"We get £17,680 a year in benefits... why work?"

• Lie wrote on 2013-01-28 06:13

  Quote from The Sun:

  A SKIVING couple told last night how they claim £17,680 a year in benefits — and don’t even bother looking for work because it would leave them worse off.
  
  Danny Creamer, 21, and Gina Allan, 18, spend each day watching their 47in flatscreen TV and smoking 40 cigarettes between them in their comfy two-bedroom flat.
  
  It is all funded by the taxpayer, yet the couple say they deserve sympathy because they are “trapped”.
  
  They even claim they are entitled to their generous handouts because their hard-working parents have been paying tax for years.
  
  

  [Image: http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01662/SNN2710GX3_1662001a.jpg]

  
  
  The couple, who have a four-month-old daughter Tullulah-Rose, say they can’t go out to work as they could not survive on less than their £1,473-a-month benefits.
  
  The pair left school with no qualifications, and say there is no point looking for jobs because they will never be able to earn as much as they get in handouts.
  
  Gina admits: “We could easily get a job but why would we want to work — we would be worse off.”
  
  Danny’s father, 46, even offered him a job with his bowling alley servicing company — but could not pay him enough.
  
  Danny’s mum, 45, works as a carer, while Gina’s mum, 46, is a teacher and her dad, 53, is a manager with a security company.
  
  Yet their parents’ work ethic has not rubbed off on Danny and Gina. Instead, they claim they are entitled to benefits because of their parents’ tax contributions — and even complain they should be given MORE.
  
  Gina, flaunting fake tan and perfectly manicured nails, said: “I don’t see that we’re living off the taxpayers, we’re entitled to the money our parents paid all their lives.
  
  “They’ve worked so hard since they left school and I’m sure they’d rather it went to us than see us struggle. They pay a lot of tax, and although they’d rather we weren’t in this situation and one of us had a job, they understand why we are where we are. We can’t help it, we’re stuck like it.”
  
  Danny, who quit his job as a supermarket shelf-stacker after eight months, admitted: “I could easily go and work for my dad. He’s got a job for me, but could only afford to pay for my travel and accommodation because I’d be going around the country.
  
  “After that he wouldn’t be able to afford to pay me a wage, so I’d be worse off.
  
  “The same would happen if I was to work somewhere like a supermarket. If I was earning less than £26,000 a year, there wouldn’t be any point. I’d be no better off. Who in their right mind would do that?” The pair spoke after we revealed last Sunday that Lithuanian Natalija Belova, 33, branded Britain “a soft touch” for giving her £14,408 annual benefits. Mum-of-one Belova told how she lives a life of luxury in Watford, Herts, thanks to our “strange system”, adding: “I am not going to work like a dog on minimum wage.”
  
  And yesterday Gina agreed. She said: “The only way we’d ever be better off is by both working. But then childcare would probably be one of our wages gone, and put us back in a more difficult position.
  
  “We don’t feel ashamed for being on benefits. Neither of us have the slightest bit of guilt towards the taxpayers as both of our parents have been paying into the tax system for the last 30 years.
  
  “So we are just getting back our parents’ huge contributions. My dad earns £65,000 a year so he’s paid more than his fair share of tax, so I don’t see what the problem is. The fault lies with the system, not us. There’s just no incentive to find work when we’ve got a better lifestyle than if we were to go out and work for 35-40 hours every week. Why would we give this up?”
  
  The couple, who live in Hants, receive £340 a week, made up of £150 housing benefit, £60 child tax credit, £20 child benefit and £110 in Job Seeker’s Allowance. They pay just £25 towards their spacious £625-a-month home.
  
  

  [Image: http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01661/Front_Page_1661901a.jpg]

  
  
  Their lounge is dominated by the huge TV and a leather sofa. A laptop and Tullulah-Rose’s toys are scattered around the room.
  
  The couple’s monthly outgoings are £240 on food, £40 phone bill for their shared Nokia and an £80 payment towards their TV. They spend the same on tobacco as they do on their daughter’s milk and nappies.
  
  The pair, who want another child, say they would need to earn at least £2,200 a month before tax to make working worth their while.
  
  Danny said: “We’ve thought about a lot of things we wouldn’t normally have considered. Gina looked up escorting and saw you can make £110 an hour, but we decided we wouldn’t go down that route.
  
  "We simply want the best for our daughter, which means even shoplifting becomes a temptation. We’d never do it, but being in this situation and feeling trapped changes you.
  
  “We would work, but it’s just not worth our while because without qualifications we’ll only earn about £14,000 a year. That’s a lot less than what we get now. We need more money so we can maintain the way we live now but have a few extras, like holidays.
  
