Some People On Welfare

[dubsie]

Today I returned to a couple living in social housing. They have lived there for just over two years and since moving in they have had another two children giving them a total of three. Both don't work and are in receipt if welfare and have been since they moved in.

This family are obviously planning a family at the expense of the tax payer. For those of us that work planning a family will nearly always involve considering the cost. This Is because our salaries don't increase as our family unit grows. What kind of a person would plan on having two children while in receipt of benefits. I can't comprehend this mentality.

When I left the property my blood was boiling. I can't stand lazy people who live off other people. The sad thing is that my brother who recently lost his job can't get a penny from the state. What is the point of paying in.

[HPC001]

The state knows a lot about them and has them on a leash, personally I wouldn't want to be in that situation. Then again you practically get an hour-long interrogation when claiming JSA (then subsequent interview checking 2 forms of ID and your answers)..

[dubsie]

Plus their house was a tip and they had a garden full off rubbish. I wouldn't mind if they were trying but they clearly just think it's ok to have three kids at the expense of our welfare system. Being told that I may have to retire at 70 when I'm paying for lazy people to have large families.

[Guest Noodle]

Today I returned to a couple living in social housing. They have lived there for just over two years and since moving in they have had another two children giving them a total of three. Both don't work and are in receipt if welfare and have been since they moved in.

This family are obviously planning a family at the expense of the tax payer. For those of us that work planning a family will nearly always involve considering the cost. This Is because our salaries don't increase as our family unit grows. What kind of a person would plan on having two children while in receipt of benefits. I can't comprehend this mentality.

When I left the property my blood was boiling. I can't stand lazy people who live off other people. The sad thing is that my brother who recently lost his job can't get a penny from the state. What is the point of paying in.

I've seen this before and it's cost me. Few ever believe that there is no safety net for many. Years ago a senior colleague was laid off, civil engineer, PAYE, higher rate tax payer, he was in serious debt . . . went to the DSS and was told they'd pay one months stamp.

I relocated him and his family to Sydney.

[Laughing Gnome]

Today I returned to a couple living in social housing. They have lived there for just over two years and since moving in they have had another two children giving them a total of three. Both don't work and are in receipt if welfare and have been since they moved in.

This family are obviously planning a family at the expense of the tax payer. For those of us that work planning a family will nearly always involve considering the cost. This Is because our salaries don't increase as our family unit grows. What kind of a person would plan on having two children while in receipt of benefits. I can't comprehend this mentality.

When I left the property my blood was boiling. I can't stand lazy people who live off other people. The sad thing is that my brother who recently lost his job can't get a penny from the state. What is the point of paying in.

Old friends, insurance churning opportunity, boiler service? Or did you go round to score?

[Laughing Gnome]

I've seen this before and it's cost me. Few ever believe that there is no safety net for many. Years ago a senior colleague was laid off, civil engineer, PAYE, higher rate tax payer, he was in serious debt . . . went to the DSS and was told they'd pay one months stamp.

I relocated him and his family to Sydney.

I know what your saying, be an unintentionally homeless single man with no alchohol or mental health problems and see how much help there is. Sweet FA I should imagine.

But the one months stamp story has to be cobblers, there will have been more to it than was volunteered.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Laughing Gnome

[Guest Noodle]

I know what your saying, be an unintentionally homeless single man with no alchohol or mental health problems and see how much help there is. Sweet FA I should imagine.

But the one months stamp story has to be cobblers, there will have been more to it than was volunteered.

You never know. Who knows. This was in 2003. I've no experience of the welfare state beyond the excellent NHS, which has saved my sorry ass a couple of times.

[uk2bkk]

Today I returned to a couple living in social housing. They have lived there for just over two years and since moving in they have had another two children giving them a total of three. Both don't work and are in receipt if welfare and have been since they moved in.

This family are obviously planning a family at the expense of the tax payer. For those of us that work planning a family will nearly always involve considering the cost. This Is because our salaries don't increase as our family unit grows. What kind of a person would plan on having two children while in receipt of benefits. I can't comprehend this mentality.

When I left the property my blood was boiling. I can't stand lazy people who live off other people. The sad thing is that my brother who recently lost his job can't get a penny from the state. What is the point of paying in.

For thousands of years people have bred, benefits are quite a new phenomenon and that is why you and I are here today. While I understand your feelings it is the state that is to blame. The state has taken away many freedoms and our liberties are disappearing. It is all too easy to condemn the poorest while those in power are let off the hook. Your directing your frustration at the victims and not the perpetrators. We all are; we have been conditioned to think this way.

[Greg Bowman]

For thousands of years people have bred, benefits are quite a new phenomenon and that is why you and I are here today. While I understand your feelings it is the state that is to blame. The state has taken away many freedoms and our liberties are disappearing. It is all too easy to condemn the poorest while those in power are let off the hook. Your directing your frustration at the victims and not the perpetrators. We all are; we have been conditioned to think this way.

