I think this benefit family need to take a long hard look at themselves

[HungryHelga]

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

£20 a week in the pub

£15 a week for Sky

£32 a week on mobile phones.

A large pouch of tobacco AND 200 fags, plus 24 cans of lager.

£30,284.80 a year in benefits

And this family thinks they are hard done by?

Ridiculous. The benefits system in this country is totally out of control.

this seems to be the whole theme of this thread, if anyone comes up with a logical arguement as to why earning the average wage for not working is ok, and not being able to afford alcohol etc is not being hard done to, they are ignored and told they are jealous because they have to work, or selfish and want to put non-workers in workhouses.
not once has anyone said why non-workers deserve an above average wage, and why it is wrong that they may not be able to afford luxuries.
If the cap comes in anyone who disagrees with it is welcome to donate their own money to those who have had their benefits capped, but if cuts are not made we will not get cheap loans, we will only b given very high interest loans which we could not pay back, and we will end up like Greece, and then there will be even less money for benefits, schools, NHS etc. No-one is obliged to givve us loans, and I do not think marching up to the loan givers and telling them they are jealous, and we want our non-workers ot get an above average wage and be able to afford luxuries, is going to convince them to continue to lend us billons. Lenders lost a huge amount on Greece, they are not going to risk the same with the UK.

There are two people of working age in this house. So they are not getting more than the average wage, they are living on HALF the average wage.

FFS

if they didn't have 8 children they'd be well below the cap anyway - their child-related benefit is nearly £390 a week

AND bringing up SIX children from 2 families.

Well done them for taking the responsibility!

Ponders - good point - the cut is actually cutting out the childrens child benefit.

interesting comment from the dad that "I would love to be able to say that we are living in one of these eight-bedroom mansions that everyone is up in arms about, but no, we are stuck in a three-up, two-down house that has external measurements of barely 19ft by 25ft"

if all "benefit families" with 6 or more children were similarly housed, & capped at £26K net - outside London anyway; there should still be a cap in London, but higher - it would be much fairer all round (& stop the DM whinging...)

Of course, it was the loan givers who lost all the money in the first place... I wonder where all the money to lend to this country is coming from? Amazing how we managed to prop up the banks and then go cap in hand to ask for the money back in cheap loans.

I don't have a problem with the idea of looking at the benefit system and finding ways to make it fairer. What I have a problem with is looking for a family in a tiny house in Wales who drink and smoke and using that as the reason for justifying capping benefits at the level and in the way being proposed. Why not look at a family in London where the benefit cap will hit the hardest, and not choose a family that drinks and smokes in preference to feeding their children?

I agree most people affected by this will be londoners with children, possibly disabled children, like Cameron but not like Cameron because they are only proles, init.

It is wrong to spend your money this way if it is at the expense of your childrens well being no matter how you get that money. It is like only those on benefits live like this. They don't. If you work and spend all your £ on alcohol and cigarettes and your children go without you are wrong too. As someone said earlier they never show a normal family who have ended up on benefits doing their best with what they have and trying to make a change.

What the graph shows quite clearly is that the money that is being cut is the child benefit.

but with this family in Wales, child benefit is a small proportion of total benefits - even with 8 children it's only £87.30 out of £582.40 - just under 15%

I agree it would be interesting to see a selection of similar breakdowns for different families in different circumstances in different parts of the country

it would also be interesting, if the data is available, to see how many families living on benefits have 4/5/6/7/8 or more children, & the effect of a cap both on different families & on the Exchequer

I know why nobody ever looks for the good examples - because it's easier to justify your own behaviour and selfishness if you look for someone behaving worse than you.

The only way to change entrenched beliefs and self justifications is for those with the most power, money and influence to start changing their behaviours first or most - ie to create something worth looking up to and to lead by example. If they refuse to do that and instead look down on everyone else and criticise them and tell them to work harder for less, or even worse, demonstrate a complete lack of interest in the lives and fates of those they consider to be beneath them, then everyone ends up entrenched in an orgy of self-justification and position-protecting.

actually my parents lived like this, we hardly ever had days out and family times, yet they both smoked over 20 a day each.
so 280 cigarettes a week and lots of booze probably two large boxes so maybe 48 cans? something like that a week, plus going out to the club three times a week!

it actua;;y makes me quite cross that some people do this type of thing, fair enough not saying never go out, never drink, but to spend basically all spare money on that and nothing else is not on

ffs take your kids to the zoo or on a nice day out for once in a while.