  "People don’t understand — we’re actually stuck on benefits. In fact, we feel trapped.” Danny and Gina thought about going to college, but could not decide which course to take.
  
  Gina said: “We have discussed getting more qualifications but just thought there’s no point when we don’t know what we want to do in the future. We wouldn’t know where to start.”
  
  The couple are adamant that whatever they do in future, they want to enjoy the same luxuries as now. Gina said: “We spend £40 a month on clothes for Tullulah-Rose. It’s important she looks nice.
  
  “We like a takeaway too, Why shouldn’t we? It isn’t like I’m some scrounging single mum trying to cash in. It’s silly to think I’d actually be better off financially if Danny walked out on me and my daughter than if one of us got a job.
  
  “Anyone else would do exactly the same if they were in our shoes. It’s actually really hard for us. We’re in a lose-lose situation here.”

  
  
  Source: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4764841/Why-work.html
  
  There are 2 more view points on this article within the provided source link.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2013-01-28 07:26
  [spoiler]I suspect this will be an unpopular opinion.[/spoiler]
  They have a point.
  
  Even though they could certainly make more than that, the system is a bit weird. They'll probably get bored one day and decide they want more/want to do something. Or maybe not. Their choice.
  
  As far as I'm concerned, any money that is not mine goes into the void, which is why I really couldn't care less what happens with something after it's out of my hands. Realistically, if I didn't think that way, I'd get quite upset as 80% of the things that are funded are things I hate or don't care about and there are a lot of unfunded things that I would like funded. The 20% I do care about are basic necessities to daily, modern life like infrastructure, clean water, police, fire, etc, and a little regulation to stop people from screwing each other over (but even that I'd be lenient on). Yes, that means electric companies could do that price swapping crap on you as long as they bothered to notify you first. Would make for a chaotic world by some standards, but one I'd rather live in.
  
  In all fairness, Cucurbita was right in saying electricity could somewhat be considered a necessity by today's standards. Disagree about internet though.
  
  The reason I even bring this up is because I have a problem with how this is written. It's so strongly biased in the sense that it's trying to get you pissed off at these random people just because they're making use of something they can legally make use of. It's not designed to be a balanced, "decide for yourself what to think" kind of news story. Do I think they're a bit silly? Sure. Do I think they could easily earn more? Sure. Lazy? Probably, considering they have a kid to take care of and want more. But I'm not going to hate them just because they're getting away with playing by the rules. If they can live with that, fine, let em. But most people can't be happy with that money, especially not when it's split between three people.
  
  I also have a bit of a problem with it because telling them they should feel bad is essentially trying to restrict personal choice through guilt. In order to defend the freedom and equality of all people, we must defend the people who need it most, which is (typically) the people we disagree with the most. If there's a problem with the rules, then the rule must be addressed, not the people.
• Cynic wrote on 2013-01-28 07:36
  Yeah, one big problem is that people don't realize taxes are just another bill. If everybody finally got off their high-horse and admitted that, then perhaps they'd stop whining about where their taxes are going.
  
  Frankly, people like this annoy the fuck out of me. They're the small minority of the lower class/poverty level and make everybody else look bad, even though 90% of the people who are in that group are actually needy and deserving of that money. But because society sees a few assholes like this, they suddenly act like they know everything about poor people and claim that they're all like this. Honestly, I'm tired of people being dumbfucks because of a few idiots.
  
  It's true that those benefits are better and more secure as compared to a regular job, but it's their own fault if they refuse to progress in this world. Shit, my Mom and I have been living on less than that and even my Mom has been going to school/trying to work in order to better herself. And my Mom and I have had it a helluva lot worse than they have. They need to stop acting like they're entitled to shit when they refuse to do a single thing for it. Yeah, some people are naturally stupid and shit does happen, but c'mon. They don't have anything else in their life dragging them down, so they have no reason to sit on their asses and do nothing to try and better themselves.
• Mystickskye wrote on 2013-01-28 07:57
  Their arguments seem to centre around:
  -Actually working will get them less money
  -Their parents have paid "significant" taxes
  Subpoints are:
  -They lack qualifications required to get a better job
  -They should be given even more
  -They love their luxuries
  If they actually would get less money through working then sure, the first point is understandable. One thing that does get me though that generally when one is paid a benefit for being unemployed, unless the person has some sort of condition that prevents them from working then they're expected to find a job. This usually involves going to job hunting interviews and such and you aren't really allowed to turn down a job unless you have a really good reason (and I don't think "but I won't be able to afford my TV!" counts as a good reason for such agencies). If this is the case then they're not playing by the rules. If this isn't the case, then why the hell not? Certainly it'd mean they'd be playing by the rules if immoral.
  
