Taxpayer funds familys £1,600 per week rent - The Times

ILW

Maybe the Daily Mail are not so wrong after all. I cannot see how this is fair or indeed right. We are being taken for a ride. This is in no way affected by race, immigration etc. I personally would be just as outraged if the family were white and British.

thechippy

[QUOTE

Just to put that figure into perspective, the family would have to earn £185k pa in order just to match the current lifestyle they have if they wanted to come off of benefits

[/QUOTE]

They won't be looking for a job anytime soon then........:mad:

kabayiri

ILW wrote: »

Average worker on say £25,000pa would pay about £4000 per year in tax.
That means nearly 30 people go to work every day to pay tax which does nothing but fund this family. Please can someone explain how this situation has arisen?

I feel dismay at the fact we have lost all sight of what the benefit system was supposed to be. A support harness to help people through hard times.

I only ask for one thing. Let the people who allocate this money operate on a similar principle to that which they employ in their own lives. If a Housing Officer did happen to earn 120K a year I doubt they would choose to blow 83K of it on rent. They would seek 'value for money'. Maybe we have tied them up too much in red tape.

zygurat789

lostinrates wrote: »

Zygorat798, can you add the tax back on to your figure please...so I can see what the salary of the job(s) would be listed as? (also worth considering that soon that will be under the 50% tax bracket if one job, not two: child care for up to 8 children might be worth considering if we are sayong it is two jobs, not one.)

Sorry not quite sure what you mean. The £176,600 includes tax & Nic

drc

ILW wrote: »

Maybe the Daily Mail are not so wrong after all. I cannot see how this is fair or indeed right. We are being taken for a ride. This is in no way affected by race, immigration etc. I personally would be just as outraged if the family were white and British.

Not to be pedantic but the original link on page one was actually in that bastion of foam-at-the-mouth xenophobia, The Times, (although the story has been reported in various other 'right-wing' papers such as the Daily Mail, The Sun and The Express).

lostinrates

zygurat789 wrote: »

Sorry not quite sure what you mean. The £176,600 includes tax & Nic

No, that answers my question....but presumably taxd at 40%...so it will be more soon...

Thank you (and apolgies fr lack of clarity!)

I actually feel profound despair.

it doesn't matter to me tha back story and origins of the people....the amounts would eb the same for whiter than white brits (who indeed would have had ore from the system with education and medicne and possible housing etc).

I actually feel deprtessed, far more depressed than the anger the rest of you are expressing.

I feel perhaps the rest of us are very, very stupid.

The_White_Horse

As i have said for years:

Lefties - The most dangerous people on the planet.

zygurat789

I think the original idea was to ensure that nobody ended up living on the street which is, of course, very laudable and noble, however, if the state is going to do this then it must expect to be taken for a ride some of the time. This doesn't matter to the state because it can always raise additional finance, but uit does matter to the contributors of that finance as witnessed above.
We are back into the usual benefits argument, always more heated the higher the benefit paid.
The last one I say stopped dead when I issued the challenge:-
How do you ensure that those deserving of the benefit all receive it and they are the only ones who do?
This is meant to be constructive whereas most of the above was destructive.

zygurat789

It is amazing how vocal people can be when they perceive a wrong, however, righting it seems to be a bit beyond them.

lostinrates

zygurat789 wrote: »

How do you ensure that those deserving of the benefit all receive it and they are the only ones who do?
This is meant to be constructive whereas most of the above was destructive.

I don't think you can. Do you have any ideas? Do you think the system is as good as it can be?

I think however good a system there is likely to be a flaw, and I think the only way to ''force'' people out o work would be to insure that what they receive would be no more than they could earn on minmum wage. Minimum wage would quite obviously not be sufficient for this family to house and provide for itself where they are....and this would cause suffering to the children.

I think the proposal to move non working families out of premium price areas is potentially valid. I don't argue that its not necessarily ideal for the family, or the children, but it is an option. I also feel the complications of paying for no more than two children (while I very strongly feel, persoanally, this is both environmentally and economically the best option) there is no doubt that children would suffer. However romantic people get about parental love and prioritisation, its most certainly not universal or infallible.

I fundamentally feel a system that takes with one hand and gives back with the other is flawed in that it masks (or curupts) the clarity of ''earning'' (although I accept this is not a universally held ideal).

I think in effort to provide without causing suffering we are actually causing another sort of suffering including poverty of ambition.