Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Jobless couple given �500,000 home
A detached eight bedroom house with its own garden and driveway has been given to a jobless couple with 12 children. It is a house that many dream of being able to afford but this family have not had to pay a penny. They were given the house after their former home was burnt down in a fire. Neither of the parents has a job � claiming they would earn less if they worked. The couple receive an astonishing �44,000 a year in benefits. What do you think? Are these people lazy scroungers? Or are they working an unfair system to their own benefit � something we should all think of doing?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Asks. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
i find this quite funny...
"Mr Gillespie, 34, said: "We're not scroungers and if it was economical for me to work then I would do. "
his wife then goes on to say....
"Mrs Gillespie, 36, added: "All our kids are in school and they want to make something of themselves and not just scrounge and live off the dole. "
so their not scroungers however they dont want their children to be scroungers and live off the dole just like they are perhaps?!
"Mr Gillespie, 34, said: "We're not scroungers and if it was economical for me to work then I would do. "
his wife then goes on to say....
"Mrs Gillespie, 36, added: "All our kids are in school and they want to make something of themselves and not just scrounge and live off the dole. "
so their not scroungers however they dont want their children to be scroungers and live off the dole just like they are perhaps?!
Well I am off to write my notice so that I can get on have 12 children, and live on the dole in a state of luxury whilst all you poor so and so's go to work.
Oh just forgot, I remember now that whilst doing some studying I came accross the theories of motivation. Damn the theories time and time again demonstrate that once someone's basic needs are met, an income we are motivated by fulfilling our social needs, our desire to feel useful, creative, important, needed and thats why we go to work. Also forgot, I have a large house paid for, so no free house for me, and when I was on the sick for 3 months I was desperate to come back to work, so I had something to moan about.
Oh just forgot, I remember now that whilst doing some studying I came accross the theories of motivation. Damn the theories time and time again demonstrate that once someone's basic needs are met, an income we are motivated by fulfilling our social needs, our desire to feel useful, creative, important, needed and thats why we go to work. Also forgot, I have a large house paid for, so no free house for me, and when I was on the sick for 3 months I was desperate to come back to work, so I had something to moan about.
As a taxpayer and someone who believes that benefit should be a short term safety net and NOT a lifestyle choice, I'm incredibly angry at the system that enables this abuse to take place. And yes, I do also blame those parents. If you are unemployed/unemployable/financially rocky, how dare you spawn more and more hungry mouths knowing damn well that no civilised society can see them starve.
I think an example should be made. Take the children under 16 into care. Tell the "parents" that they themselves are free to find full time employment. In fact, if they fail to find jobs, they'll starve. Oh, and take that nice house, put it back on the market and with the proceeds of it's sale plough it back into local govt coffers. Having a disabled neighbour and seeing how he and his wife struggle financially through tragic circumstances, I wish this stupid, stupid shower of a government would take as much care of them as they do the able-bodied, over-breeding, bone-idle trash in our midst.
I think an example should be made. Take the children under 16 into care. Tell the "parents" that they themselves are free to find full time employment. In fact, if they fail to find jobs, they'll starve. Oh, and take that nice house, put it back on the market and with the proceeds of it's sale plough it back into local govt coffers. Having a disabled neighbour and seeing how he and his wife struggle financially through tragic circumstances, I wish this stupid, stupid shower of a government would take as much care of them as they do the able-bodied, over-breeding, bone-idle trash in our midst.
I'm sorry, but my husband and I have worked our butts off for years and now have three wonderful adult children. We used to have to lock the pantry to keep the children from eating up all our food before we could afford to buy more. Now we have one child in the military, but since my husband has no higher education, we can still barely afford food at times. I boils my blood to see people in the same boat as me get things for free, especially because of their ethnicity. We are white and when we did apply for public assistance in the past were treat like scum of the earth because we are white. The more I think about the more it angers me that some have to work themselves to death while others get a free ride!
I have several friends (at least three couples) with six children (each family), but none are on public assistance. These are hard working couples in which both work full time jobs and share child care responsibilities. Raising a family can be done without totally depending on help or assistance. It's the mentality of the people involved that needs to be addressed. If I could live in a house that size and get that kind of annual income, I just might consider having more children. HAHA! No way! Public assistance is meant to be temporary, not permanent. It's to help people throught the rough spots only, not to fund their enitre lives and the lives of their children.
