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

amcluesent

I hear that that 'little' Alfie (age 13 and quarter) has been cuckholded and he's likely not the father after all. DNA testing called for.

Meanwwhile, Chantelle is 'putting out' big-time to secure benefit-baby #2

terryw

amcluesent wrote: »

I hear that that 'little' Alfie (age 13 and quarter) has been cuckholded and he's likely not the father after all. DNA testing called for.

Meanwwhile, Chantelle is 'putting out' big-time to secure benefit-baby #2

But surely this will not be a"benefit-baby" as the money that she receives from the press will exclude her from means-tested benefits?

terryw

treliac

fc123 wrote: »

I have to say I looked at his piccy and thought 'How?'.

Remember your reply to me on the likelihood of 13 yr old Alfie Patten being a father, fc? It seems we were right.

Georgie4

LilacPixie wrote: »

it is actually a disgrace that in many cases benefits are the best option in the financial sense. It seems to me that the system is wrong.

In my opinion all the benfits that you receive incl council tax , housing benefit etc should not make you better off than a job which earns the minimum wage and then there would be no incetive to sit on your backside. Something should also be done about the number of children that people are having and the taxpayer is subsidising !! It should be benefites for the first 2 and anymore tahn that and you pay for them yourself (unless triplets etc) - that's not unreasonable ! I choose not to have children (an entirely personal choice) and I resent subsidising people who have 3 or 4 and expect the taxpayer to pay for them:mad:

terryw

Georgie4 wrote: »

In my opinion all the benfits that you receive incl council tax , housing benefit etc should not make you better off than a job which earns the minimum wage and then there would be no incetive to sit on your backside. Something should also be done about the number of children that people are having and the taxpayer is subsidising !! It should be benefites for the first 2 and anymore tahn that and you pay for them yourself (unless triplets etc) - that's not unreasonable ! I choose not to have children (an entirely personal choice) and I resent subsidising people who have 3 or 4 and expect the taxpayer to pay for them:mad:

For what it is worth, fifty years ago there was such a system if force within the benefits systems. It was known as the "wages stop" and the amount that could be claimed in benefits could not exceed the weekly wages for that person's type of work.. For most claimants the wages were deemed to be a council labourers.
This rule has long since been abolished.

terryw

SingleSue

There are of course those who have been working but then due to the current economic climate, find themselves out of a job and struggling to get another.

These were tax payers, they may have had more than 2 children and was fully supporting them but some would still like to kick them when they are down.

If you mean the stereotypical benefit claimant who never does a day work, then can you please specify this...not all benefit claimants churn out children with the expectation that the tax payer will pay for them, a fair few have found themselves to be claimants due to unfortunate circumstances which they could not foresee when they had their children.

Quite a few of those unfortunates have also been high rate tax payers in the past too.......

I am not denying that there are the layabouts, there are and always have been but please do not tar every benefit claimant with the same brush...it's not a one size fits all criteria.