Here's what's wrong with Britain...

Remove all ads!

You are correct. The issue is the definition of how long a "tight spot" lasts.

 

What do you mean by "the old days?" That phrase is generally a setup for Never, Never Land - a time that never was. For instance, during the Depression, farmers shot their own children, rather than see them slowly starve to death.

What I will say is that there was a sense of shared values within a communtity, mostly during the colonial period. After that, during some of the larger migrations from Europe, it was almost every man for himself, especially in the larger, urban areas. On the frontier, it could be worse, since there was rampant crime and violence in many of those areas, with almost no law enforcement. But I'm not really sure from where "this guy on the radio" is coming from, since it sounds pretty vague regading "local assistance."

If he is talking about a sense of community and shared values, then I tend to agree. I think the breakdown of any sense of community and values is a large part of this problem, that the guy on the radio may be indentifying. The parents in this family have no real values to speak of, at least none that are apparent. This kind of problem tends to come from the top down and not from the bottom upwards. When you have guys in government and CEOs and other execs in major corporations grabbing what they can for themselves, why would you not expect that from the average person on Main Street?

Of course, I can't speak to specific political problems in the UK, because I'm not that familiar with them. So this is only from the PoV of an American. Most of the government hand-outs here are at the top, for the top...while those at the bottom still see some welfare action too, if they are savvy enough to work the system (much like the turds are doing in the article). The welfare queens at the bottom can still lie and cheat as well as the biggest Wall Street CEOs can. It's the people in the middle who mostly get screwed - they tend to get it from all sides.

 

I don't know about 'the old days', but numerous recent studies have found that things like this (and much else) are much better handled on the local levels. When they're handled on those levels, coverage is much wider and corruption much rarer. Unfortunately, supply tends to go down as well, which leads to something of a catch-22. If the Feds handle it, they have lots of money but it all goes to the wrong place. If the local community handles it, they know exactly where it needs to go, but don't have enough to go around. And if some kind of hybrid system sounds too good to be true, that's because it probably is.

 

I don't know about the US but over here the more power local authorities have and the more mayors and local worthies take advantage of it which means that if you're not in their good books you don't get anything even if you should be entitled to.

Centralized administrations use numbers to decide whether or not they should grant some sort of benefit, they don't rely on a personal bias.

I've seen a few things and I for one don't trust local authorities that much.

 

The problem is that localisation of politics only works if it brings with it an increase in accountability. Otherwise, you only increase bureacracy, waste and corruption.

Accountability and transparency are rare commodities in British politics, because our system is geared against them. It's worth remebering that we lack any meaningful written constitution, (beyond the Magna Carta, which American kids seem to learn more about than we do), and that political vested interests see secrecy as the default position for any government activity, not a special privilege for national security matters. It can be very hard to get detailed information on the spend of public money, even though it's the taxpayers'! The recent scandal over expenses was the headline-grabbing tip of a huge iceberg.

Of course, it doesn't help that our media are more interested in TV "stars" falling out of nightclubs at 3am with their knickers round their ankles than reporting on more important matters. It doesn't help that our electorate seem - to butcher Kennedy - to care more about what politicians will do for them, than what politicans can do for the country. Hence, you've got people like our scrounging family here: they depend on handouts, and won't vote for anyone who might cut them.

At some level, the electorate gets the government it deserves, and maybe we, the British people, haven't done ebough to ask the right questions, or ask them often enough and strongly enough. There are so many things wrong in our system at the moment, and no clear route out.

 

Thank you, dmc!

Barmy, the problem you mention happens all over the world. So it's not just Britain.

 

That was my exact thought on it as well. Specifically, I thought, just think how much harder it would be if you actually had to work!

They receive the equivalent of $1500 per week. So about $6K per month. However, one has to remember that this amount is without taxes. To actually have a take home paycheck of around $6K per month, you would need to earn closer to $10K per month. So they basically are able to lead a lifestyle equivalent of that of someone making $120K annually.

Acknowledging that even if you do make $120K a year, things might be tight if you have eight, and hope to eventually have 14, kids. I don't make $120K a year, but even if I did, I certainly wouldn't think it would be a good idea to have eight kids. Nor would most people. The galling part is they want to have yet more kids, and I can only assume that the more kids they have, the bigger their benefit check becomes.

