The 190 families with 10 kids cost us £11million PA in benefits

walkerscott


Joined: 13/08/2009
Posts: 901

Message Posted:
09/01/2012 18:09

Forget Anthony Worral how about this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083998/Benefit-cap-190-families-10-children-cost-taxpayers-11m-A-YEAR.html

Riddles


Joined: 26/04/2011
Posts: 429

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 00:04

Cost us? Is the TRNC paying...is so, why?

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 00:59

Leeches !!

bertieboss


Joined: 22/07/2011
Posts: 149

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 01:03

And the tax evading Vodaphone and others. I think that runs into billions!!But that's ok!!??

paulgeordie


Joined: 19/07/2008
Posts: 1050

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 01:04

Gold diggers

EamonnMc


Joined: 18/06/2010
Posts: 1019

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 01:16

And if all those children go hungry, grow up in sub standard housing, unwanted and abused by parents who don't have enough money to look after their needs, the cost to society will be far greater in the long run than £11million.

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 01:56

Then a lesson should be learnt and a deterrent put in place to deter these leeches who breed with the sole intention to live off the state.



Take away the safety net, educate these almost predictable leeches that the net not will be !!



but has been taken away !!

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 02:04

190 families with 10 children in each family (assuming two parents per family) is 190*12=2280 people.



11,000,000 / 2280 people is 4824.56 per person. Does not sound quite so exterme does it ? Would you like to live in the UK on a budget of 4824.56 I wonder ?

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 02:17

And just to throw some more numbers in for you, the working persons basic tax allowance for under 65 for the year 2011/12 is £7,475. This then represents a subusidy for the working of 1495 for 20% tax payers, 2990 for 40% tax payers and 3737.50 for 50% tax payers. So lets say an average of 3000.

So take this 3000 and instead of giving it as a tax rebate / subsidy to working people only, give it to them as an entitlement payment along with people out of work. That is everyone get a flat 3000 pounds, either off your tax if you are working or as cash (benefit) if you are not. Then scrap unemployment benefit and allow the non working to legaly top up their 3000 with odd jobs, part time work and anything they can find until they are earning enough to get it as tax / rebate / subusidy instead. Then have a saftey net for those who even after the 3000 entitlement need more because of special cirumstances and you remove the the whole ' I can not afford to work' trap of current benfits system

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 02:19

with not net difference to tax payers and possibly even a reduction in the cost to the state of benefits because people are able to legaly 'top up' their base 3000 entitlement, wheras now they have to earn nothing or risk loosing all or most of their benefits.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 02:22

By the way I take no credit for this idea at all, I saw it maybe 20 or even 30 years ago on the TV when a group of 15 years olds back then examined the whole benfit system and was challenged to develop their own reforms. They came up with the idea and ever since then I have thought 'what a good idea'.

bertieboss


Joined: 22/07/2011
Posts: 149

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 04:00

Pipie - - obviously either a banker or Alf Garnet tribute act!











Post edited for your personnal offensive remark made to fellow member , really no need for that ......... Simbas

suehowlittle


Joined: 31/10/2010
Posts: 1202

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 08:53

It is the delivering of breakfasts which has confounded me.



How hard is it to provide cereal and toast or egg on toast for 10 children.



I had 3 of my own and 3 foster children and yes, I know that's only 6 but I worked full time and the children mostly did their own cereal/toast/eggs so I would like to know why these children are not doing the same. If they are not even used to making their own breakfast then they are not being raised to be independent.



I wonder what sort of future they have?

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 09:26

Message 12 I find your language offensive towards me, is this a way to debate ?

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 10:17

John,

Now I didn't have you down as a Daily Mail man!

Have you read their strap line "All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental."

simbas



Joined: 16/07/2007
Posts: 5943

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 10:47

Msg 12 , edited for reason given

Simbas