Jobless mum spends £2k of benefits on christmas

[voyds9]

Tiggsy said:

She may be on (ball park) £15k pa but all the narrative built around that is bull st designed to get you to react the way you did. (and draw out the odd PH who likes to wear a white pointy hat at the weekend )

I've saved my money don't tell me what designer outfit I can spend it on.

[smegmore]

vdp1 said:

Not at all, its a (smallish) 3 bed semi about 10 years old, just checked the room stat and its saying 17.9, heating went off at 9pm. I'm out at 7.30 in the morning and get back about 5pm. When I am in its just a tv/computer that is on and a couple of wall lights on a dimmer, I only have these on as there is absolutely no need for anything else to be on in the house. Washer is on twice a week and dishwasher once a week.
As for me I have a (5mins) shower once or twice a day, am about 5'5" and about 15 stone so quite a porker.
These are my basic bills and I obviously spend more on other things but I was pointing out that its easy to get by on less than £100 per week, no need for anything else.
As for having kids, how much can a box of farleys rusks cost?



Edit, When I'm out I probably spend 3 or 4 quid a day on sandwiches etc so max of £50 per week on food.

Live the dream, eh?

[rover 623gsi]

vdp1 said:

Not at all, its a (smallish) 3 bed semi about 10 years old, just checked the room stat and its saying 17.9, heating went off at 9pm. I'm out at 7.30 in the morning and get back about 5pm. When I am in its just a tv/computer that is on and a couple of wall lights on a dimmer, I only have these on as there is absolutely no need for anything else to be on in the house. Washer is on twice a week and dishwasher once a week.
As for me I have a (5mins) shower once or twice a day, am about 5'5" and about 15 stone so quite a porker.
These are my basic bills and I obviously spend more on other things but I was pointing out that its easy to get by on less than £100 per week, no need for anything else.
As for having kids, how much can a box of farleys rusks cost?



Edit, When I'm out I probably spend 3 or 4 quid a day on sandwiches etc so max of £50 per week on food.

people without kids routinely underestimate the costs involved

[supertouring]

Tiggsy said:

Crafty_ said:

Tiggsy said:

You guys do realise its 90% made up don't you?

Would you care to explain ?

I just tried the calculator at http://www.turn2us.entitledto.co.uk
I probably answered some questions incorrectly with regards to the young lady in question, but that says £18,134.75 a year in benefits for someone who has no income/assets and two young children.

She may be on (ball park) £15k pa but all the narrative built around that is bull st designed to get you to react the way you did. (and draw out the odd PH who likes to wear a white pointy hat at the weekend )

Living on benefits with 2 kids is a st life that goes nowhere fast. Should we re-do the system to get her off her arse, shut her legs and go to work....sure we should, but lets do that because its sensible - not because of some stupid made up crap in a womans magazine!

The way these stories work is as follows:

To get this paragraph:

"And the mum admits she treats herself as well. She says: “I go clubbing with my friends every fortnight and love having lunch at Italian restaurant Prezzo. I dress nicely as I don’t want to be labelled a ‘benefits mum.’"

The interviewer (I) does this:

I: So, this flat is a dump and your life seems a bit sucky....do you not try and get out?

Mum: My friends are great, they try and arrange some child car for me every now and then so I can get out the house and not go mad!

I: Nice, how often?

Mum: Not much, it's too expensive - I went a fortnight ago I think?

I: Nice, where?

Mum: We went to a pub as I had a voucher for a cheap drink. It was nice, bit of music was on

I: Right, like a club. What about eating out?

Mum: Are you kidding? With these two kids? That said, my Mum took me to Prezzo last year for my birthday - that was wonderful.

I: Arent you worried people look at you and think you look like a benifits mum?

Mum: I hope not....I try to dress myself and the kids as best I can. You dont need to spend a lot to look good and friends often let me have nice stuff they dont want anymore.

I: And you realize some people will say you're the wrong color?

Mum: They will where?

I: Pistonheads - we'll get you pose in front of a pile of shopping, twist all your words and make it seem like living in this st hole on £15k with 2 kids and no dad is great fun......and someone who drops more on servicing his 911 than you spend on food will say you're too not white.

Mum: Not sure I like the idea of this?

I: Shut up, heres your £900 for the story - and tidy this place up you waster.

My wife was interviewed some years ago by a paper and this was the exact process she described took place.

Whe we read the article, we did not recognise the person that was described at all. It was all bs.

Note, this was not benefits related.

[JagLover]

DonkeyApple said:

Not really. In fact, rather the opposite. Just find all these Daily Mail threads laughable. Full of people who seem just so angry that people are getting a load of stuff for nothing but can't be arsed to do anything about it.

