News0 min ago
Benefits
How can it be right that someone with loads of children and claiming benefits can be better off financially than someone who has been in the Army for over 27 years? There is no incentive for these people to work when everything is handed to them. If my husband and I had had more children, the Army wouldn't have given us more money, so why should the taxpayer fund large families on benefits?
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kathyan. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Johnlambert,he's still in, on long service! I'm not saying that his pension won't be enough, just that people on benefits seem to be raking it in tax free and people who work for a living are taxed to the hilt. There has to be something wrong with the system whereby you are better off on benefits than working for a living!
I agree 100% Kathyan, but when I was 17 the choice was simple, get a dead end job, go on the dole or join up, I did the latter and never ,looked back. at the end of the day it's a matter of choices. However I do think that people should get the absolute minimum on benefits unless (like your good husband) they have paid into the system.
I run a business which employs copious amounts of overseas temps who want to work. We live in a relatively affluent area where there are lots of job vacancies but cant fill them with UK born employees because they are better off on benefits.
You cant really compare two completely different situations. One with family and one without. The same would go if you compared yourself to an OAP who was never able to fight in the war. Does that means he has to have less? Yes, i do agree the government have always given a bad deal to the military but that is a worldwide problem. So we have to have collections (Remembrance days)!. The governments should review the pension schemes but we all know about that.
If you read my post again, plonker, you will see that I am not complaining about the amount my husband receives from the Army. He is on a good wage (which he pays tax and national insurance on) and he will receive a decent pension when he leaves. But, why should a person who has never worked and has a large family, get benefits which equal my husband's take home pay? People should not be better off on benefits, than they would be if they worked for a living, that is what I'm saying.
I'm against any kind of benefit fraud or scrounging, but you must remember that just because a family with lots of children get more money from the whereever, they also have to spend more money so the cash flow might not be as favourable.
I'm all in favour of benefits for the people who are vulnerable and require genuine support often through no fault of their own, and am proud of this system working for people such as these (as an ex-benefit claimer many years ago, it would be hypocritical of me not to be), but as a now 40% tax payer, I also resent the 'scrounging' culture of some places. When I was on benefits I was so grateful and felt so beholden that I was determined to see my own way when as soon as I could.
I agree with you that it does seem unfair that there are those who work hard and have a seemingly poorer standard of living than those who are living purely on benefits. However, if you could, would you want to be one of the families with loads of kids and living on benefits on a housing estate of others living on benefits, or would you prefer what you have now????
the world is turned on it's head I think. A topsy-turvey international community. I'm sure there are people also who are asking the same question, "do you think it's right that we are here without any proper living standards or even clean water and all those people in the west throw so much away.......?"
I do however agree with your comments about incentives.
I do sympathetise with you and understand that you husband had given up his life to serve in the Army. Unfortuantely,the government will only see it as that. Giving up all his time he has had to make sacrifices, that being his employment outside the army. So it may seem very unfair when people who seem to be doing nothing get benefits.
But the grass may be greener on the other side. Can you imagine a huge family and all the costs that go with it and no child care available. The general population trend is fewer children or none for married couples.. But you will get the big families amongst them all. My grandmother's family being Catholic had 7 children and boy did they struggle - and knowing that most families were so much better off. It put me right off, having so many children that I prefer the peaceful life with my husband. The fraud in benefits, though, cannot be tolerated because it makes a mockery of the whole thing.
Hi i am on benefits housing that is i work part time as i have a young daughter. Before falling pregnant (not planned) i worked full time i had the oppertunity to give up work if i wanted and claim benefits of all sorts but i wanted a better life for me and my daughter. now after sitting down and working out what i could get if i didnt work i would be 10 times better off than i am now working i intend to go back full time when my daughter is older. My friends and friends parents have and will sit on the doll for the rest of their life with not a care in the world dressed in designer clothes dripping in gold and able to go abroad on holiday, all this for not a days work in mind. whereas my parents and myself work hard and never seem to get any better off. Any way ive had my rant now i feel better
Hi, I have eight children and have to say have never claimed a day's benefit for them in my life, however not all people with large families go on the dole without ever having contributed to tax and society in general. Imagine that I was suddenly unable to work through say injury or illness, would you really begrudge my children a decent standard of living?After I'd paid tax for 26 years? The welfare state is there for precisely the reason that it's intended to protect people's families from destitution. You cannot blame a child for it's existance, or the fact that perhaps it's parent can't be bothered to get out and get a job or start a business, therefore you have to ensure that child's wellbeing.Take away the welfare state and you'll see not a reduced birth rate but an increase in crime and child poverty. I for one prefer to know that kids in this country by and large have a decent standard of living even if it means that their scrounging parents are given handouts whilst the rest of us work.We need to tackle the attitude that it's ok to have absolutely no self respect and scrounge for a living at grass roots level, and I'm pleased to see that anyone of 25 years and under will have free education up to A level standard if they missed out at school for some reason, hopefully giving them a better chance of not falling into the same trap that their parents did.The other thing to consider is, from first hand experience I know that my family costs a small fortune to keep every week, however anyone with a large family manages on benefits is beyond me, the stress must be incredible.I daresay it sounds like a huge amount that they are getting but it really would have to go an awfully long way.
I'm always baffled when people like Kathyan's post things like this, it's normally asked about teenage single mothers, so this is a slight variation.
The question that I always ask is what would you do? If you stop the benefits it would be the children that suffer, in which case the local authority would have no option but to take them into care. Keeping children in care costs a *lot* more than paying benefits to their parents - never mind the hidden costs that children in care are more likely to need extra help with education and more likely to end up in prison.
So the simple answer as to why the taxpayer forks out to provide large families on benefits is that it's cheaper to do things that way.
The question that I always ask is what would you do? If you stop the benefits it would be the children that suffer, in which case the local authority would have no option but to take them into care. Keeping children in care costs a *lot* more than paying benefits to their parents - never mind the hidden costs that children in care are more likely to need extra help with education and more likely to end up in prison.
So the simple answer as to why the taxpayer forks out to provide large families on benefits is that it's cheaper to do things that way.
1 to 13 of 13
