interestrateripoff Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2025296/30k-year-benefits-mother-Moira-Pearce-asks-charity-money.html A mother-of-ten who nets more than £30,000-a-year in benefits has begged for charity donations to help raise her brood - because her state 'wage' is not enough.Moira Pearce, 34, has insisted her weekly government handout of £600 is insufficient to feed and clothe her children and she needs donations to survive. .... Her annual payments funded by the public purse work out at a staggering £31,200-a-year - or £3,120 per child. Ms Pearce - who lives with unemployed ex-boyfriend Mark Austin, 19, seven daughters and three sons - now wants extra help to save her from going under. Not quite sure why £600 a week wouldn't cover her. When they do stories like this they should publish her monthly budget. Although she won't be having any more as doctors have told her it might kill her. However if she really can't survive on £600 a week are these people about to go bankrupt? She needs to have a word with Mystic Merv his policies are going to make sure her handouts don't buy anything. The real problem is that families of this size cause problems because I'm guessing this person lacks the skills or the necessary social connections to land themselves a job which pays enough to support her family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butthead Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Well for a net income of £30k you need to gross around £43k. What makes you think this vision of efficiency and intellect couldn't get a job paying £43k? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Knimbies who say No Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 "Only four of them were planned" Holy smoke, that's a hell of a fail. It's not so much the having shedloads of kids that bothersme (although I might live to regret that if I meet Blade or Shardonnaie [sic] in an alleyway in fifteen years' time), but the fact these people feel hard done by. They have no fecking idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flatnose Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Well for a net income of £30k you need to gross around £43k. What makes you think this vision of efficiency and intellect couldn't get a job paying £43k? She is not going hungry: whats the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StainlessSteelCat Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Knowing the Wail, they probably made the story up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wig Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 she should be sterilised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alba Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 The real problem is not just her specific case. It is exponential. Blade, Shardonnaie and the other 8 will in all probability go forth and multiply in the same fashion. In addition the four partners will be ploughing pastures new, ad nauseum. The 'tribe' will have grown immensely in just 2-3 generations. The really worrying part is that no Government will truly grasp the nettle to deal with this. The Coalition have already reigned in some of their policies that were designed to make an impression on this group. The riots will probably re-usher in the plea to 'hug a hoody'. The inverted pyramid will eventually topple over. Then we enter the era of Mad Max! Recent events were just a little taster! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted August 13, 2011 Author Share Posted August 13, 2011 Knowing the Wail, they probably made the story up. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/health/health/3256251/I-was-sterilised-in-10-minute-op.html http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/08/13/mum-of-10-on-30-000-a-year-benefits-wants-charity-help-115875-23340544/ She's been in other papers as well. It should be an easy story to verify as you've got the location and name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okaycuckoo Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Have they included housing benefit in that? I bet it's extra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ungeared Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 she should be sterilised She should be exterminated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7clubs Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 She should be exterminated Munter-hunter - latest sport of bankers and toffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m4nclad Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 The real problem is not just her specific case. It is exponential. Blade, Shardonnaie and the other 8 will in all probability go forth and multiply in the same fashion. In addition the four partners will be ploughing pastures new, ad nauseum. The 'tribe' will have grown immensely in just 2-3 generations. The really worrying part is that no Government will truly grasp the nettle to deal with this. The Coalition have already reigned in some of their policies that were designed to make an impression on this group. The riots will probably re-usher in the plea to 'hug a hoody'. The inverted pyramid will eventually topple over. Then we enter the era of Mad Max! Recent events were just a little taster! Well said! The benefits system has been set up to encourage an underclass to breed and breed. Bringing children into a chaotic "family" system is being rewarded with bigger houses and more benefit. They carry on breeding without impunity. My 2 kids have a stable home life and are well behaved, but I can only realistic afford 2. If we have any more kids, it will cost "US" significantly and affect the quality of life we have, because "WE" will need to pay for a bigger house, a bigger car, etc - and not the state. So "WE" have chosen not to have any more. We have taken responsibility. The point made by the do-gooders, saying that we should continue to pay for these messes because "Its not the children's fault" are wrong, wrong, wrong! These children have no role model and if left unchecked will do the same as the mother. Rewarding this behavior in any way, just perpetuates it. The country is now broke and can not go on trying to pick up the pieces. Both my parents grew up in the 1940/50s in large families of 7+. From the stories they tell, times were tough, their parents had no spare money, were low paid and had to work hard for anything they had. My dads typical xmas present was a pair of football socks, there was ice on the inside of the window in the winter, 4 kids to 1 bed, etc. It must have been hard. The point here though is my parents had poor, but hardworking role models. That drove my parents to want to something better for their kids (me!) through hard work which has passed its way on to me (and hopefully will pass to my kids). What I'm trying to say here, is that out of adversity and poverty people can get on, without throwing free money at them. It paradoxical really, because the more you give the more you encourage this situation. If life starts to get an acceptable level of comfort for people like those in this story (and I'm not saying these people are living a life of Riley) through the welfare system because we give them a bigger house and more benefits and they have most things that the hard working people have. Then the children see that whilst life isn't great, you can live your whole life on benefits without having to do a days work. If life was a bit harder (by reducing benefits) and these kids ended up going without because the parents couldn't afford to provide, it would start to click with some of them that "I wouldn't want this for my kids" and it may even make some of them think about work as a way out of the poverty. Its not fair on these kids - but then it also isn't fair on the tax payers who pick up the ever increasing bill and its associated problems with these families and it would not be fair on the kids of these kids. This has to stop and if it means been