• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

?ú26k a year benefit cap.......

speccie-graph.jpg
 
I would make this clam clean the bogs down the council offices for his money.

Give him ?ú26k a year and he can fudge his free lager, baccy and Sky TV off as well.

What a fudging clam.
 
Leeds Spur said:
That's ?ú35k a year gross.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185

Read this article.....are we meant to be sympathetic?

I relly wonder about this fudging country's future.
Click to expand...

So we are subsidising Raymond for:

- ?ú80 beer money
- Sky Movies Premium channel
- 5 mobile phones
- ?ú240 a week on food!!! How fudging much?! You can bet your arse half of that goes on fags / other luxury items
- ?ú350 on clothes

Absolute tinkle take
 
I'm loving the fact that Labour are so out of touch.

They are meant to be the party of the WORKING CLASS!!! There's a clue in the title wallace!
 
For the record, I have no issue with people getting PROPER support when they lose their jobs.

I would have the government pay all the bills for even a middle class family with ?ú40-50k outgoings.........for 12 months maximum, maybe 6.

That's enough to get on some training courses and get a job.....proper support for those who need a hand up not a hand out.

This waste of oxygen has been unemployed since 2001!!!! Not even funny!
 
If they do cut our benefit we are going to have to choose between eating and heating the house properly.
Click to expand...
But the booze, cigarettes, and Sky TV are off-limits!

The market for my skills dried up 10 years ago - there's a total lack of work in my area of expertise.
Click to expand...
Is this guy too good to do menial work to help pay the bills? He's been jobless for over a decade, if all the work has dried up in his "field of expertise", that to me would be a wake-up call to find ANOTHER field of expertise.
 
Eight children? Eight?!

We have one daughter. We will consider our finances very fudging carefully before going for it to have another (which we'd like). Seriously. He can just fudge right off.

And that's before we get onto the excess demand that many people place on the Earth's limited resources. (Odd as it sounds, I get really fudged off watching that CBeebies program Baby Jake - ten kids..... fudging ten! What kind of example is that to set to kids watching CBeebies?!)
 
southstand1882 said:
So we are subsidising Raymond for:

- ?ú80 beer money
- Sky Movies Premium channel
- 5 mobile phones
- ?ú240 a week on food!!! How fudging much?! You can bet your arse half of that goes on fags / other luxury items
- ?ú350 on clothes

Absolute tinkle take
Click to expand...


?ú240 a week on food isn't bad is it ? there are 8 of them... thats just over ?ú1 a meal (breakfast lunch & dinner).

Looking at what they get, they would still get a fair bit if one of them worked (like the child allowance and possibly working tax credits). Considering the 7 kids, I dont find much wrong with that story, there are probably far worse. Target the people who dont need benefit (like 2 people earning 40k each but will still get child benefit).
 
Golfball said:
Considering the 7 kids
Click to expand...

You had me at "Considering the 7 kids"

People find themselves unemployed for all sorts of reasons

I can sympathise. I can't empathise; funny that.

But to find yourself unemployed with 7 kids, is clamish behaviour.

Raymond is a clam.
 
Golfball said:
?ú240 a week on food isn't bad is it ? there are 8 of them... thats just over ?ú1 a meal (breakfast lunch & dinner).

Looking at what they get, they would still get a fair bit if one of them worked (like the child allowance and possibly working tax credits). Considering the 7 kids, I dont find much wrong with that story, there are probably far worse. Target the people who dont need benefit (like 2 people earning 40k each but will still get child benefit).
Click to expand...

Got to say I don't agree with that last part. Two people working 40k jobs mean they are probably paying over 30k per year in income tax combined, why shouldn't they take a tiny fraction of that back in a child tax credit? They are putting in to the country far more than they are getting out
 
Social Security is for the weak and needy.

Not for those in work.

Change the tax code for married families if you want to.....cap the total amount of tax maybe, but benefits for a household earning ?ú80k? Not for me.
 
southstand1882 said:
You had me at "Considering the 7 kids"

People find themselves unemployed for all sorts of reasons

I can sympathise. I can't empathise; funny that.

But to find yourself unemployed with 7 kids, is clamish behaviour.

Raymond is a clam.
Click to expand...

Cant blame him really, even with the reduced 26k a year he wont get a job on more than that. I think being unemployed with 7 kids is the only way most people would afford it.

I dont find their amount of benefit overly bad (when you factor in the kids), what is the alternative? tell them to kill off 5 of the kids and live with a more manageable amount ? I know it is clamish to have 7 kids you cant afford, but they already have them and there is not a lot we can do now (except let them starve and turn to crime to manage). And just to clarify my previous comment, I dont find a lot wrong with the money they get to live off of for the amount of people, should they have that amount of people in the first place - yes wrong.

Two unemployed families with 2 kids each probably get more benefit than this lot when you add it together. I doubt there are many families in this position, we can take away their sky movies but saving ?ú600 a year from every family that has 7 kids wont save us a lot of money.
 
Last edited:
Richie said:
Got to say I don't agree with that last part. Two people working 40k jobs mean they are probably paying over 30k per year in income tax combined, why shouldn't they take a tiny fraction of that back in a child tax credit? They are putting in to the country far more than they are getting out
Click to expand...

Because if we are in debt, why give out money to people who dont need it.

I think what im trying to say in this thread is that targeting families with 7 kids is not going to go a long way in paying off this debt, its not a common thing and possibly causes problems for those rare cases. Im not sure Raymond and his family are living a life of luxury.

Target those who dont need it and yes in a way its a bit unfair, but Raymond claims money for his family to live off of. A couple on 80k claim money for luxury - thats just as clamish.
 
Golfball said:
Because if we are in debt, why give out money to people who dont need it.

I think what im trying to say in this thread is that targeting families with 7 kids is not going to go a long way in paying off this debt, its not a common thing and possibly causes problems for those rare cases. Im not sure Raymond and his family are living a life of luxury.

Target those who dont need it and yes in a way its a bit unfair, but Raymond claims money for his family to live off of. A couple on 80k claim money for luxury - thats just as clamish.
Click to expand...

In fact the whole premise is moot, because you don't get any Child Tax Credit if your income exceeds ?ú45,000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back