What that it is ok to sponge and be a feckless chav? You might of been I was ,conditioned not to know my place and not to feel sorry for feckless, social misfits who believe it is their right to steal from hard working people by way of benefits.

Your sympathy is very misguided

Edited July 1, 2010 by Greg Bowman

[dubsie]

Old friends, insurance churning opportunity, boiler service? Or did you go round to score?

Boiler breakdown lol

[babesagainstmachines]

That's nothing. Have you seen the house that these scroungers get to live in? The only thing that slows their breeding down is road traffic accidents. They even have there own WEB PAGE !!!

Edited July 1, 2010 by dazednconfused

[dubsie]

I'm sure these are a minority but what a pathetic way to live your life. These people should be forced to work, if anyone would want them that is.

[Guest Noodle]

What that it is ok to sponge and be a feckless chav? You might of been I was ,conditioned not to know my place and not to feel sorry for feckless, social misfits who believe it is their right to steal from hard working people by way of benefits.

Your sympathy is very misguided

He sees it from a different point of view. Might have something to do with the society he now lives in.

As much as I agree with you Bowman, the lack of freedom, the pigoen holing of people, the 'system' in the UK creates these limited either/or options. There simply isn't the freedom to be poor. You must either contribute vast proportions of your efforts to the system or draw from it. Either way all these boxes must be ticked!

This is the system Injin says will collapse, very possible.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

What that it is ok to sponge and be a feckless chav? You might of been I was ,conditioned not to know my place and not to feel sorry for feckless, social misfits who believe it is their right to steal from hard working people by way of benefits.

Your sympathy is very misguided

Generally we are conditioned to take the best route to maximum self security (a simple offfset of Risk / Reward) for ourselves and family, if the system dictates that for some at the bottom that route is best acheived through sponging then they are making a sensibler rational decision to best protect themselves, a bit stupid looking down on them for being sensible and often smart, much like the spongers at the top (the landed gentry, the politico, the board directors of numerous publically listed companies etc). All social misfits together but our system has naturally decayed over time like all systems to make it so.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Tamara De Lempicka

[babesagainstmachines]

An underclass with no prospects is the inevitable result of the elites taking more and more for themselves. Benefits are hush money.

[CrashedOutAndBurned]

Today I returned to a couple living in social housing. They have lived there for just over two years and since moving in they have had another two children giving them a total of three. Both don't work and are in receipt if welfare and have been since they moved in.

This family are obviously planning a family at the expense of the tax payer. For those of us that work planning a family will nearly always involve considering the cost. This Is because our salaries don't increase as our family unit grows. What kind of a person would plan on having two children while in receipt of benefits. I can't comprehend this mentality.

When I left the property my blood was boiling. I can't stand lazy people who live off other people. The sad thing is that my brother who recently lost his job can't get a penny from the state. What is the point of paying in.

Yep. Happens all the time. It's amazing to hear these people twittering on indignantly that the HA hasn't given them a bigger place yet after they've just squeezed out another benefits baby. The sense of entitlement is jaw-dropping.

I have no problem with the poor having a family. Unless we've all been middle class for generations, most of as wouldn't be here if the poor didn't. It's more the sense that you can leech to your hearts content with no attempt whatsoever to give anything back.

It's even more galling when you see maxed-out waited-till-30s-to-have-baby lower middle class couples tearfully putting their kid in childcare after six months to return to some job they hate to pay their mammoth mortgage on a crappy property no better than what you get for free off the state, while the benefits brigade are on full-time holiday.

I personally think it's time to radically reduce the money these families get and let the voluntary and charity sector take up the slack. They seem to think state money is magic free money, perhaps if they were drawing from a charity's coffers they'd think twice about some of their activities.

Edited July 1, 2010 by CrashedOutAndBurned

[erranta]

<br />For thousands of years people have bred, benefits are quite a new phenomenon and that is why you and I are here today. While I understand your feelings it is the state that is to blame. The state has taken away many freedoms and our liberties are disappearing. It is all too easy to condemn the poorest while those in power are let off the hook. Your directing your frustration at the victims and not the perpetrators. We all are; we have been conditioned to think this way.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Again the whinging OP thinks the money goes to the poor - it slips through their hands faster than the money-for-nothing (tricks-for-free) graBBers can grab it!

It is done to an extent to rebalance the economy by a few uber-rich at the top skimming everything into their accounts to gamble with on the markets or sit on in their off-shore accounts.

Rent > Rich Landlord

Foodstuffs, booze,fags ?All spare pennies spent back in to keep economy ticking over, Taxed > Govt.

The rich (thru their govts) allow this to rebalance the uber-thieving that's going on at the very top, whilst brainwashing you thru the media (owned/controlled by the uber-rich) that it's all the fault of the poor who are trying to basically 'live' as the means to a decent job/skill has been forcibly taken away for millions thru outsourcing.