Those paying the bill are now outnumbered by the client state. The only party that has made any noises about bringing down benefit payments (the Tories) achieved only 36% of the vote at the last election.

We are in the position of a goose being plucked while still alive, we can make much angry protest but not do anything about it.

Edited by JagLover on Sunday 16th December 10:38

[JagLover]

Willie Dee said:

I don't think starving and neglecting the children is the way forward though, do you? It'll only end in them stealing everything you and I work hard for and hold dear.

The state could provide support for these families, without making it an attractive lifestyle choice. Without that factor many of these children woulnd't be born in the first place as the mothers are just looking for their welfare cheque.

Hostels for single mothers who have never paid into the system, rather than free housing, food stamps instead of cash benefits etc. The children would still be housed, fed and educated, but it would look allot less attractive to a woman whose only motivation for motherhood is to live a life at ease on benefits.

[Vipers]

Her story is similar to one I recall reading about some time ago, very similar................

[DonkeyApple]

JagLover said:

DonkeyApple said:

Not really. In fact, rather the opposite. Just find all these Daily Mail threads laughable. Full of people who seem just so angry that people are getting a load of stuff for nothing but can't be arsed to do anything about it.

Those paying the bill are now outnumbered by the client state. The only party that has made any noise about bring down benefit payments (the Tories) achieved only 36% of the vote at the last election.

We are in the position of a goose being plucked while still alive, we can make much angry protest but not do anything about it.

When you include child benefits then most people are on state handouts. But you are right that the massive social re-engineering of the 21st century has made elementary changes very difficult.

However, one needs to look at how groups have forced political change over the years. That is the key.

Simply sitting at home and placing a vote once every 4/5 years and thinking that will change things isn't logical. We all know that a sane political party cannot make the changes required and no one should ever resort to the single issue parties as history shows where that ends up.

No, if people genuinely want a change they need to stand up and do something about it. We haven't reached the current point in history in regards to gay marriage by supporters of it sitting at home and hoping a political party will sort it out for them.

What is sad about the UK is that modern lifestyles mean people are more mobile than they have ever been and modern technology allows mass communication like never before. But the people of this country do absolutely nothing with it of any credible point.

The reality is that single minded political action would force the Govt to make the changes. But we are a society that willingly pays more and more to have other people do everything for us because we are seemingly far too busy and important nowadays.

It I also very important to note that the DM write lies to deliberately inflame the minds of fools. The kind of people who just rant about things they don't like but lack the courage or whit to do anything and will find any excuse to make out that others should be doing it for them.

[Deva Link]

vdp1 said:

Edit, When I'm out I probably spend 3 or 4 quid a day on sandwiches etc so max of £50 per week on food.

You see how little thing bump the cost up? In the twinkling of any eye you just increased your food spend by 60%.

OK, you can sit in the dark, and 17.9C temps (which is bloody freezing in my view - it's 19.5 on my desk thermometer and I'm sitting here with a sweatshirt on) but someone with a couple of kids can't. She'll be washing clothes every day, and probably bathing the kids every day too. People talk about "food" costs, but a typical supermarket purchases have very signficant non-food purchases too.


What's bks about the story is there's no way that girl is living on £200/wk, and at the same time able to save several £K. The kids' father will be bunging her money and perhaps her own family are helping her out too.

[daveydave7]

I think she does 2 girl scenes for an extra £80

[matchmaker]

Crafty_ said:

All shes got to do is pay the electric bill and buy food/clothes, everything else is covered by benefits, even buying milk!

Shes probably got more disposable income than many homeowners.

After I've paid the tax that goes to help pay for her benefits, I as a full time worker, homeowner and family man have a lot less disposable income. My two kids are having an absolute maximum of £100 spent on each of them for Christmas.

[Negative Creep]

vdp1 said:

If only I was in charge of the benefits system.

9am monday down the office: ring ring.
dole scum: 'yea, what is is mate, I aint got no money in my bank in it'
me: Well have you done any work in the last two weeks sir?
DS: 'na mate, me aint done nufink bro'
me: well there's you fking problem then you lazy fking tt.

In fact the best answer would be to use the benefits money to pay for child care between true working hours, say 0700 to 1800, or earlier/later if needs be. That way the 'parents' would have no excuse not to go to work as the kids would be looked after and fed. And if they didn't bother then who cares what happens to them.
I would gladly pay more taxes just to see the great unwashed stood at a bus stop in the dark in January heading off to put nuts and bolts in a cardboard box all day for £6.