Have not read it all but to the basic point is this. The parents in the family have no incentive to work because they can have a comfortable lifestyle on benefits. Many working people who pay taxes cannot afford the things that this family can (Sky TV, 200 fags per week, nights at the pub). That cannot be right and is certainly not sustainable. The benefits system incentivises people in certain circumstances to have more children to maximise benefits - that should change. That is why people are upset and start ranting.

They aren't upset because these people have nicer, more comfortable lives than them - if that were really true, they would go onto benefits too, if they could. Life is NOT solely about material comfort. People are upset because these people DO have an incentive to work, but they are so sad and pathetic that they have lost any sense of pride or self-worth. Since when is smoking lots of fags and drinking excessively a lifestyle to be jealous of, or one that can be blamed solely on having the money available to do it?

rabbitstew,
It is well known that working, whatever it may be, is good for self esteem and mental health. That is an end in itself, and is both good for society and good for the individual. The guy in question has no incentive to do that because working will make him materially poorer. By actually working, his family will have less of the few things that they enjoy. That is perverse and should change. The benefits cap is a small step in that direction.

I've already said I have no objection to the currently unfair benefits system being reviewed. If nobody is willing to work for less than they can receive in benefits, because the gains in self esteem would be outweighed by the losses in income, then yes, the differential between what the lowest paid in society earn and what people on benefits can receive needs to be reviewed - NOT because all unemployed people are lazy scroungers who drink and smoke, but because society as a whole is not willing to support the current minimum standard of living supported by the government (which in some parts of the country is a very low standard, but in other parts of the country can support quite a good lifestyle) and the benefits system is inadequate at supporting those most in need rather than supporting those who shout the loudest and fill in the most forms.

What I object to is the anger at the people on the benefits, as though they are ALL undeserving parasites. You shouldn't justify change on the back of the blameworthy and sweep under the carpet the effect on everyone else. A bit more honesty would be helpful - although if being honest, everyone would have to admit it's a trade off between creating a system that is simple to operate and one that is fair. Coming up with a blanket maximum amount is simple, it is not fair - some people still get away with being lazy scroungers who can't be bothered to get jobs and others have their lives severely and unfairly messed about.

Rabbit,

I agree with most of that. The truth is that in any system, if you give people economic incentives to behave in a certain way then some of them will, regardless of whether it is what most think is 'moral' (or right) or not. It is upto the government to design the welfare systems so that the economic incentives are for individuals to act in a way that is good for our society. The problem with what we have now is that it is so complicated that it provides incentives for people to act in a way that is not in the public good. I quite like IDS's idea of having a single benefit (greatly simplyfying calculations) but it should not for instance disincentivise work or give people incentives to have more children.

Luxuries? On benefits? I'd LOVE to fucking know how. I have the net ONLY because my UNCLE pays the bill. I put £10 a MONTH on my mobile - as it is my only phone. DD gets her phone credit paid for out of the MAINTENANCE from her father. Yes she attends trampoline lessons once a week - but again, that is paid for out of the MAINTENANCE. I have not been 'out' since my uncle got free tickets to a rock concert through his work. The concert was in 2008. I do not drink (am teetotal). I gave up smoking in 2009. My Ex-P pays for sky TV for the dc, the most very basic package, AND the TV license. As ADDITIONAL maintenance - he CHOOSES to do that. Because if he didn't, they wouldn't have TV at all.

I'd love to know exactly how the fuck they HAVE the money to pay all their bills AND do this stuff too - because I don't. If I didn't get maintenance for the dc - they would have NONE of this stuff. They would get up, go to school, come home, and sit indoors looking at 4 walls, because I can't afford bus fares to the library, and there isn't a park within walking distance either. What a fucking life. Really inspiring for them. Really would make them want to bother with life, eh.

