Another bloody parasite

[David Johnson]

"Simple solution. No more child benefit or child tax credits for more than 2 kids."


Indeed it is a very simple solution. So basically you would want families with a large number of children to suffer and potentially risk malnuitrition when the family might have found themselves with the breadwinner(s) made unemployed through no fault of their own.

And you call that being "a responsible citizen".

The child tax credits and child benefits for two young kids is about ?150 a week so the idea that having kids is a money making activity strikes me as a little bizarre. ?75 per child per week does not strike me as much for say a couple of young teenagers in terms of feeding, clothing, entertaining etc. etc.

Now admittedly there are crap parents who would not necessarily spend the extra income on their kids, but that is a completely separate issue and would apply to those situations where parents have just a couple of kids anyway.

It is unfortunate that you hate our job so much Argie. It seems to be having a bad effect on any sense of humanity that you would otherwise have.

[one eyed jack]

At least she isnt an immigrant !happy!

I do feel David has a point. Interesting is CB's initial post. It is the reaction the media want to this article but if you stop to consider it, its not all it appears to be.

It is a real pickle I'll grant you that but if she did have a mortgage she or her spouse or both mustve been a regular tax payer as well at some point.

32k a year...Hmm..6 kids that will hopefully grow up to be productive members of society may bring back the money into the economy and taxes...

To quote a Public Enemy line: "Dont believe the hype"

[David Johnson]

How many times do I have to state it...



You will have to find someone else on this forum to call utterly pathetic, a liar, a hypocrite, a cunt with fuck all ideas to contribute yourself and then expect them to respond to your rather juvenile, tediously pedantic, ill-informed posts which, when they invariably get trashed, you lose your rag with.

Got it now? And just so you know I have no absolutely no bad feelings towards you, here's one last answer, free of charge.

And it also serves as an example of your hilariously, stupid posts,

"Not that I expect you to answer, but why shouldn't someone charge what they want for their service ? be it their skills, property, knowledge, what have you? It's call market forces."

I've just joined your local water company. We have sent you a quarterly bill for ?10K for our service. Pay up by a week on Monday or we are cutting you off, leaving you to blather on about market forces.

Or to explain it another way, given in my experience you usually require at least 10 different explanations before you show signs of getting it.

Price controls are essential in all services where either there is a:

Monopoly e.g. your local water company; a pseudo monopoly e.g. gas and electricity providers where a price rise from one almost invariably results in other providers' price rises; a rental scenario when estate agents provide info on the "going rate" being charged by the competition which is followed by the overwhelming number of local buy to letters that want to maximise their profits charging similar amounts.

And finally just for you.

!deadhorse! !deadhorse! !deadhorse! !deadhorse!

Have a nice evening !wink!

[Cuntybollocks]

"There are no council houses available. Her fault? No, ask Thatcher, Cameron and Labour administrations why this situation has arisen"

I can't imagine there were many 5/6 bedroom council houses in the first place David.

"So Cuntybollocks/Lensman what is your solution to this situation? SHe has 6 kids 15 years old and under."

There is no complete solution to this situation, I would like to see her benefits reduced though. As the spokesman for the taxpayers alliance said ?The benefit cap should not create genuine hardship given that claimants can still get what an average working family takes home"

The fact she is bumping her gums about living on a mere ?500.00 a week makes her a parasite, in my opinion.

[David Johnson]

Thanks for replying.

"I can't imagine there were many 5/6 bedroom council houses in the first place David."

I would agree with that.

"There is no complete solution to this situation, I would like to see her benefits reduced though. As the spokesman for the taxpayers alliance said ?The benefit cap should not create genuine hardship given that claimants can still get what an average working family takes home"

I agree that this is a difficult one. What makes it particularly difficult is the children. Why should children suffer when they have no responsibility for their parents' situation?

Secondly, the comparison between this woman's family and the "average working family" made by the Taxpayers Alliance, is completely spurious. The "average working family" does not have 6 or 7 kids to feed, does it? Secondly, many working people receive large amounts of housing benefit to pay for rents, particularly in London and the south east that they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. So large amounts of benefits is not just an unemployed person scenario. The majority of people in London receiving housing benefits are in work.

Basically, this story is a typical run of the mill, take the worst possible scenario and build up resentment against the unemployed in general which we see ad infinitum in the Tory tabloid press.

Personally, as I stated, I do not see ?75 per child as anything but the barest minimum to feed, clothe, transport, entertain a young teenager. If you cut back on those benefits there will be suffering.

To be honest, in numbers I think this is a miniscule issue which has been blown out of all proportion by the tabloids.

For example if you look at the charts here from the Office of National Statistics



The percentage of UK households with children which have three or more children is about 14%. This includes both working and non-working households. So if that is the case, the number of households that have 5 or 6 kids and their parent(s) are unemployed must be pretty minimal and the costs infinitesimal, if you compare it with:

Losses to tax avoidance, tax evasion, money spent on quantitative easing, bank bailouts, money to create a housing bubble etc etc etc.

But the right wing tabloid newspapers like the Daily Express tend not to go on endlessly about that like they do about contemptuous stories concerning people on benefits.

Wonder why that is?

[Essex Lad]

one eyed jack wrote:


>
> 32k a year...Hmm..6 kids that will hopefully grow up to be
> productive members of society may bring back the money into the
> economy and taxes...
>
Yes they might do but it's not likely. The problem is that if they grow up in a household where no one works, the likelihood is that they, too, will not work and the cycle continues.

[number 6]

My partner grew up in a household where her dad never did a stroke in his life and her mum constantly had health problems but she works in a professional job and has hardly had a day off in her life. Kinda defeats your theory EL.

[Essex Lad]

number 6 wrote:

> My partner grew up in a household where her dad never did a
> stroke in his life and her mum constantly had health problems
> but she works in a professional job and has hardly had a day
> off in her life. Kinda defeats your theory EL.

Fraid it doesn't. One example doesn't negate the thousands of families up north with two-three generations of people who have never worked.

We have got places where there are three generations of men who have never worked. If your grandfather never worked and your father never worked, why would you think work is the normal thing to do?

? Dame Carol Black, 2008

For too long, in too many deprived areas of the country, there has been a destructive culture that ?no-one around here works?.

? Gordon Brown, 2003

[David Johnson]

I suspect reality backs up your view. The gullible will always fall for the right wing shock, horror, isn't it terrible, what a bunch of parasites, they are all over the place apart from me who is breaking my testicles viewpoint.

Have a look at this report produced in late 2012 by university professors on behalf of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.



Check out the graphs. They appear to show that the percentage of the total number of working age households where there are two generations, both of whom are workless is 1%.

Of that number, the percentage of households where two generations have never worked is 9%. In other words 0.1% of working age households have two generations that have never worked. This obviously includes young kids of working age.

Given that we are on the receiving end of the worst recession in living memory which started 5 years ago and from which we have had the slowest recovery since records began, it is hardly surprising that this situation has arisen.

[Cuntybollocks]

They do say women end up with husbands/partners who remind them of their father.

Must be true Number 6 because you do fuck all too !laugh!