Latvian Mother of 10 received £34k benefits

ruggedtoast

The_White_Horse wrote: »

I don't miss the point at all. I am well aware of it - I am saying it MUST be changed.

It is all very well having reciprocal agreements when the parties are equal, but not when they are not.

It is like the Ritz or the Dorchester having a deal with a rat infested !!!! hole in Latvia.

How many single UK mothers want to emigrate to Latvia and live off their benefit system? NONE. So the agreement is pointless and worthless - and immensely costly to the UK taxpayer.

Doesnt look that bad to me. You'd think our chavs would be happy to go on a benefit exchange:

chewmylegoff

Don't worry, all those children are receiving the benefit of a world class education, so they'll soon be contributing to the tax coffers...

sheffield_lad

Its a pity that the near mention of the problems we are facing on an over populated island get turned into you being a racist. It happens all the time yet plnty whine at the costs of rents and houses which will remain high for as long as there is a housing shortage. We need a city the size of Birmingham just to stand still. Add to that the birth rate from over seas parents averaging 4 as against the average 2 and there is every reason why we need to curb the immigration regardless of race, colour, religion, or language.

There is an issue here which needs to be spoken about without the racist card being played, we are the most populated country in Europe if you forget Malta, any wonder why when you read stories like this, yet the same voices calling the debate racist also complain about the quality of public services.

N1AK

howee wrote: »

Its a pity that the near mention of the problems we are facing on an over populated island get turned into you being a racist.

Obviously, everyone who thinks we risk becoming over-populated (or are) or thinks immigration is excessive isn't racist. That said, the correlation between those views and those who denigrate, or falsely slight, those of other races/nationalities is high.

UK government spending has been a ponzi scheme for decades. It is reliant on having more people contributing than are claiming. If we want to stop population growth then we need to massively decrease the money spent on the elderly or massively increase taxation on the remaining workforce.

Even with the current immigration projections we are expected to see a 10% decrease in the ratio of workers to pensioners in the next 20 years. That means that spending on pensioners would need to fall 10%, or income tax increase by more than 10%. Remove immigration and the figure would more than double.

It should also be noted that the people who are most opposed to immigration are the elderly, who wouldn't have to make up the difference and won't be around to live with the consequences. If you can get the elderly to agree to a 50% drop in their pensions (given that medical/care costs won't fall) to pay for dropped immigration then maybe I'd consider it seriously as an option.

FTBFun

PaulF81 wrote: »

a benefits bill bigger than the tax raised through income tax?

Yes, the best way to calculate that is to randomly drive to the nearest conurbation.

chewmylegoff

FTBFun wrote: »

Yes, the best way to calculate that is to randomly drive to the nearest conurbation.

if you specifically drive to the nearest one, how can that be random.

chewmylegoff

anyway, wasn't the govt determined to limit the total amount of benefits that could be claimed at £25,000 per family or something? whatever happened to that. was there another u turn, or haven't they got around to it yet?

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

it is completley moronic and makes no sense at all to judge a person by the colour of their skin,

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Immigration and the abuse of the welfare system is not just some little problem that has a miniscule amount of offenders and has little consequence to the living conditions of British nationals that have roots in the country, the problem is huge.

Is that the long winded internet debate version of "I'm not a racist, but..."?

whiskywhisky

My only issue with all this is whether all the children are actually hers? If they are then she should be a high priority for a bigger house, in fact if there is not available nearby the council should be forced to look elsewhere as it is not humane currently.

There have been similar scenerios in my town, whereby the mother has openly told her neighbours that some of the children are really her neice or nephew etc.

Loughton_Monkey

whiskywhisky wrote: »

My only issue with all this is whether all the children are actually hers? If they are then she should be a high priority for a bigger house, in fact if there is not available nearby the council should be forced to look elsewhere as it is not humane currently......

Sadly I don't think that matters. You can claim for all children living with you (your or not). Also, you can claim basic CB for all your children, even though they live in another country. The only proviso is that you 'must' spend the money on kids.