  I don't accept the "our parents have paid taxes" reasoning though. I don't accept that they're entitled to it (if they were it'd make little sense to pay it in the first place), that money goes to the country for whatever expenditures the country has and in this case I don't believe they're truly deserving of the money they get if they're able to live that well while not working and not looking for work.
  
  That the lack qualifications to get a better job is concerning and it's not clear if the education system has failed them or if they failed themselves. I'm generally of the mind that for many dropouts though, it's more likely to be the latter than the former. Whether it's the latter or the former though, I don't see any mention of either of them trying to remedy that. I'm willing to believe that they're unable to pursue qualifications due to their financial situation and in that case it'd be the country letting them and itself down. There should be a pathway for people so there wouldn't be a need for people to be "stuck".
  
  They should be given more? Why? The benefit doesn't exist so that people can live cushy lives. It's there so that people don't struggle to live while trying to get their life on track (which again this couple doesn't seem to be trying to do, though they did say they looked into some opportunities like escorting). If this particular couple are struggling to live then maybe they should have thought more carefully about their purchases.
  
  They love their luxuries? I love my luxuries too but I don't think I'm really going to get many of them if I don't work. As I said before, the benefit isn't for cushy, "luxurious" lives. If they can afford luxuries like an oversized TV then they should be able to afford not getting so much of a benefit.
  
  Overall though as disapproving as I am of the couple, based on facts in the report I think that there's a huge failure on the part of the government here. Possibly failing the couple, surely failing itself, it's sad for a wide variety of reasons that this goes on.
• Joker wrote on 2013-01-28 08:02
  hey I dont have a job atm... and I would never claim unemployment its just seems unfair to the people that work :l
  
  which also provokes me to find a job quicker
• Selithia wrote on 2013-01-28 08:21

  Quote from Joker;1021403:

  hey I dont have a job atm... and I would never claim unemployment its just seems unfair to the people that work :l
  
  which also provokes me to find a job quicker

  
  
  Being able to afford to eat and have a place to live isn't exactly 'unfair' so much as its 'exactly what civilization is there for'. :|
• Cynic wrote on 2013-01-28 08:49

  Quote from Joker;1021403:

  hey I dont have a job atm... and I would never claim unemployment its just seems unfair to the people that work :l
  
  which also provokes me to find a job quicker

  
  
  You're implying that everybody who works deserves what they have and everybody that doesn't work doesn't.
  
  Life isn't that simple. Never has been, never will be. And until the day comes where everybody has the opportunity to have a job without anything preventing them from getting one, then nobody has the right to claim otherwise.
• Kaino wrote on 2013-01-28 13:06
  You know what's great? Self entitled people. You know what's even better then that? Self entitled pricks who mooch on benefits who "clearly" don't need it.
• Chiyuri wrote on 2013-01-28 14:19
  The problem with this is that they are currently fooling the system. One of the source of money they have is called "Job seeking allowance". They are payed for looking for a job, which they clearly aren't doing.
• Drizzit wrote on 2013-01-28 17:03
  This is why welfare programs are bullshit. I don't blame them for what they're doing; like they said, why get a job when you get payed more for doing nothing? The only problem is a system in which this is the case.
• Kingofrunes wrote on 2013-01-28 17:03
  That's the problem with any system really. There will always be people who game the system and have "self entitlement" to get something for nothing. It's only natural that there are people who will do this.
  
  Which is why Communism never works well in theory because people will be like "Why am I spending all this energy and effort to be a programmer when that farmer over there is making the same amount as I am?"
  
  Human Nature is a very fickle thing. There needs to be better safeguards in the system to prevent this kind of bullshit.
• Ninjam wrote on 2013-01-29 02:19
  I'm currently a full time college student living on Veteren's dependent education benefits.
  
  This is my first time living alone, and my entire check is usually spent on day 1, mostly on bills and food.
  
  They deserve to get more than I do because their parents paid taxes? I live in a horribly small apartment a mile and a half away from school, which i walk to each day because I cant afford a car.
  
  2 months out of the year, i get paid half because school takes a break, meaning I have to use my student loans to cover for the amount that I don't get to pay bills. If i dont take 6 credits over the summer, i get paid nothing for the entire summer.
  
  I would say I am working very very hard for my money, even if it is from taxpayer money.
  
  The welfare system is very much needed though. My family had to live on it for a long time when my dad started getting sick and couldn't work, and my mom had to stay home to take care of him. Then you have people like a family member who was living with my mom, until my mom got tired of her not helping with rent or anything and gambling away her welfare checks instead.