In message , Rob Graham
writes

You don't need to fiddle the system. You just have plenty of babies,
viz Karen Matthews, to quote one example in the news.

Rob

Go on, then..
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

"Gordon H" wrote in message
news
In message , Mark
writes

[...]
In fact I really don't understand why there is so much hysteria
about
"scroungers". Unless someone is fiddling the system they can't get
a
reasonable standard of living without working, can they?

Another issue is that, in attempt to hurt the "scroungers", any
measure taken is likely to have an adverse effect on the poor who
are genuinely unable to work. And there are far more of these than
the "scroungers" IMHO.

I have been wondering if anyone here actually knows any
"scroungers".

Depends on how you define "scroungers". I know loads, if you define
them as people who either deliberately get themselves into a situation
where they are reliant on means tested benefits or deliberately don't
get themselves out of it when they could.

I don't, though I have had problems with tradesmen who, when asked
for a receipt, say: "I can give you one if you like, but then I'd
have to charge you VAT". By implication, they must have a
sizeable business to have to make a VAT return (AIUI), so they are
part of the black economy.

Cameron/Osbourne are using the alleged "extravagance" of the last
government to make the kind of cuts they were going to make anyway.

Yeah, cos the deficit isn't real is it? Ask the Greeks.

You can't go on paying invalidity benefit and at the same time
restrict the poor CEO's bonus increases to only 17%, and their pay
increases to 7%.

Yes, the fat cats have seen their pay soar under Labour. Not to
mention taxes on the rich were far less under the last Labour
government than even under Thatcher. Which is why so many millionare
businessmen back Labour. At least the new government are proposing a
20:1 max ratio of pay in the public sector, more than the last lot of
incompetant fat cat arse lickers ever did.

--
Andy

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:42:48 +0100, Rob Graham
wrote:



In fact I really don't understand why there is so much hysteria about
"scroungers". Unless someone is fiddling the system they can't get a
reasonable standard of living without working, can they?


You don't need to fiddle the system. You just have plenty of babies, viz
Karen Matthews, to quote one example in the news.

But Karen Matthews faked a kidnap to extort money. I've no idea what
her income was but the crime suggests that it was not "enough".
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On 17/06/2010 12:53, Gordon H wrote:
In message , Rob Graham
writes

You don't need to fiddle the system. You just have plenty of babies,
viz Karen Matthews, to quote one example in the news.

Rob

Go on, then..

Just did. Karen Matthews

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:03:30 +0100, "Andy Pandy"
wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
.. .

In fact I really don't understand why there is so much hysteria
about
"scroungers". Unless someone is fiddling the system they can't get
a
reasonable standard of living without working, can they?

Depends what you mean by reasonable. A family on the dole generally
gets about 90% of what they'd get on a single average income (I've
provided the figures many times).

I haven't seen this. From my personal experience we need two decent
incomes to raise an ordinary family, to provide our children with the
minimum expected. This doesn't include things such as multiple cars,
iphones, HD TVs, good holidays and XBOXs etc. Nearly all the families
I know both parents have to work.

Indeed if benefits are so good why don't more people give up their
jobs and why do people buy income protection insurance?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On 17/06/2010 14:53, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:42:48 +0100, Rob Graham
wrote:



In fact I really don't understand why there is so much hysteria about
"scroungers". Unless someone is fiddling the system they can't get a
reasonable standard of living without working, can they?


You don't need to fiddle the system. You just have plenty of babies, viz
Karen Matthews, to quote one example in the news.

But Karen Matthews faked a kidnap to extort money. I've no idea what
her income was but the crime suggests that it was not "enough".


She did, but the point here about her is that she has seven children.
Money for old rope.

They happen to be by five different fathers, but that's not particularly
relevant in this matter.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:53:43 +0100, Rob Graham
wrote:

On 17/06/2010 14:53, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:42:48 +0100, Rob Graham
wrote:



In fact I really don't understand why there is so much hysteria about
"scroungers". Unless someone is fiddling the system they can't get a
reasonable standard of living without working, can they?


You don't need to fiddle the system. You just have plenty of babies, viz
Karen Matthews, to quote one example in the news.

But Karen Matthews faked a kidnap to extort money. I've no idea what
her income was but the crime suggests that it was not "enough".

She did, but the point here about her is that she has seven children.
Money for old rope.

I don't agree. Looking after children is challenging and expensive
IME.

They happen to be by five different fathers, but that's not particularly
relevant in this matter.