My biggest question is can they do this indefinitely? In the US, you cannot collect unemployment benefits for over a year, and most people on welfare are single parents who are taking care of children during the day instead of going to work. I don't know of many people at all where both parents are stay at home parents. They definitely don't get the equivalent of $120K per year in benefits, and they definitely don't get set up in house of their choosing. In fact, they get rather poor housing - it's specifically called "low income housing".

We do learn about the Magna Carta in the US - it's considered a landmark document - it's the first time a document was written where absolute control was not vested in the monarch.

Well put. In fact, I think that is similar to a Benjamin Franklin quote. I'm not exactly sure on the quote, but it is something to the effect of: Democracy gurantees that the people will never have a government better than they deserve.

 

You know what is imo the real problem? Not that couples with children get some subsidy. It makes sense for the state to try to create some incentive for larger families. I am definitely NOT the only one who has heard pundits, politicians and the like moan about how the European (and I suppose American, to a lesser degree) population is aging and what trouble this all will be, and I'm willing to believe at least some of it. Hey, spending some money to try to induce families to have more children may actually be the cheaper option in the long run. I may even live long enough so some of them might be paying my retirement bills.

The problem is how the system works, not that it exists. Check this:

"But Claire - whose husband Peter gave up his job nine years ago after realising he would rake in more from benefits - is far from happy because she reckons their council semi is too small."

So the guy was happy(ish) to work to support his family, but he actually could get more by just collecting aid rather than working and getting something. What the heck... so the system is not just not creating an incentive, but actively penalizing people who work and have large families? Heck, why shouldn't he do stop working, if that's what would bring the most cash home?

Edit: btw, I noticed they are getting disability benefits, but the article doesn't mention anything about any disabilities and there wasn't anything obvious from the picture. What do you get such benefits for in the UK?

 

Well I'm on top rate DLA for mobility difficulties and mental disability and get less than half of that per month.

Carers allowance applies to multiple DLA applications as well. So if a couple of the children have problems - for each child registered disabled the mother is getting a payment to look after them above and beyond that.

so of £119 a week, probably £50 is carers allowance for the mother or father.
£69 of that then is for disabilities, per week. The mother could be disabled, a couple of the kids may have severe neurodiversity conditions or non-visible physical disabilities.

DLA is applicable to people who have mental disabilities to the extent they require assistance for some portions of the day to 24/7 care. Physical disabilities that endanger a person in normal circumstances (such as being blind, deaf or with a severe level of epilepsy) or a physical disability that limits a persons mobility and ability to go out for things they need or care for themselves at home.

The money is designed to pay for the things required for a person to regain a semblance of normality in everyday life. This should cover pay for time off work for more doctors appointments than average, the necessary equipment and alterations required around the home and the provision of funds to acquire suitable personal transport.

Being entitled to DLA often means you are entitled to an increase in further benefits. I'm currently having to somehow get to the council offices where I live to speak to a benefits advisor to reclaim money owed to me where I've been misadvised. I've even been slated for it by a few of my friends who try and guilt me for "getting money for nothing" which makes me wonder why I'm wasting time getting qualifications to ensure employability, but hey ho

 

I hate it when people who actually deserve any form of disability payment get poked at by others for receiving "something for nothing". In your case, and in the case of others who truly have health issues of some sort that make regular employment impossible (or have children with issues that make working out of the home difficult), I'm all for disability checks because that money is an asset to help them afford the necessary medical care, medicines, equipment, etc., that couldn't be paid for otherwise. It's a wonderful asset when used in the way it was meant to be used.

Now in the case of this family, and others who pretend to have it worse than they actually do (had someone tell me I should play up my asthma so that I could get disability payments - hell no - I wouldn't take that money away from those who could actually use it), I think the government should take a good hard look at them and not only stop payment, but demand that every bit of money they've received be paid back in full with interest added on. I also believe they should be charged for extortion because that's basically what they're doing - extorting money from the government and those who are paying into the pot because that money is regularly deducted from their paychecks. With this family, I also wonder if CPS should possibly be involved as well because this can't be a healthy environment the children are living in, mentally at least. Who knows what these kids are learning from dear ol' mom & dad, and I'd hate to see how their fellow school mates are treating them now that they've had their faces blasted all over the paper and internet because of their parents' blatant lack of disregard for those who actually need that money. They were the ones who decided to become a child factory, not anyone else. If they want to have that many children, they should have to work to support them, not take what they feel they've earned because he can't keep his pants zipped and she can't keep her legs closed. I also think the government should force them to both go through surgical procedures to make sure they can't have any others.

