I cannot find a permanent job in my industry. But I have been prudent and invested wisely, oh and paid thousand of pounds in tax, so of course I can't claim bugger all. Sort it out Cam. Get scroungers like this cleaning the streets 14 hours a day if they want some cash.

Why have you paid for your children's education? Cardinal Newman's free!

 

[Acker79]

There's been a desperate shortage of foster carers at least five years now and it's getting worse not better - that's why every time you look at the Argus (or any paper these days) there's an ad asking "Can you foster?" That doesn't that short term to me.

No, I mean, if the government took the attitude of NWGull suggested it would lead to a short term added pressure. In the long term it would settle back into the current levels.

 

[Deleted User X18H]

Why have you paid for your children's education? Cardinal Newman's free!

I haven't....... yet. But I'd like to.

Newman is a Catholic School and difficult to get into. Stanford is our nearest primary but again difficult to get into.Though that isn't a worry for a few years yet. Windlesham is the other option or the trek to Balfour.

 

[Simster]

The fact that for a minority of affected people, you're swapping one benefit for another, is not a reason not to change things.

I take your second point, so maybe you'd stop benefit once the second or third child reached 13. Not ideal, but something needs to discourage this reliance on the state.

So you have 3 kids aged 13, 7 and 2. You wouldn't need childcare and could work a full 9-5 every day?

 

[Tooting Gull]

No, and did I say it was?

I was only countering the "Tories spin machine pumped this out to help make us think that the upcoming cuts have justification" type line being spun.

But they will be anyway. Still, nice of you do be doing their work for them.