They have no other access to land to build houses on and cannot afford a house to house their families without Govt intervention!

Blame the Uber-rich who are being subsidised on zillions of hidden ways, in this decade's massive wealth transfer!

One THIRD of the elect_RON 'cash' electronically flowing DAILY around the World, passes thru OFF-shore tax havens like the CariBBean - ask yourself, WHY?

[babesagainstmachines]

You are forgetting the employees of all the major banks. Some of them get millions as a christmas welfare cheque.

[pl1]

That's nothing. Have you seen the house that these scroungers get to live in? The only thing that slows their breeding down is road traffic accidents. They even have there own WEB PAGE !!!

They don't sit about watching Jeremy Kyle though.

[babesagainstmachines]

They don't sit about watching Jeremy Kyle though.

Is that the basis of your objection? Would it be better if they sat in a park waving at passers-by and drinking cider - the chav equivalent of what the royal family do.

[erranta]

<br />They don't sit about watching Jeremy Kyle though.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

They devise ways of deceiving their comrades and punters so they can thieve off them to boost their 'welfare' BONE_US cheques.

And wreck countries, putting millions out of work and into poverty - whilst demanding their businesses and bonuses are subsidised by the wrecked 'host' country!

Cheating, theiving, Parasites!

[europbaron]

...

Again the whinging OP thinks the money goes to the poor - it slips through their hands faster than the money-for-nothing (tricks-for-free) graBBers can grab it!

...

How is this any different from a worker who does not earn enough to save?

I'll tell you. It's different because this worker is paying income tax in addition to all the costs the unemployed have in order to fund the unemployed. So because some can't be bothered working (not tarring all unemployed with this) the workers have to pay a double subsidy to the uber-rich.

[Laughing Gnome]

That's nothing. Have you seen the house that these scroungers get to live in? The only thing that slows their breeding down is road traffic accidents. They even have there own WEB PAGE !!!

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

People aren't on welfare because they want to be, they are on welfare because it's the only way they can afford an acceptable standard of living.

I've a computer programmer on a fair wage, but if I wanted to start a family, I'd need to lose my lob first to be able to afford it.

I know of other people here in the IT department who have children and as a result would be better off unemployed.

The reason for this is that if you are unemployed, the state pays your housing costs, and has to provide a house big enough for the number of children you have.

If housing costs were lower, people would be able to afford to have children without depending on the state.

There is a big push to take away peoples benefits, but they are solving the wrong problem. The problem isn't that people CAN live on benfits, it's that house prices make people BETTER OFF living on benfits.

They are solving the wrong problem again.

[Timhm]

The Crown estates contribute somethign like £200 million a year to the Treasury.They do as part of the original Civil List agreement whereby george III forsook income from his assets for a regular stipend from Joe Public.Joe Public is a net winner in this respect.

It is claimed, by the Queen herself no less, that the monarchy costs this country nothing because she gives the revenue from the Crown Estate to the nation, and therefore is subsidising the Royal Family and their position in our society.

Because it is described as the queen 'surrendering' the revenue from the Crown Estate in return for the Civil List allocation, it is mistakenly assumed that this 'surrendering' is a personal financial sacrifice on her part for the good of the nation. And this fantasy is enthusiastically perpetuated by monarchists. The truth is rather different.

The Crown Estate and its revenue have never been the private property of the queen, or any of her predecessors. The Crown Estate is officially described as "hereditary possessions of the Sovereign", not the personal possessions of the individual acting as Sovereign.

She cannot give us what she has never owned. Her role is simply one of an individual - Elizabeth Windsor - acting in her constitutional role - the Sovereign - performing her constitutional duty and overseeing the transfer to the government the income from a totally separate legal entity - the Crown. The queen incurs absolutely no financial loss in this transfer process.

The Crown's legal status is that of a corporation sole, an independent legal entity with the right to hold assets. To suggest that Elizabeth Windsor personally 'owns' and 'gives' the assets and revenues of this incorporated body is as ludicrous as suggesting that the Chairman of British Airways personally 'owns' and 'gives' the assets and tax revenues of the incorporated body he represents.

If the monarchy were to disappear tomorrow, the Crown Estate would continue to do what it has always done for nearly one thousand years - provide income for the administration of this country.

When Sir Michael Peat cheekily suggested that the Windsor's should receive the income from the Crown Estate rather than the Civil List, royal financial experts quickly pointed out the constitutional reality of the situation to him.

"The Crown Estate income has always been for paying the expenses of government. When the monarch was effectively the government that is the basis on which he or she received the income. It was never private income. Now that the government is the state, the state receives it."

Source: Professor Phillip Hall

Link

Granted, Republic aren't exactly an unbiased source, but I think it's a valid point.