As it is, my 9yo is getting depressed because I can't afford for him to do the same things his school friends do - like go on holiday, or have a bike, or have named brand clothes (which he gets picked on for NOT having, it alienates him and sets him apart) . Ever. And when I SAY depressed, I mean in the clinical, chemical imbalance sense. That's a hell of a lot to put on 9yo's because their parents either can't or won't work...

(In my case can't - but I am hopeful of that situation improving in 2 years time).

And can I ask why most of you are demonising those on benefits because they cannot EARN as much by working do not see that 99% of those on benefits are getting the minimum the LAW states they need to live off to NOT be in poverty.

If that is MORE than someone on NMW earns - then surely that states a case for NMW to rise, rather than for benefits to be cut BELOW the minimum the law states is needed NOT to be in poverty?

If NMW was a liveable amount for a standard family in the SE - then surely the paltry amount paid on benefits would be so much lower as to BE a deterrent to chosing a 'benefits lifestyle'? And an incentive to take paid work?

WHY can't everyone be so about the shitty amount paid to over 50% of the british workforce, rather than the shitty amount given to those who are unemployed.

YES, wages SHOULD be higher than benefits. Doesn't mean that benefits need to be cut. It means that wages have to rise. (Which would also mean that tax revenues would rise, you know...)

And OK, THIS family might have the wrong priorities - it doesn't follow that EVERY family, or even the majority of families on benefits have the wrong priorities. Most of the families I know on benefits WANT to work - but can't get childcare for the job they are offered, or can't afford to pay their rent and childcare on NMW, or have been out of work childrearing for too long and have no useful qualifications and can't afford to retrain, keep applying for jobs but not even getting interviews. I do not know of ANYONE who has chosen to be out of work, out of at least 30 families I can think of off the top of my head that claim benefits.

That's the other thing - where do people on benefits that have been out of work for some time GET the money to retrain? Their electric budget? Their food budget?

Huntycat it is possible to have some luxeries. I know someone very close to me that doesn't work and gets approx £120 a week for single parent unemployed with one child. Rough breakdown of her weekly expenses are:-

Food £25
Electric £20
Council Tax £7
TV license £3
sky/broadband/telephone £10
house insurance £3
mobile £2.50

She lives in the same town as me and where we live everywhere is accessible, the most you'd have to walk is about 40 mins from one end of town to other so there is no need for bus fares and she doesn't own a car. So every week she has about £50 left over to buy clothes/fags/go out. Granted £50 isn't really that much but its not like she has to but new childrens clothes every week. So she has enough to go out most weekends and smoke.

And thats not including any maintenance (i dont think she gets any tbh).

And why SHOULD british workers be so cowed as to accept LESS than a living wage for Britain in the 21st Century? We AREN'T India. OK, we can't stop companies from threatening to fuck off to India or China if we raise NMW to a liveable level - but I doubt that it will happen in the way we keep getting told it will.

WHY SHOULD the people who actually DO the hard physical work be forced to work for peanuts? When the people who reap the profits from that hard work tend to have jobs that involve less MANUAL labour, and more INTELLECTUAL labour. Which is, I'm afraid just NOT AS HARD PHYSICALLY. Intellectual work does not shorten your lifespan. Manual labour does. WHY should those at the bottom be threatened into silence by those at the top threatening to remove everything by leaving the country?

Something stinks here, and it ISN'T the odd benefit claimant who seems to make fuck all spread to luxuries that most on benefits can't, as if by magic.

How the HELL does she feed her dc a well balanced diet, AND feed herself too, on just £25 a week. THAT is where the money is coming from. You'd seriously be hard pushed to afford value noodles at that price, which have the same nutritional content as cardboard IMO. Bet she isn't buying 5-a-day of fruit and veg for her dc, is she? I am. THAT'S where my money goes.

Your friend has her priorities wrong, it doesn't follow that every benefit claimant does.

She is taking money for a well balanced diet for her dc, and spending it on nights out and fags - that's surely a child protection issue NOT A benefits issue?

In order to feed a healthy, balanced diet, it takes roughly a minimum of £40 per person per week. So her shopping bill should be in the region of £80 a week. Which would take care of every penny she uses to go out.