even if it just means he wont have to take a 2nd job
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ho-REFUSE-to-claim-thousands-in-benefits.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ho-REFUSE-to-claim-thousands-in-benefits.html
now heres a couple who should be made to accept state benefits
- Thread starter skyblue
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
-
23Replies
-
858Views
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
Peter Parka
Well-Known Member
If he was on benefits you'd be in here telling us it's wrong. 
If he was on benefits you'd be in here telling us it's wrong.
not really....i dont like lazy people who wont work at any costs,i know there are reasons with some people but many are just scroungers living off the hard work of the rest,this couple have pride and he's prepared to work 7 days a week,which is wrong
I call complete bullshit.
If he's only making 14,000/yr he would be bringing in 269/wk before taxes. Let's keep it conservative at 25% and he would be bringing home 200/wk
In the story they say they pay 50/wk for petrol and 200/wk for food. They are already spending more than he makes and that doesn't allow for housing, clothes, ANYTHING else.
If he's only making 14,000/yr he would be bringing in 269/wk before taxes. Let's keep it conservative at 25% and he would be bringing home 200/wk
In the story they say they pay 50/wk for petrol and 200/wk for food. They are already spending more than he makes and that doesn't allow for housing, clothes, ANYTHING else.
Peter Parka
Well-Known Member
If you read the article properly, you will notice he is on benifits anyway
and they get 114 in child benefits. Not that it really amounts out to be a whole lot though.
:24::24::24::24::24: omg i would rep you but the rep Nazi says i can't. hahahahahaha!!!
Who do you know that makes enough part time to pay for housing? Because he sure as hell doesn't after paying for food and gas.
and do you think that they don't have
electricity
water
sewage
telephone
television
internet
the need for clothes
school supplies
bedding
etc.
etc.
where is the money for that? I know they may not have a phone or tv... but electricity and the rest of the list.
Peter Parka
Well-Known Member
I see them worse than a lot of people on benefits. What's worse, giving someone benefits who need it through no fault of their own, temporarily out of work, sick etc or giving it to someone who chose to have that many children?
and maybe that's why they've chosen not to take advantage of all of the benefits offered to them? :dunno
Honestly though, I think that the rich people should have money taken from them in order to subsidize poor people like this family. :clap
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps there should be a cap so after your third child, you don't get anything extra. That might discourage people from having oversized families.
That's not so much in reference to this family obviously, but the other type they mention in the article who claim thousands of having several kids by different fathers.
That's not so much in reference to this family obviously, but the other type they mention in the article who claim thousands of having several kids by different fathers.
Peter Parka
Well-Known Member
Except they haven't.
that was my bad, it was supposed to be "maybe that's why they've chosen not to take advantage". I typed too fast and ended up with "to to" instead.
If people want to have 30 kids it wouldn't bother me as long as they are well cared for.
This family, like mentioned, didn't have all the kids from this one relationship, but even if that was the case it wouldn't matter. They are doing what it takes to take care of them. If they don't want to take all the benefits available then they don't have to. Sounds to me like they are trying as hard as they can to actually stay off of assistance.
On a brighter note, even if they were on all the benefits available that would be a-ok with me as they are actually working for them and not just sponging off of the system.
This family, like mentioned, didn't have all the kids from this one relationship, but even if that was the case it wouldn't matter. They are doing what it takes to take care of them. If they don't want to take all the benefits available then they don't have to. Sounds to me like they are trying as hard as they can to actually stay off of assistance.
On a brighter note, even if they were on all the benefits available that would be a-ok with me as they are actually working for them and not just sponging off of the system.
That logic is flawed... Let's add on to an already over populated planet. How could 30 children possibly even get satisfactory care?
80,555Threads
2,194,876Messages
5,015Members