Why work when you get more in benefits?

[Vulpix]

Meanwhile in the UK:

Why work when I can get £42,000 in benefits a year AND drive a Mercedes?

Daily Mail
Last updated at 10:32 AM on 13th April 2010

The Davey family's £815-a-week state handouts pay for a four-bedroom home, top-of-the-range mod cons and two vehicles including a Mercedes people carrier.

Father-of-seven Peter gave up work because he could make more living on benefits.
Yet he and his wife Claire are still not happy with their lot.

With an eighth child on the way, they are demanding a bigger house, courtesy of the taxpayer.

'It's really hard,' said Mrs Davey, 29, who is seven months pregnant. 'We can't afford holidays and I don't want my kids living on a council estate and struggling like I have.

'The price of living is going up but benefits are going down. My carer's allowance is only going up by 80p this year and petrol is so expensive now, I'm worried how we'll cope.

'We're still waiting for somewhere bigger.'
Mrs Davey has never had a full-time job while her 35-year-old husband gave up his post in administration nine years ago after realising they would be better off living off the state.

At their semi on the Isle of Anglesey, the family have a 42in flatscreen television in the living room with Sky TV at £50 a month, a Wii games console, three Nintendo DS machines and a computer - not to mention four mobile phones.

With their income of more than £42,000 a year, they run an 11-seater minibus and the seven-seat automatic Mercedes.
But according to the Daveys they have nothing to be thankful for.

'It doesn't bother me that taxpayers are paying for me to have a large family,' added Mrs Davey.
'We couldn't afford to care for our children without benefits, but as long as they have everything they need, I don't think I'm selfish.
'Most of the parents at our kids' school are on benefits.'
She added: 'I don't feel bad about being subsidised by people who are working. I'm just working with the system that's there.

'If the government wants to give me money, I'm happy to take it. We get what we're entitled to. I don't put in anything because I don't pay taxes, but if I could work I would.'
The couple met in a pub 13 years ago. A year later, at the age of 17, Mrs Davey gave birth to Jessica, now 12.

The full feature appears in this week's Closer magazine, on sale now.
She was followed by Jade, ten, Jamie-Anne, eight, Harriet, six, Adele, four, the couple's only son Tie, three, and Mercedes, two.
'It cost too much to carry on working as we were actually better off unemployed,' said Mr Davey.

In addition to income support, housing benefit, child tax credits and a council tax discount, the couple receive carer's allowance and disability living allowance for Tie, who suffers from a severe skin disorder.

Despite filing for bankruptcy 18 months ago after racking up £20,000 of debt on mail order catalogues they still insist on splashing out on four presents per child at birthdays and last Christmas spent £2,000 on gifts alone.
'Santa is always generous in our house,' said Mrs Davey, who once applied to join the police but was turned down.

She insists her husband would do any job 'as long as we could still afford the lifestyle we have now'.
Mrs Davey, who spends £160 a week at Tesco, says she does not intend to stop at eight children. Her target is 14.
And she adds: 'I've always wanted a big family - no one can tell me how many kids I can have whether I'm working or not.'

[Bard]

Maybe stop reproducing like rabbits could help them.

[Beorn]

Surely the benefits will stop now that Peter Davey and partner are on record stating they are milking the system?

[Bari]

With an eighth child on the way, they are demanding a bigger house, courtesy of the taxpayer.[/B]

'It's really hard,' said Mrs Davey, 29, who is seven months pregnant. 'We can't afford holidays and I don't want my kids living on a council estate and struggling like I have.

'The price of living is going up but benefits are going down. My carer's allowance is only going up by 80p this year and petrol is so expensive now, I'm worried how we'll cope.

'We're still waiting for somewhere bigger.'
Mrs Davey has never had a full-time job while her 35-year-old husband gave up his post in administration nine years ago after realising they would be better off living off the state.

With their income of more than £42,000 a year, they run an 11-seater minibus and the seven-seat automatic Mercedes.
But according to the Daveys they have nothing to be thankful for.

[B]'It doesn't bother me that taxpayers are paying for me to have a large family,' added Mrs Davey.

- I can't believe such lack of self-respect and shame is even possible, and that they are going public too amazes me.

People like this are like an encouragement to quit working and exploit the system. Because honestly, who wants to get up for work in the morning to pay the expences of shameless parasites?

Eventually the state cant keep up with the exspences and there will be a huge cut in welfare, unfortunately for people that actually need/deserve it.

[SuuT]

...And she adds: 'I've always wanted a big family - no one can tell me how many kids I can have whether I'm working or not.'