Presumably your system will treat people who are laid off through no fault of their own and looking for work but unable to find it exactly the same?

[King Herald]

Pesty said:

"Leanna, from Croydon, south London – who’s never worked – claims £15,480 a year in benefits, including £111 housing benefit a week, which pays for her two-bed council flat.

Who the f**k decided she is ENTITLED to that much money for doing squat???? Someone, somewhere, in the annals of power, decided that sort of welfare was REQUIRED by a woman with two kids.

If the government would give me more to stay at home than I get working I damn well WOULD stay at home.

The government are both the cause and the answer to this problem.

[Colonial]

supertouring said:

My wife was interviewed some years ago by a paper and this was the exact process she described took place.

Whe we read the article, we did not recognise the person that was described at all. It was all bs.

Note, this was not benefits related.

Happened to me too (work related, development of 120 flats).

They are scum out to whip their targets into a frenzy.

Worked well this time. It's a daily wail wet dream. Benefits, not white, write your own outrage here.

[thinfourth2]

3 years ago you could of posted exactly the same story and most of the replies would of been along the lines of

"Bloody labour i can't wait for the tories to come into power"

"bloody Gordon brown i can't wait for the tories to come into power"

" I blame tony blair i can't wait for the tories to come into power"

"Labour government are breeding more voters i can't wait for the tories to come into power"


But now we have

"Its all the benefits claimants fault not the government"






Poor little tories voters were sold a pup

[extraT]

Having read the story on the Daily fail, she strikes me as the sort of person who could probably only get a supermarket checkout job- nowt wrong with that, obviously. Millions of people are employed in these types of roles and it gives them income, a sense of purpose and a place in society.

While I respect those checkout workers those types jobs pay between, say, £12-14k, The Claimant would be stupid to lose between £1-3k based on what people thought of her/tone of the article. Who here would happily give up £3k just because someone judged you on how you got it? If that was the case 'red light' workers, drug dealers etc... would lose a hell of a lot of money.

She's played the system and won.

[rover 623gsi]

extraT said:

Having read the story on the Daily fail, she strikes me as the sort of person who could probably only get a supermarket checkout job- nowt wrong with that, obviously. Millions of people are employed in these types of roles and it gives them income, a sense of purpose and a place in society.

While I respect those checkout workers those types jobs pay between, say, £12-14k, The Claimant would be stupid to lose between £1-3k based on what people thought of her/tone of the article. Who here would happily give up £3k just because someone judged you on how you got it? If that was the case 'red light' workers, drug dealers etc... would lose a hell of a lot of money.

She's played the system and won.

she won't even get £12-14k as a checkout worker as none of those jobs are full-time.

[JagLover]

thinfourth2 said:

Poor little tories voters were sold a pup

Osbourne had a hard enough job getting a mere 1% rise in benefits past the Lib Dems.

[DonkeyApple]

Negative Creep said:

vdp1 said:

If only I was in charge of the benefits system.

9am monday down the office: ring ring.
dole scum: 'yea, what is is mate, I aint got no money in my bank in it'
me: Well have you done any work in the last two weeks sir?
DS: 'na mate, me aint done nufink bro'
me: well there's you fking problem then you lazy fking tt.

In fact the best answer would be to use the benefits money to pay for child care between true working hours, say 0700 to 1800, or earlier/later if needs be. That way the 'parents' would have no excuse not to go to work as the kids would be looked after and fed. And if they didn't bother then who cares what happens to them.
I would gladly pay more taxes just to see the great unwashed stood at a bus stop in the dark in January heading off to put nuts and bolts in a cardboard box all day for £6.

Presumably your system will treat people who are laid off through no fault of their own and looking for work but unable to find it exactly the same?

It shouldn't do because you would bring welfare back to being a common sense safety net rather than being a lifestyle choice. It's a small difference but with enormous implications.

[Deva Link]

extraT said:

Having read the story on the Daily fail, she strikes me as the sort of person who could probably only get a supermarket checkout job- nowt wrong with that, obviously. Millions of people are employed in these types of roles and it gives them income, a sense of purpose and a place in society.

While I respect those checkout workers those types jobs pay between, say, £12-14k, The Claimant would be stupid to lose between £1-3k based on what people thought of her/tone of the article. Who here would happily give up £3k just because someone judged you on how you got it? If that was the case 'red light' workers, drug dealers etc... would lose a hell of a lot of money.

She's played the system and won.

That's a common statement but it's not true. If she was working in a low paid job she'd get significant benefits on top.

What kills it for people like her is if they have to pay for child-care.