Breeding for Benefits

dave4545454

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Rubbish.

There are 2.5 million unemployed.

The 8 million figure includes the "economically inactive", which includes an awful lot of people who don't want to work anymore but once might have, students, wives that don't need to work but do work occasionally, etc.....

if you're dumb enough to believe there's only 2.5 million unemployed in this country then there's no hope for you.

Davesnave

dave4545454 wrote: »

if you're dumb enough to believe there's only 2.5 million unemployed in this country then there's no hope for you.

Hamish can look after himself, but it's a sign of weakness to insult the intelligence of those who disagree with you.

Regardless of how many unemployed or jobs there are, it doesn't have to be the same people who are out of work, but it will be, if a certain sector of society is incentivised to remain inactive.

Ultimately, current policies must lead towards a situation where the least productive become the most fecund. Bearing in mind parental influence, this is not a great way to improve the long term prospects for the nation.

SingleSue

2K at Christmas!

Gulp......I don't even spend £200. What on earth do they spend it on? Actually, don't answer that, reading some of the threads on here (of working and non working), some seem to think you have to spend at least £300 per child to prove yourself a good parent. Any less and somehow you are denying your child (their view, not mine).

I could never understand spending that level of money at Christmas...even when we were in a two income family, much to now ex hubbies annoyance.

ruggedtoast

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

DING DING DING DING

---

We have another winner.:D

Thats right. Its utterly unacceptable these people receive benefits. However you, should be quite entitled to sit on your bum watching extraordinary State intervention takes place to ensure your property keeps going up in value and your priced out tenants keep working to pay you to effectively do nothing.

Then again people always criticise most what they dont want to see in themselves.

Ding ding. Do I win a prize too?

lostinrates

SingleSue wrote: »

2K at Christmas!

Gulp......I don't even spend £200. What on earth do they spend it on? Actually, don't answer that, reading some of the threads on here (of working and non working), some seem to think you have to spend at least £300 per child to prove yourself a good parent. Any less and somehow you are denying your child (their view, not mine).

I could never understand spending that level of money at Christmas...even when we were in a two income family, much to now ex hubbies annoyance.

I agree Sue. Our biggest bills at Christmas are without doub food/drink as we often have friends/people who would otherwise be lonely at Christmas around. When its been just us we've splashed out a little but not scarily....Can't remember what we've spent extra...one year we had a beef Wellington, but fillet big enough for two people isn't so scary as it would be for a table full). and we get some nicer bath stuff for our shared baths

Christmas joy is about having more time to spend with a family to me...no present can top that so why try?

dori2o

£2K at Christmas, How anyone can spend that much is beyond me. Our kids get loads at Christmas, but we've never spent more than £100 each on them. They can either have 1 big thing each and a load of stocking fillers, or when it comes to computers/games consoles etc they have to have it between them.
We start buying for Christmas in January. Every month I spend £1 each on them, so they get 12 wrap up presents, and the wife buys things she see's when out and about and they go in the cupboard. when spending like that you don't actually miss the money, and the kids play more with the pound stuff than their real present.
Food shopping we buy it throughout the year. Xmas puds are on sale in January but last forever, certainly till the following christmas. A jar of mint sauce here, something else there, all put into a storage box and come christmas we have our own little christmas hamper, we even do it with beer/spirits which are dirt cheep this time of year, but left in the shed till xmas are fine. Obviously perishables are bought at normaltime, but this vastly reduces our spend in December.

I'd say our total spend on whe whole of christmas is less than £600. for EVERYTHING

silvercar

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Is it just me, or does it seem utterly bizarre that a family in receipt of £45,000 a year in benefits from the state should not be expected, at the very least, to provide 40 hours of labour per week to the state in return for it....

Is it just me, or does it seem utterly bizarre that a family should receive £45,000 a year in benefits from the state.

Torby

it's absolutely disgraceful that they get £45k a year for doing nothing...how come they can't do volunteer work in their area...looks like there's a lot of litter around(go pick it up), or why not help do the gardens of the senior citizens in the area, they've paid into the kitty to get them the benefits...If you can't get a paying job and you get benefits...there's always something productive you can do...even volunteering

doire_2

So he wont go to work (a job paying £6 per hour) because he will loose other benefits like free school meals for his kids?

Most people employed have to pay for kids school meals so why not him?

Anyone getting what he gets should giove something back in return. The streets are full of litter so why not get them to clean it up? Thats a start

steve237

The breeding for benefits problem could be quite easily solved if the government had a cut-off point where they no longer paid anymore child benefit or tax credits to anyone. 2 kids. That should be the limit. If you can't afford them, you shouldn't have them!