Well, the State could do so indirectly by telling her she's on her own finacially if she has anymore children. People like this basically hold the system hostage: By saying that no one can tell her how many kids she can have, she is implying that the taxpayer will foot the bill for her family and there's nothing that anyone can or will do about it. It's insane, really; but at the same time, she's correct. Tonsor says it best with the complete lack of self-respect or shame...the thing is, how to get these types to give a rat's ass about self-respect or shame?


Does anyone have a theory as to how these types of people find/achieve a sense of purpose? :confused2:

[Bari]

Does anyone have a theory as to how these types of people find/achieve a sense of purpose? :confused2:

- From my own experience with similar individuals the conclusion is with the system of today(speaking of the welfare system in the 'West' in particular) there is no way they would want to change voluntarily. People like this would rather become criminals than make a honest living. Usually they know their ways around to gain some sort of benefits. Its become a part of their mentality and they are grown up people, so its not easy trying to change them. Its the same mentality as people that always are trying to escape from paying their share of the bill after a dinner/beer with colleagues/"friends". Ditch them and they find another way/people to exploit.

The only solution is to leave them on their own and hoping for an improvement; giving them no choise but to contribute and limit their expectations for life as the rest have to. Or by force/threats from government authority making them work for a living. The government have both the authority, means and most likely the blessing of the general populace to use drastical means in such cases. For some reasons they are not. But then again its not surprising how they are unable to focus on importan/and deal with matters like this, while their main goal is to secure their own future in the UN or by "contributing" enough to gain a pension.

There will always be people that are not able to work(for good reasons) like mentioned earlier, but not to such a degree seen today. Its a shame how a support system and rights gained after decades of fighting by workers and idealists in a time when average people had less rights/value than cattle are now being exploited by the people least deserving it. in a way threathening the continiued excistance of the welfare as known today.

[Liffrea]

The solution, seemingly, is easy, drop the level of welfare to minimum needed, means test it i.e. you sell what you don’t need such as Xbox 360, 42 inch plasma screen TV’s, satellite/cable subscription etc before you get a penny in benefits.

Stop punishing people with punitive taxes; those on low incomes already get hit hard but so do those people who make large amounts of money, Labour in it’s typical socialist BS believe those who make money through their own effort should subsidise those who cannot be arsed to get out of bed in the morning. If they form the next government they plan to hit the self employed and those on high incomes hard again, I wouldn’t be surprised if many choose to take their money elsewhere.

Subsistence welfare, low taxation, of course the later would be possible if the MP’s didn’t waste and steal so much of it….

[Murphy]

Irresponsible. They should have their benefits cut and if they cannot provide basic care for the children afterwards, the children should be taken into care.

I hear a lot of people moaning about not being able to aford to live in these times. What they really mean to say is that they cannot aford to have 50 different game consoles, multiple widescreen HD TVs, premium television channels, mutliple computers and laptops, being able to order a take our and go out for a drink every night of the week etc.

They should simply stop having children. In fact anyone should stop having children that they cannot support. I do not advocate condoms or medical procedures for this though. I say stop having fucking sex and go get a fucking job.

[Beorn]

Does anyone have a theory as to how these types of people find/achieve a sense of purpose? :confused2:

Easy. The sense of achievement is simply living.

The solution, seemingly, is easy, drop the level of welfare to minimum needed, means test it i.e. you sell what you don’t need such as Xbox 360, 42 inch plasma screen TV’s, satellite/cable subscription etc before you get a penny in benefits.

Whilst I agree on cancelling one's Sky or cable subscription, it seems a touch over the top to force households to sell their home comforts before benefits are given, or to subsidise the benefits.

Amongst many, one outcome of implementing this as a solution is the below market value of household items.

That alone would cause mass riots.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Dave Angel
Whilst I agree on cancelling one's Sky or cable subscription, it seems a touch over the top to force households to sell their home comforts before benefits are given, or to subsidise the benefits.

When I lost my job I sold anything of worth before I claimed off the state, including my motorbike which just about broke my heart to do so, the way I figured the state doesn’t have a duty to feed or cloth me beyond my ability to support myself, TV’s, games consoles and the like are luxuries not necessities, food and warmth are necessities, when times are hard you make do. In Japan they do exactly what I have suggested they make you sell luxuries before you get state support.

The system needs to be harsh and bare minimum because for every man who cannot find a job through no fault of his own you will have another five who realise they can sit on their arse and do nothing and those who work will pay for them to do it.