hard on 1-2 generations to put this right then so be it. Bottom line here is - benefits should not grow expediently in line with the amount of children you have. Someone with 10 kids should not get anymore benefits than those with 2. That way, they do have to take responsibility for there actions. Unless an end is put to the system which drives this behavior, the feral will become societies majority and the recent riots we have just seen are only the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 The real problem is not just her specific case. It is exponential. Blade, Shardonnaie and the other 8 will in all probability go forth and multiply in the same fashion. In addition the four partners will be ploughing pastures new, ad nauseum. The 'tribe' will have grown immensely in just 2-3 generations. Yes, exactly. The Welfare State was supposed to be a SAFETY NET NOT a WAY OF LIFE FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 I think that this is a great example of why mankind is doomed and that we have passed peak IQ. It seems more and more that those who should not be adding to the gene pool are making larger and larger contributions whilst those that should be are almost not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zebbedee Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 The real problem is not just her specific case. It is exponential. Blade, Shardonnaie and the other 8 will in all probability go forth and multiply in the same fashion. In addition the four partners will be ploughing pastures new, ad nauseum. The 'tribe' will have grown immensely in just 2-3 generations. The really worrying part is that no Government will truly grasp the nettle to deal with this. The Coalition have already reigned in some of their policies that were designed to make an impression on this group. The riots will probably re-usher in the plea to 'hug a hoody'. The inverted pyramid will eventually topple over. Then we enter the era of Mad Max! Recent events were just a little taster! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXRjmyJFzrU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darwin Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Shardonnaie. How dreadful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alba Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXRjmyJFzrU Funny yet deadly serious at the same time! A picture speaks a thousand words. A video clinches it! However, being an American video it does not tell the full story. They do not have the same welfare and benefit drain that the UK has. COMING TO A CINEMA NEAR YOU SOON! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicestersq Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 All benefits you get for having children need to end. A child is a responsibility, not a job. All council housing needs to be sold off too, people have kids they don't want to get that handout. We need to stand up to the emotional blackmail of a blubbing bad mother with kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Employed Youth Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 To say she is unemployed, the amount of benefits is very low considering the amount of children she has. £31200, That's £3120 per child, if you don't include her! If unemployed I'd get abut £7000. So let's say she gets £2420 per child. The single mother who does 16 hours of admin at the local council (£8000 per year) with one child, how much does she get in benefits? Child benefit of £1000 per year, CTC of £4000 per year, £3800 towards for childcare for whilst she is at work. And £2000 in working tax credit. For one child! The unemployed woman is a miracle worker! She should get a reward for being able to breed next generation taxpayers at such a low cost to the state. And remember, our nations birth rate is below replacement level, if it wasn't for immigration we would have a shrinking population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Employed Youth Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 If that woman got a job, then the benefit bill would be even higher! Just think of the child care costs! Single mothers need to exploit this situation and swap children for a few hours per day to hit the 16 hours required for the working+child tax credits. They'll be classed as 'working', but in reality they'll be claiming a hell of a lot more for looking after each other's children rather than their own. It will look good on the employment figures, and give the illusion of a strong economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Employed Youth Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Slight flaw in the argument the kids will not be the 'next generation of taxpayers' they will also be on benefits. But the QE will exceed the benefit bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alba Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 To say she is unemployed, the amount of benefits is very low considering the amount of children she has. £31200, That's £3120 per child, if you don't include her! If unemployed I'd get abut £7000. So let's say she gets £2420 per child. The single mother who does 16 hours of admin at the local council (£8000 per year) with one child, how much does she get in benefits? Child benefit of £1000 per year, CTC of £4000 per year, £3800 towards for childcare for whilst she is at work. And £2000 in working tax credit. For one child! The unemployed woman is a miracle worker! She should get a reward for being able to breed next generation taxpayers at such a low cost to the state. And remember, our nations birth rate is below replacement level, if it wasn't for immigration we would have a shrinking population. This is just the tip of the iceberg. What about? All the ex gratia payments for school clothing. The cost of knocking two houses into one so that they can all have their own bedrooms. Essential household items like LCD tvs, DVD players and computers so that they don't feel deprived. The doorstep delivery of breakfasts to ensure that the children grow up strong and healthy and contribute to further population growth. The individualised taxis to take those with attention deficit or myriad other problems to one on one schooling. The social workers to assist with any family problems. Youth workers should problems arise. A people carrier to transport the family because they have ballet and other classes to attend, and the mother has a mobility allowance because of her bad back, wrecked by her sacrificial child bearing on behalf of the State. etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 And remember, our nations birth rate is below replacement level, if it wasn't for immigration we would have a shrinking population. Which is good news. I've not heard a convincing argument for keeping the current population levels - it's very obvious that we don't need very many people to produce everything to feed and shelter everyone. It reminds me of a Napoleonic warship, where most of the crew weren't needed to sail the ship, just to fight it, and most of the time the work they were doing only existed to keep them occupied. A shrinking population should be treated as great news for a country like this one, just as long as it doesn't carry on forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruffneck Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 That young kid whos with her is pretty stupid if you ask me , she's had 10 kids , it'd be like sticking a sausage in a bucket of water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Bart' Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Which is good news. I've not heard a convincing argument for keeping the current population levels One of the arguments for the housing bubble was that "they're not making any more land" yet somehow this isn't considered relevant to ever increasing population levels. If even one of this woman's sprogs grows up to be a taxpayer I'll eat Kirstie Allsopp's hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.