Just my

 

I agree with most that has been posted here.

But that's a tad extreme and you probably got carried away while typing that. Forcing someone to undergo such a procedure wouldn't be characteristic of a free society. No matter how many kids that person had. It's not something that should be done under any circumstances if the person doesn't agree with such a procedure.

I agree though when you post that it's not "a healthy environment" for children. They learn that it is ok to do nothing and wait for money to fall off the sky. What is even worse, they learn that they should even be entitled to complain about not getting enough.

That's a very good point. I guess most people won't disagree when we say that some people actually need to get help from the government to ensure their children get what is necessary for them to be fed and dressed and receive an education. But then there is a difference when the system fails because some unscrupulous persons take advantage of it (such things happen everywhere).

What's so shocking about that very example is that they are quite open about the whole thing and that they have the nerve to complain about not receiving enough money to go on holidays.

 

I probably did... it's just that leechers such as this just piss me off to no end and then people wonder why governments are running so far into the red financially. Hell, here in the US they're saying that Social Security will probably be gone by the time my generation is eligible because of those who have applied for, sued when denied, won, etc., benefits when they're truly not eligible to receive them yet. I just think they should be told "You made the decision, you can pay for it now, not us."

 

Oh, I certainly wasn't arguing that point. If he can collect more in benefits than what he was earning, and if he would lose those benefits if he got a job, then he is definitely making a decision that is better for him financially (and for his family's well being) by not working. I don't fault him as much as I fault the system. What really needs to be done is to set up the system in such a way that there is an incentive for him to work.

For example, the state could say that for every $2 he earns, he would receive $1 less in benefits. Under such a system, he'd have some incentive of working, because his total income when working would be higher than what it currently is - maybe they could even afford a holiday once in a while. At the same time, it would save the state thousands of dollars annually in reduced benefits.

I realize that such a well thought-out idea like this is well beyond the mental capacities of people who have put the current system in place. I know I took at least 15 seconds to come up with such an idea. I agree that with the growing elderly population, having children is something that should be encouraged. However, as soon as the incentive gets to the point that there is a disincentive to be employed, it has gone too far. It is ridiculous that he gets more money by not working than working.

 

I'd be ing in the aisles if it wasn't so painfully fecking true. It really doesn't help clean up this problem that we're in election season at the mo, and as such crazy promises are the order of the day. How any of our main political parties can contemplate any sort of giveaway when our economy is up sh!t creek sans paddle baffles me, but I guess people really are that stupid & selfish. Our current government relies heavily on the votes of the feckless & benefit-dependent, so any notion of cleaning up the system is derided or ignored.

Another parliament of this lot, and we'll be behind Greece in the queue at the IMF.

 

I don't know who said it, but I always liked this quote. "Half the people work for a living, half the people vote for a living."

 

The thing is, these people aren't really doing much. The absurdity is that the bracket they are in - two non-working parents with x children, or whatever - does get them better treatment than what they'd get if the guy was working. At most, they are gaming the system, and even then in a fairly tame way compared to, say, what some big-bum accountants or the like are doing. I can't really blame the parents here - If you could get more money and spend more time with your family at the same time, why wouldn't you?

It's a loophole. It should be closed in the most efficient manner. That's it, really.

 

As an accountant I take offense to that. When we prepare someone's taxes we prepare them as accurately as possible. We work very hard to make sure that everyone takes every deduction/exemption/credit that they are entitled to by law. The returns we prepare are probably some of the most accurate that the government ever sees. We don't make the tax law we only follow it.

 

When I was pregnant I was given a sick-note from my doctor from being 20 weeks pregnant. I had SPD, a condition that meant that the bones in my pelvis sperated way to far. It was really painful, I couldn't walk and couldon't move my legs far enough or fast enough to drive.
However, at the same time, there was a case in the local papers about a woman who was given a sick-note to have one week in four off work as she got acne when she was due on!

 

Well in her defense, acne can be very stressful and you just had to deal with a little pain. Suck it up next time

 

Funny funny guy! (You're still loved, I promise!)

I can feel Sil's pain though... OMG, while I didn't have her problems (thank goodness) I was pregnant with twins and on the border of having gestational diabetes while also having thyroid issues (that for some reason the doctors weren't treating at the time... I'm lucky I had a problem free pregnancy) so I know how painful things can get since it got to a point with the twins, due to the fact that they were almost 2 pounds bigger at birth than most twins, that I could barely move due to the pain in my back from hauling around all that weight.