Yes it's the DM, yes it's about a large family on benefits, but surely even if only half of it is true it's shocking!

[StrawberriesAndCherries]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265508/Peter-Davey-gets-42-000-benefits-year-drives-Mercedes.html

Are they wrong to get what they are entitled to?

42K a year though - I must be going wrong somewhere!!!

"The country needs people to be stuck in lives with no hope and no pride and no chance of change?"

Well, yes... of course it does.

But it needs to tell them that it's their own fault, otherwise there'd be revolution

That's really awful. Ok. At the risk of sounding really stupid - why? Why do we 'need' an underclass?

got to bog off now, taking the kids out. But am really interested in learning about this. It is an idea that is new to me and something I have never thought of before.

Justmy: are you aware how close to impossible it is, these days, for a person to start in a low-level menial job and actually make any progress? Everything's contract work, shift work, zero-hours contracts and no security, the large companies who have a pool of workers they consider interchangeable, easily replaceable and not worth more than as far under the minimum wage they can go without getting busted have no interest in training or encouraging the workers - it's no wonder that a lot of people feel they would be worse off in work.

Okay, so let me understand this:

Those of you who are angry at this family, it's because you don't want your taxpayer money going to families you deem undeserving?

But I don't see a lot of threads about CEOs and MPs, however much it's claimed that you know that's a problem too.

And there's always the sticky problem that every loophole you close strangles a whole lot of genuinely needy people.

So, maybe you don't want the system to change per se (because that would penalise far more people than it solved this 'problem') you're just angry at these people. Yes?

Because...they're getting something (benefits, no need to work, Sky) that you want and can't have? But you can have it, if it's as simple as 'they just choose not to work' then you can just not work as well. Simple!

Oh, but, you don't actually want to give up work and live on benefits? Why not? If you're saying Well I'd Love To Have Three Children But, why not do so?

Because you know that it's not fun living on benefits, it's demeaning? Well, then, what are we jealous of here?

And lastly, if you want to talk about unfair advantages and people getting something they're not entitled to, can I just point out that if you are white, middle class, cisgendered, heterosexual and able bodied you already have a shitload of privilege, and you are already getting a hell of a 'start' over a less privileged person. I'm sure you work hard, and all, as do I, but I also know that my privilege has eased my way through life, and I bet yours has too.

So who's getting something for nothing?

yes.

I had a crap job. married a man who had a crap job. quit crap jobs. stuck a pin in a map and went there. found a flat and another crap job. got pregnant, bought a house (by doing something very dodgy involving not actually having the deposit! agreed with seller, long story). got pregnant again. started a business with £50. built it up and ran it for 4 years. Had VERY good life, pots of money! Both kids got diagnosed with several things (see profile). I got ill. Lost business. lost house. did a runner. found a rental where they DIDN'T do a credit check! got notice a year later cos they wanted a family member to have house, because of family's disabilities got HA accom, thank god. Got declared bankrupt by IR. Had very risky surgery. Got discharged. Existed on benefits. Now in process of preparing to start a web business and climb back up and out.

I know how hard life can be. I also know you have to fight your way through and you don't accept staying at the bottom of the pile.

It's not about living on benefits. Dear god I am the last person to say anything about having benefits when you need them. They're a lifeline - as I said in my very first post. But they're a lifeline not a lifestyle!

really heading out now. Bloody kids taking ages to get themselves ready!

It's interesting how some posters don't actually read the reasons why some people find this story so shocking. I suppose it's easier to make all sorts of assumptions about people's reasons rather than listen.

And I'm gobsmacked at the assumptions about the gender, social class, ethnicity, health and sexual orientation of people posting.

Bloody brilliant post JustMyTwoPenceWorth.

You sound like an inspiration.

I think the benefit system requires reform
Expansion of the underclass doesn't benefit society imho

I totally agree with EldonAve.

well apart from anything, those kids aren't going to grow up with much of a work ethic are they, which is a shame

the system is definitely a bit screwed if people are worse off working

apart from that, 42k doesn't seem that much to bring up 7 kids on, (although not bad for not having to earn any of it it must be said) however aiming for 14 seems utterly ridiculous

however-£160 a week at tesco's- she's doing quite well there isn't she? to feed 9 people

It's the whole "having more children" that actually repulses me.

How dare they keep procreating when they cannot afford the ones they've got? I know it's been done to death earlier but we really need to cap child benefits so it isn't possible to produce more children to collect more money.

Violethill, since that's clearly aimed at me, why not say so?

I gave several alternative reasons as to why people could be objecting to this story. If I've missed yours, please do elucidate.

You clearly haven't read the thread if you haven't picked up why a lot of people object to it.

But I guess its easier to assume that people must be envious(!) or secretly want to have 8 or 14 kids themselves (god what a thought!) or really want to be bashing bank chiefs or tax dodging MPs but are too scared so transfer onto a family on benefits instead (er nope! I'm quite happy to bash both - they are both a disgusting example).