It may be if they can afford to pay any maintenance.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On 17/06/2010 16:42, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:53:43 +0100, Rob Graham
wrote:

On 17/06/2010 14:53, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:42:48 +0100, Rob Graham
wrote:



In fact I really don't understand why there is so much hysteria about
"scroungers". Unless someone is fiddling the system they can't get a
reasonable standard of living without working, can they?


You don't need to fiddle the system. You just have plenty of babies, viz
Karen Matthews, to quote one example in the news.

But Karen Matthews faked a kidnap to extort money. I've no idea what
her income was but the crime suggests that it was not "enough".

She did, but the point here about her is that she has seven children.
Money for old rope.

I don't agree. Looking after children is challenging and expensive
IME.

I would totally agree with that. So why get pregnant when you can't
afford it? Because the state will pay. I rest my case.



They happen to be by five different fathers, but that's not particularly
relevant in this matter.

It may be if they can afford to pay any maintenance.

In any case whether these particular ones can or can't afford
maintenance I don't know (but I can guess), but there are plenty of
people who appear to get pregnant so that they can get state benefits. I
can't name them, but they seem to appear from time to time.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:03:30 +0100, "Andy Pandy"
wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
. ..

In fact I really don't understand why there is so much hysteria
about
"scroungers". Unless someone is fiddling the system they can't
get
a
reasonable standard of living without working, can they?

Depends what you mean by reasonable. A family on the dole generally
gets about 90% of what they'd get on a single average income (I've
provided the figures many times).

I haven't seen this.

Quick cut and paste (figures are for last year so the benefits will be
a little more this year, the working families figures will be almost
the same). Figures assume a family with 2 school age kids.

Unemployed family:

IS/JSA(IB): £5249
Child tax credit: £5015
Child ben: £1726
Housing benefit/LHA [1]: £7800
Council tax ben: £1200
Free school meals:£500
Free prescriptions/dentist:£200

Total £21690

Working family on £30k:

Wage: £30000
Tax: -£4705
NI: -£2671
Travel to work (assume £3 a day): -£720
Child tax credit: £545
Child ben: £1726

Total £24175

[1] LHA rate for 3-bed house in Manchester. This will be much more in
London.

From my personal experience we need two decent
incomes to raise an ordinary family, to provide our children with
the
minimum expected.

Partly because of independant taxation. The idea that you tax an
income which supports a family of 4 the same as an income which
supports a single person. People abroad really don't understand how we
put up with it. It means the gain to work for the first earner is
trivial (as above) but the gain with the second earner is very
significant.

This results in a sharp divide between 2-earner households and no
earner households. Despite having lower unemployment than most of the
EU, we have the highest proportion of children living in jobless
households. It creates a divided society, increasing child poverty.

This doesn't include things such as multiple cars,
iphones, HD TVs, good holidays and XBOXs etc. Nearly all the
families
I know both parents have to work.

Indeed if benefits are so good why don't more people give up their
jobs and why do people buy income protection insurance?

Generally people don't have a clue. The number of times I've quoted
figures like the above and people haven't believed me.

Insurance is often sold to the stupid at silly prices - PPI, extended
warranties, Super CDW, etc. A few years ago I bought a PAYG mobile for
£30 and was offered insurance at £5 a month!! Yet apparently some
idiots pay it! Most people seem totally incapable of assessing risk
and reward.

--
Andy

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:53:43 +0100, Rob Graham
wrote:

On 17/06/2010 16:42, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:53:43 +0100, Rob Graham
wrote:

On 17/06/2010 14:53, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:42:48 +0100, Rob Graham
wrote:



In fact I really don't understand why there is so much hysteria about
"scroungers". Unless someone is fiddling the system they can't get a
reasonable standard of living without working, can they?


You don't need to fiddle the system. You just have plenty of babies, viz
Karen Matthews, to quote one example in the news.

But Karen Matthews faked a kidnap to extort money. I've no idea what
her income was but the crime suggests that it was not "enough".

She did, but the point here about her is that she has seven children.
Money for old rope.

I don't agree. Looking after children is challenging and expensive
IME.

I would totally agree with that. So why get pregnant when you can't
afford it? Because the state will pay. I rest my case.

How many people think of the consequences first I wonder. Very few
I'd guess. Remember 8 out of 10 people are caused by accidents ;-)


They happen to be by five different fathers, but that's not particularly
relevant in this matter.

It may be if they can afford to pay any maintenance.

In any case whether these particular ones can or can't afford
maintenance I don't know (but I can guess), but there are plenty of
people who appear to get pregnant so that they can get state benefits. I
can't name them, but they seem to appear from time to time.

I don't know what to believe. I suspect that the problem is
exaggerated by the gutter press.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.