Boom-time on benefits: The 140,000 families who claim £20,000 a year in handouts

olly300

SingleSue wrote: »

Grr, I said I wasn't going to get involved!

When I was small, my father worked but my mother stayed at home...it was normal then.

About a third of the men I'm talking about have non-working wives. And quite a lot have wives that work part-time.

It makes no difference if they want to stay away from their child(ren) they use work as an excuse.

And it's a horrible thing as a female adult to see particularly when men in your own family actually take pride in being there including financially, for their own children.

SingleSue

olly300 wrote: »

About a third of the men I'm talking about have non-working wives. And quite a lot have wives that work part-time.

It makes no difference if they want to stay away from their child(ren) they use work as an excuse.

And it's a horrible thing as a female adult to see particularly when men in your own family actually take pride in being there including financially, for their own children.

Tell me about it, my brother and his wife and starting to go through a divorce and he is one of the men who would do anything for his children, his soon to be ex wife doesn't have to ask him to have the children more, he asks her if he can and they have a shared custody arrangement...he also pays a lot more in support for his two children than I receive for my 3.

He can't understand my ex hubby at all as my ex has the children (not overnight) once in a blue moon for a very short space of time and they come a long way down his lift of priorities.

TotallyBroke

Airwolf1 wrote: »

Yes, but I know a lot of people who missed seeing their children grow up, that is the point I was making.

If I was a little lad, I'd rather see my dad and spend time with him, rather than not see him.

My father worked away when I was growing up because that is what he had to do (and was doing before I came along). But when he was home it was fantastic. Why? Because it was quality time not the quantity of time. Quality should always be better than quantity. What kind of life is there for a child coming home each day after school to find both their parents sat on the sofa in front of the tv. Much better to look forward to the weekend and have quality time with Dad kicking a ball about or going bowling as a family.

Lotus-eater

Airwolf1 wrote: »

Yes, but I know a lot of people who missed seeing their children grow up, that is the point I was making.

If I was a little lad, I'd rather see my dad and spend time with him, rather than not see him.

When I was young, my Dad worked on a 3 month on, 3 month off, work schedule, which was great because he was around so often. To be fair he spent alot of time asleep in his chair but was always ready to take me fishing, or play chess, or ticklefight, or armwrestle, thats what I remember most about him. The fact that the windows weren't always painted, or (until my parents got divorced), he couldn't even make beans on toast, doesn't even come into it.

Very early on in life I decided that living life was more important than earning loads of money and never seeing my family.

If you gave me the choice of earning a tiny amount more by working extra on top of my normal working week and it would mean I wouldn't see my family so much, I wouldn't do it.

I don't really care about money tbh, never have, more important things in life.

slipthru

Airwolf1 wrote: »

Yes, but I know a lot of people who missed seeing their children grow up, that is the point I was making.

If I was a little lad, I'd rather see my dad and spend time with him, rather than not see him.

Both my parents worked till late most nights when i was a child, so i didn't get to see them all that much growing up.

I will be home at a reasonable time every evening to spend quality time my child when she arrives, as i don't want to miss her growing up.

shirlgirl2004 wrote:

Of course you would but as a parent is it not your duty to instill a hard work ethic into your children?

I appreciate that some people need to work over time or awkward hours to make ends meet. But it doesn't mean that a child who's parents work full time and are home in the evening to spend time with them won't give them a decent work ethic.

arcalis

amcluesent wrote: »

"An astonishing 140,000 households are pocketing more in benefits than the average take-home wage.

The families are living on handouts worth in excess of £20,000 a year, official figures show. The enormous payouts dwarf the incomes of millions of hard-working families who are struggling to cope with the recession and the rising cost of living."

No wonder tax need to be sky-high for Clown to feed and water his block-vote.

Anyone still glad they studied, worked hard and tried to better themselves in Britain? No, thought not.

England is finished this time.

The intimatation that those who live on benefits (whether genuine or false, and live long term within this benefit culture) are kept this way so as to get votes is laughable. This "under class" have even more apathy and are even less likely to vote than the general population.

shirlgirl2004

slipthru wrote: »

Both my parents worked till late most nights when i was a child, so i didn't get to see them all that much growing up.

I will be home at a reasonable time every evening to spend quality time my child when she arrives, as i don't want to miss her growing up.

I appreciate that some people need to work over time or awkward hours to make ends meet. But it doesn't mean that a child who's parents work full time and are home in the evening to spend time with them won't give them a decent work ethic.

Of course you should spend as much time with your children as you can. I'm not suggesting that all parents should work a 50 hour week just so their children can see what it means to work hard. What I am saying is that children should grow up learning that you should work hard to support yourself and your family and not expect the state to do it through tax credit top ups or unemployment benefit (or whatever it's called now).

That is the problem in the UK that it is acceptable to take money from other hard working families so that an individual can have an easier life!

NewHouse_3

The problem with getting people off benefits is that many are "passported". For example, if you claim Jobseekers or Income Support, you almost automatically qualify to receive Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, the full rate of Child Tax Credit if you have kids, etc. To get people off of these benefits means you need to find them a job that pays them enough to both live on and pay their rent, council tax, etc that had previously been paid for them. Even with the advent of Working Tax Credit, sometimes earning enough to make ends meet working is either impossible or much more difficult than remaining on benefits. I actually know a lady who was legitimately claiming disability benefits but actually wanted to work and she was advised by the JobCentre that she would be worse off working as she would lose or have at least reduced entitlement to the above mentioned passorted benefits and certain disability benefits.

WTF?_2

Airwolf1 wrote: »

But take 1 working 37 hours a week. If that person then works another 15 hours a week to top up the income, but then loses out on WTC (so doing 15 hours a week for minimal amount (especially if that is a lot of time driving, so using fuel etc)) what is better? Stick with job 1 and WTC and spend more time with your family and being with your children or doing both jobs for a small amount of extra income and hardly seeing your kids? It is what people value most I guess.

When I leave for work at 6am I don't see my baby. When I get home after 7pm, he's back in bed. If this happened day in, day out, it wouldn't be nice. I enjoy that time with my child, and it is spending time with him that makes me feel wanted and needed as a father too. The smiles and laughs I get, the tantrums at times - I'd hardly see any of this.

Plenty of people who work full time paying the taxes that support the welfare state will by extension miss out on a large part of their kids' childhoods.

Taxes essentially mean that part of the time you are actually working for the government's benefit, not your own.

I don't see why the average working person should have to miss out on time with their own kids that so that welfare claimants get to spend more time with their kids.

Sorry but welfare is supposed to be a safety net for victims of circumstance, not something to make your life nicer.

amcluesent

>The intimatation that those who live on benefits (whether genuine or false, and live long term within this benefit culture) are kept this way so as to get votes is laughable.<

Is it? Let's remind ourselves of Labour's proven dirty tricks-

1) 'Heat mapping' NHS cut-backs on Tory voting areas
2) Gerry-mandering boundary changes to divide Tory votes between constituencies to preserve Labour MPs
3) Employing 50%+ of the working population in NE, Wales and Scotland in public-sector non-jobs to sustain dependency on Labour
4) And yes, feather bedding 1,500,000+ on Disability Benefits to spin the dole queue figures and keep their block-vote sweet.