And as for the assumptions about gender, ethnicity, social class etc .... well, as I say, I am gobsmacked. I make no assumptions when reading posts, thank god I'm not so narrow minded as to think that anyone with a different opinion must be 'X class' or 'Y gender' or 'Z orientation'. Clearly some people do have these prejudices though

P.S To sum up the reasons many people object:

• a civilised society operates on the basis of supporting the genuinely needy. It operates on give and take. This family are clearly irresponsible and only want to take. In their own words, they 'don't care' that the state is funding their lifestyle choice. They are complaining about their lot, and expect a bigger house so they can have up to 14 children

• there are limited resources to go around. That is a fact. Even if you raise taxes, there is still a ceiling on resources available. Therefore, it is not reasonable to use resources just because you can't be bothered to work, or feel you have some kind of entitlement to get what you want.

• the children in this family are being raised with a shocking example of how civilised society functions. They are being raised to have no sense of social responsibility, just entitlement. For anyone with a genuine concern with social welfare and wellbeing, that should be shocking.

• the above points apply equally to anyone else who is taking the piss out of the system, whether they are bank chiefs/MPs/unemployed parents with countless children.

However I'm sure you won't take the slightest notice of my reasons, as you've already decided for everyone else what their reasons are.

They want more kids and have no plans to change their situation. They seem to view the benefits system as some kind of career choice. What a couple of animals.

PPS

I am sure there are people who do object on the grounds that you described tortoiseonthehalfshell. I'm not naive - I know why the Daily Mail prints those kind of stories, and I'm sure the sort of people who buy the DM lap it up and rant about 'our bloody taxes being wasted on feckless idiots' etc

But this is not the DM. This is a thread discussing an issue on Mumsnet, and I'd like to think that MN ecompasses a broader profile, and hopefully a more intelligent one, than the DM readership.

I think you are in danger of confusing the two things in your mind, and treating the average MNer as if they are a DM reader, and assuming that they have a particular mindset and political stance. Look beyond that and read what people are actually writing, and credit them with a bit more intelligence and insight.

It annoys me because I can't afford another baby although I would love one.
It annoys me because it stigmatises people who have to claim benefits through circumstance, not choice.

It annoys me because it plays into the hands of the dm and dt readership, and suggests that everyone on benefit gets a merc from the state.

(expecting criticism here but) I don't think that children who have been bought up in that environment are going to be a useful part of our workforce. I imagine they hoover up school time and medical time and need lots of 'support'.

This country, quite simply, cannot afford this.

It's entirely possible to be a supporter of the benefits system for the genuinely needy, and as a short-term fix, and yet still feel that this family are taking the piss. I don't like the idea that those of us who can see the injustice here are somehow blanket heartless benefit-bashing bastards.

I've been on benefits. It's quite possible that you have - or know someone who has. It was a while back, in the 1990s. I had to spend a total of about 12 weeks in my life claiming Income Support, or it might still have been called Supplementary Benefit then.

At every stage of the process I was ruthlessly interrogated to make sure I was not a piss-taker. It was made abundantly clear to me that this was a stopgap, one which a civilised society recognises should be in place, and not a substitute for getting a job. I accepted this, because I wanted to work. And if I had been claiming for any more than the 12 weeks or so I had to claim, they'd have sent me on one of their courses or made me start going to interviews for jobs. And if I refused, my benefit would have been cut. Why has this not happened to this family?

Of course, as a naive young 20something man with no dependants, and no experience of playing the system, I was an easy touch. It's probably simpler to clamp down on people like the young me, green and wanting to work, than on people who have homes, six kids, 20-inch plasma TVs and a Wii habit to support.

I don't think there is truly anyone who looks at this family and thinks that their behaviour is acceptable.

Yes, I do judge them. If it were my brother I would give him a good kick up the arse. My brother has a family income about half of what this family have but they do not get much in the way of benefits. They are just above the minimum for most benefits apparently.

At the same time I do not agree that capping child benefit is the way to stop scammers like this.

Does anyone really believe that there are loads of people out there who have more babies to get more money?

And those who already have a large family, should they be penalised because they have more than the standard 2.2 kids to prevent the very rare case like this?

I know it's taboo but I don't think people should really be having 7 kids and aiming for 14 regardless of their financial circs.

Those kids will grow up, have kids too. The country and the planet need to look at managing the population downwards not upwards imo.

I know it's a reviled view on here but I can't help it.

WRT JustMy's question earlier: (Capitalist) society requires there to be a strata at the bottom. Put simply, whilst there are people at the top, there needs to be people at the bottom. There has to be someone to blame when the poor become uneasy and angry. There needs to be a section of society who aspire to poorly paid jobs. There needs to be people who those in low paid jobs can look down on, as this pushes them to work harder- if they can identify themselves as above the bottom strata then they begin to aspire to the next strata above, and work to get there (never mind that only a few ever will).

WRT to the naive proposal to cap child benefit at a certain number of children: what happens when parents disregard this and go on to have more children, without giving a toss about how they will afford them? What happens to those subsequent children? How do they get fed?