[Mark]

The Mail digs up even better examples:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1318028/As-families-face-benefits-cuts-Kelly-Marshall-spent-4-500-BOOB-JOB.html

No!

[Grabcopy]

THE FAMILY OF 12 WHO RAKE IN £95,000 A YEAR IN BENEFITS

With ten children and a rent-free house, Pete and Sam Smith are just one of the families who will be hit by a crackdown on limitless handouts.

The couple, both unemployed, rake in £95,000 a year - and even have breakfast delivered to the door each morning, courtesy of the taxpayer.

Last month it emerged that the Smiths had been moved by the local authority from a house in Bath, which the landlord accused them of wrecking, to the large house in the Bristol suburb of Kingswood.

But Mrs Smith, 36, complained that the house was too small, the breakfast portions too stingy and said she could afford to buy her brood only one Nintendo Wii games console between them.

She claims she is also forced to pay £100 a week to keep her five cats in a cattery.

'It's very cramped here,' she told the News of the World. 'We've been told we might not be given a new house for another nine months, which is ridiculous.

'The breakfast supplied by the council isn't like proper hot food. It's usually eggs, beans, tinned tomatoes and cereal, which isn't really enough for us all and we have to heat it up ourselves.'

The couple have not worked since Mr Smith, 40, resigned from the Army in 2001 to care for his wife, who has curvature of the spine, and their children.

At that time they had three. Mrs Smith receives up to £140-a-week child benefits for her children aged from four months to 14 years.

The family also get disability living allowance, carer's allowance, tax credits and income support.

The total with child benefits is £44,954. They then receive a £950-aweek bed-and-breakfast deal where the council pays for breakfasts delivered to their home, which comes to £49,400 – a total of £94,354 a year.

A spokesman for Bath and North East Somerset Council said it had a legal duty to rehouse the homeless children and that the breakfast delivery deal was a 'temporary' arrangement.

[Daisy]

Have just read through quickly -noone seems to have noticed that we're in a recession with high levels of unemployment,

Don't think that the examples quoted have a whole lot to do with high levels of unemployment ...

[Ruthie]

Don't think that the examples quoted have a whole lot to do with high levels of unemployment ...

I was referring to comments to the effect that people on benefit didn't want to work.

[George183]

David Cameron facing criticism over child benefit cuts http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11473609 What utter tosh!  So 2 people can earn just under £88k per annum between them and receive child benefit but 2 people with just 1 person working/earning say the minimum,  just over £44K per annum, can't.. 

I just wanted to say, that other than the obvious complication that if two earn under £44k but combined they earn way more, still get it, that's just a flaw in the system and I understand that it would probably cost more to fix. But even if you are a single parent earning over 44K you don't need child benefit. Best policy I've seen yet from this government. Totally fair.

But wouldn’t a PAYE increase be even more fair?

Family allowances were introduced for a number of reasons and remember that child benefit replaced child tax allowances as well as family allowances at the end of the 1970s so in effect represent a tax break in recognition of costs of raising children.    Cameron talks about those with the broadest shoulders making the sacrifice but doesn't explain why it should be just those with children ie it would be fairer to make all higher rate taxpayers pay more 

Child benefit is paid to avoid children in Britain dying of malnutrition and hypothermia from lack of food and shelter as they were discovered to be doing by the hundred living in hovels in the big cities following the Rowntree Report of 1904.

Even the Tories think it should be continued to be paid to avoid this happening again.

I have four kids, but am totally opposed to child benefit. Nobody should be GIVEN anything. You should work for it. 

So are you suggesting that jobs should be provided? I agree, but the Tories don’t. They believe in decreasing jobs in the public sector, not increasing them.

-noone seems to have noticed that we're in a recession with high levels of unemployment, which are likely to get even higher following Osborne's public spending cuts.

Right.

[janscribe]

Ah again I'm anything less than completely polite and the fact that I'm being a bad Christian comes up Love the fact that socialists and Christians are lumped together, says the guy whose party leader would like to see a financial bonus for married couples based on his own religious views

Yeah I don't like you based on the views you present here...and I normally make a point of now involving myself in situations where I end up saying that, I try and avoid confrontation with you. I'm a Christian, not perfect. Also your apparent 'you are what you earn' approach isn't really in keeping with what I'm taught by Christ to do...Christ taught that we should look after the poor, infirm and widows, Christ taught that we were to share with each other, support and look after those who couldn't manage themselves.

Anyway I'm taught I should try and love everyone...don't have to like you Jesus overturned the temple and argued and disagreed with the Pharisees and those who stood against him...didn't mean he didn't love them, he just knew that they weren't living a life that was pleasing to God and showing his love to others.

Now before I get yelled at for daring to mention Jesus in any thread but Bible discussion I'm away I've got to make lunch as my mums still off her feet after surgery last week and then I've got the food shop to do before 3 when my neighbour has kindly offered to pick me up

Hazel, don't let them get you down. There are people who live on benefits because they can't be bothered to do anything else or because thatis the way they are better off. Sometimes you cant blame them - our society has been made a benefit society over the years so why bother with anything else - that seems to be the attitude of many. I have been trying to keep up with this thread and hate the way that some people group others into a category without knowing anything about them or their circumstances. We know the problems you have been having with your back and occasionally James tells us about his own problems. Two intelligent, decent and well-educated young people trying to do something with their lives whilst coping with so many problems.
Daisy, I know where you're coming from but with all the compassion you give to your people you greet at the hospital where you give so much of your free time - spare a little for those we know on here who are genuinely in need of state help or at least give them the benefit of stating their case. Not everyone is transparent on here about the problems of their day to day lives, sometimes MW is an escape where they are just another member, normal etc and can forget their problems while they are on line. Maybe it's not such a good idea to get to know each other too well but I have come to know you as a very caring human being and while I get angry at those frauds who literally play the benefits system for all they can get, I have to know someone a good deal better before I criticise them. I have often wondered why James, with all his academic qualifications chooses to stay as a progressing students, this thread has told me why and I can only applaud the efforts he is making.
Hazel is another matter, what she feels, religion or no religion,  is common human decency as far as I'm concerned and I am so sorry that two such promising young people are so handicapped with physical problems that they are unable at the present time to continue their intented careers and support themselves. Thank heavens they have supportive families. Believe me I would be the first to condemn if they were 'swinging the lead' so to speak. 

[Sir Panda]

I love you Nigel.