For over 20 years I worked for the DHSS for most of the time on what was then called Income support. Spitfire it might surprise you to learn that the ethnic minority share your view but in reverse i.e. If I had been white I could have had ===.
All claims are now made on paper no-one can tell the colour of your skin from a form.
Having read the article they are claiming for 11 children, the eldest joined the army last week.
I note that nothing has been said about the absent father, does he contribute? or does the tax payer pick up the entire bill .
Normally either parent would need to be available and actively seeking work, it may be that the employment agency have worked out that there is little point persuing the actively seeking work part as no employers plus tax credits could give the same level of income.
No employer pays you extra when you have a baby but the benefit system does, and extra again as the child grows up. Equally the benefit decreases when the child starts work or claims in their own right. There have been many ideas on how to change the way and the amount of benefit paid, but none including the existing method are fair to all.
All claims are now made on paper no-one can tell the colour of your skin from a form.
Having read the article they are claiming for 11 children, the eldest joined the army last week.
I note that nothing has been said about the absent father, does he contribute? or does the tax payer pick up the entire bill .
Normally either parent would need to be available and actively seeking work, it may be that the employment agency have worked out that there is little point persuing the actively seeking work part as no employers plus tax credits could give the same level of income.
No employer pays you extra when you have a baby but the benefit system does, and extra again as the child grows up. Equally the benefit decreases when the child starts work or claims in their own right. There have been many ideas on how to change the way and the amount of benefit paid, but none including the existing method are fair to all.
This problem isnt something new. I will refer you back to a certain 'old woman' who lived in shoe, we are alarmed to find out that she had 'so many children she didnt know what to do'. This was probably back in the 1700s, there is no indication of a husband on the scene and this is long before the Poor Law of the 19th century and any benefits system wouldve been set up.
nikkiB
take those under 16 into care
Application to Court by social worker for Care Order - cost ?
Parents apply for legal aid
Courts appoint solicitor to act for children - cost?
Court appoints Guardian ad litem for children - cost?
Local Authority Solicitor - cost?
Hearing in Court for 6 months to a year - cost?
Care Order granted, children placed in care - payment cost?
Not absolutely sure we need an accountant and a solicitor to put us right. What are we looking at to send these parents a message. Maybe �35,000 per child, times 12 or maybe only 10 under 16. OK some of the costs might be less over subsequent years, but this is really scary money apart from the very real cost to the children. But, hey ho lets punish these parents for making lifestyle choices neither you nor I want to make!
take those under 16 into care
Application to Court by social worker for Care Order - cost ?
Parents apply for legal aid
Courts appoint solicitor to act for children - cost?
Court appoints Guardian ad litem for children - cost?
Local Authority Solicitor - cost?
Hearing in Court for 6 months to a year - cost?
Care Order granted, children placed in care - payment cost?
Not absolutely sure we need an accountant and a solicitor to put us right. What are we looking at to send these parents a message. Maybe �35,000 per child, times 12 or maybe only 10 under 16. OK some of the costs might be less over subsequent years, but this is really scary money apart from the very real cost to the children. But, hey ho lets punish these parents for making lifestyle choices neither you nor I want to make!
Reading the link shows they get �44,000 a year in benefits and allowances but �18,000 of that is Housing Benefit (HB). Housing Benefit is based upon the reasonable rent for the house/flat in question. Considering the house is estimated to be worth �500,000 it follows the monthly rent would be enormous. If they were living in a less valuable or smaller house, their HB would be lower.
I find it difficult to get so worked up about this. I might be more bothered if it was a common situation, but there are very few families this large, even if the Daily Mail does manage to pick on them all for the easy headlines it creates. Surely what matters is the welfare of the 12 children. Do people seriously think they should be punished for the actions of the parents? How many of the people on here condemning them would work if they'd lose money as a result? It's the fault of the benefit system. What else should the council do with an 8 bedroom house - give it to a childless couple? And as for the �44k a year, when you take off the housing benefit which goes to pay the rent, and the council tax benefit, they're left with �2,040 a month to feed and clothe 14 people (according to the Daily Mail figures). Hardly going to give a life of luxury. I find it sad that everyone pre-judges these people, being on benefits doesn't automatically turn them into monsters. They may, or may not be good parents, who knows. But cramming them all into a bedsit is hardly likely to help the children to grow up into well-adjusted adults.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.