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.

How do you pay the electric bill with a bloody voucher?

This Government have done a fabulous job of stitching up and demonising the poor. Global Recession? Blame the poor. Banking crisis? Blame benefits claimants. All these articles coming out at the same time bankers pay themselves £1 million+ bonuses for FAILING to do their jobs. Thousands of bank staff made redundant because of losses and these guys still AWARD themselves milions.

The reason a TINY percentage of families appear to receive more than 26K pa in benefits is because most of that money goes directly to private landlords who can charge what they want to house unemployed tenants because the LAs have SOLD all the council houses and haven't built any new ones.

And breathe.

We are on meters. We have asked numerous times to have them taken away. We also live in the far north of Scotland where its bloody baltic. The house needs to be warm for DH and his disabilities, if he is cold, its worse for him.

We suck it up because its what my family needs. When we move in July, we will be on DD rather than meters, and hopefully costs will decrease drastically.

Meters cost the same as bills these days DanJARMouse.

DanJAR you do see the point I am trying to make here I hope

I am not interested in the least in what you spend your money on or judging you. I just think you should afford the same respect to everyone else

It doesn't make any difference to me at all yellowraincoat! I am simply stating that on the information provided, it seems that they are claiming a lot, and spending a lot on things that they could potentially cut back on.

And as I also stated, I use the benefit system and am eternally grateful as otherwise my family would be on the streets. So no, I don't advocate shooting anyone that has ever claimed benefits.

..Sorry, spending a lot on things that they could potentially cut back on other than their heating and food bills.

Ah that explains it then JAR. Meters are terrible things, I know. When I lived temporarily in a flat eith a gas metre when I was homeless and jobless and on benefits I couldn't afford to put money on the gas metre, it ate up roughly £1 per hour. We struggled through the winter in an unhated house. It was just DS and I and we huddled together in the box bedroom with loads of hot water bottles and three duvets on the matress on the floor, going to bed in loads of layers and sleeping together. We spent many an afternoon after school in the local library because it was warm

Sorry your DP is not well. I completely understand your need to keep the house warm, especially in baltic Scotland.

I've been slated on this sort of thing before, with many MNers saying this is not representative of most people on benefits.

IT IS WHERE I WORK! Around the sink estate school I work in, (and have for the past 8 years) this is what I see, of many parents, every day.

My own brother (who I don't speak to) and his children (all in their 20's and 30's) have never worked a day in their lives. But they have all the gadgets / luxuries that I and DH work hard for.

Taking out the DLA stuff (and I think that should be a separate issue) - I'm sorry, parents who choose not to work, deserve to have their benefits capped. The trouble is, they will still spend their £26K on fags / booze / gambling etc. Not on their kids.

ywllow,
that is what your own taxes are for -paying your contribution towards the things you use. But the entire point is that if you can afford to spend money on luxuries you have no right to say you are hard done to and the taxpayer needs to give you more cash, and that if they cut your benefits you will not feed your children. It may not be up to the taxpayer what their tax money gets spent on, but it is reasonable for them to think they are not being hard on someone by cutting their benefits so they can no longer afford luxuries like alcohol,but can still afford to not work, and feed, clothes, house their family etc. The NHS does not provide cosmetic surgery, why should the benefits system be set so that it must be high enought to cover luxuries?

overmydeadbody - £1 AN HOUR! Bloody hell! And I thought the tenner I put on the meter on Saturday which was used up yesterday was expensive!

The bottom line on all this is that many people in this country who work feel they end up with a lot less after tax than some people who don't work and live on benefits.

The opinion polls show The Coalition are winning this arguement. I hope the Coalition will take a long hard look at the tax and benefits system and make sure that people who work, even on minimum wage, have a take home pay well in excess of everyone on benefits.

This is not benefits bashing. It is just commonsense economics. People who work have to have a an incentive to work. If they could earn more on benefits that cannot be good for them or the country.

I am sure The Coalition are going about dealing with this issue in the wrong way and I am annoyed by the cack handed way they are reforming tax and benefits but a start has to be made somewhere.

I am sure they will cut back on something Whackamole

I bet we all could cut back on stuff

I bet David Cameron isnt

I bet Fred Goodwin isnt (well titles maybe)

Why are we hell bent on making life harder for the poorest in society and blaming them for a situation caused by the richest?

It makes no sense to me

I hate the vitriol about benefits on MN. I have a friend who works (volunteers) at the CAB. FWIW, she thinks we need as a nation to spend what we do on benefits (no cuts). She also thinks we spend it very, very badly. She would love to aggregate all the benefits of her clients and re-distribute according to real need. She is also wise enough to know that her judgement is highly subjective and that the idea (correctly) would never "fly".

yellow - I suggest you read what I posted. I have never received any CASH benefits.

tiffany - Any voucher scheme I suspect would allow payment to utility companies.

When we moved into our current house there were key meteres for both gas and electric, both were changed to normal meters for free. One supplier wanted to charge us 100 quid so we changed supplier to one that would change it for free.

I do think these sort of stories are publicised to cause a stir and rile people up and that this sort of situation is an exception rather than rule.

Having said that I have to say that I do sometimes feel frustrated that there are instances when families don't work at all, do nothing to try and find work, treat the benefits system as a lifestyle instead of the life line it was originally intended to be and and still have more income for luxuries and treats than a working family.

Does anyone agree that if you claim benefits and are out of work for a long time that maybe doing something helpful to 'earn' benefits may be a good idea?
There are plenty of elderly or disabled people that need help with shopping or different things, sometimes just being taken out and about.

Come on ladies, what IS it acceptable to spend disposable benefits income on just pretending for the sake of agument that such a thing exists? Not fags, booze, telly or mobile phones, obvo.

Subscriptions to BBC History magazine? Organic fruit? Sports equipment or bikes? Gym membership to sweat off all that junk food? Maths tuition and elocution lessons to help their kids can clinb out of the poverty trap? YHA membership?

Vote please.

catgirl because the Tories get their jollies by watching the proles snapping and snarling at each other,as we well know....

I don't see that guy moaning. I think he's stating the facts.

I don't know why the benefits system always gets bashed.

Like I said, I don't have kids and probably never will. I don't see why my taxes should go towards your kids. I think it's reasonable that kids be educated with the bare minimum of resources in order to save me money.

And BTW I totally agree that there is a very small percentage of 'those families' (y'know, the dodgy ones) but when they insist on going to the media with a sob story that's what we get. We do get a skewed view, but it is what sells papers.

LapsedPacifist - agreed. They should stop paying out billions to bankers too. A kind of undeserved 'banker benefit' if I ever I saw one.

I have claimed benefits and been a banker so I think I should be even handed.

Lapsed - some food, soap and clean clothes for their children might be a good start.

:) oh yes countess - that does explain it

lapsed - i think they are ok to buy forlocks to tug 'umbly

So what londonone? Who cares if it's cash or not? It all spends the same.

Given I have no dependants, I can almost guarantee I've taken less out of the system than you.

Yes diablo, I can smell that family on the bbc website from here.

You know that bit where he said his family didn't have any soap...oh wait no, it didn't say anything about that did it?