Author Topic: Unemployment and Benefits  (Read 173946 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline DaveR

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 13781
Re: Unemployment and Benefits
« Reply #390 on: January 30, 2013, 08:59:41 am »
'Why should we work? Our parents pay tax so we're entitled to benefits': Couple living off £17,000 handouts say working for the minimum wage is unfair


A young couple who receive more than £17,000 a year in benefits appeared on ITV's This Morning to defend their taxpayer-funded lifestyle.

Danny Creamer, 21, and Gina Allen, 18, who live in a comfortable two-bedroom flat in Portsmouth  with their four month old daughter, Talulah Rose, say they are better off on £17k benefits and argue that unless they are able to find jobs that pay £18,000 a year or more, there's no point in working.

The couple also hit back at those who describe them as scroungers, arguing that because their hard-working parents have paid tax all their lives, they are entitled to claim some of the money back.

Gina, who has worked for Sainsburys in the past said: 'I don’t see that we’re living off the taxpayers, we’re entitled to the money our parents paid all their lives.'

She also claimed that because the pair have paid tax in the past, their daughter should also be entitled to claim benefits in future. 'We have paid into the system as well and you know, if our daughter wants to claim when she's older, she can. We're not going to claim benefits forever so we are going to pay into the system at some point.'

The pair receive £1,473 per month in benefits or £17,680 per year.

This works out at £340 per week, which includes £140 housing benefit, £60 child tax credit, £20 child benefit and £110 Jobseekers Allowance.

Weekly outgoings include £60 on food, £22.50 on TV, £3.50 on their TV licence plus utility bills, which the pair say they receive no help with.

According to Gina, their 47" flat screen TV is their only luxury, although Danny also admits to smoking roll-up cigarettes which are also paid for by tax payers.

Although neither have any qualifications, Danny, who has also worked as a shelf stacker in the past, says he is now looking for a job - although says he won't accept any old role.

'What is the point [of a minimum wage job]? You know, I'm not going to go to work to be worse off.' he argued.

Gina added: 'The main problem is is that the cost of living is going up so much but the wages are just the same. But people still expect you to live on the minimum wage - I don't think that's right.'

Although Danny says he does intend to get a job, the pair say they will carry on living on benefits until Danny gets a job that pays enough or 'the system changes'.

'We'll carry on until the system changes if Danny doesn't get a job,' says Gina.

Danny added: 'We can't be scroungers because the Government wouldn't give us the money or pay towards our living expenses if we didn't need it.'

Unfortunately for Danny and Gina, the change in the system they so dread isn't far away.

In a statement read out on This Morning, the Department for Work and Pensions said: 'We have to end the absurdity in the welfare system where people are better off claiming benefits than they are in work.

'Universal Credit will ensure that work will always pay and people who can work will no longer be able to count on the state to fund a life on benefits.'

Asked what they intend to do when the new system is introduced, Gina quickly replied: 'He'd have to get a job I suppose.'

LBC radio presenter and Sunday Express columnist, Nick Ferrari, who was present during the couple's appearance told them: 'What you two have done is a great shame. You've seen it as a lifestyle choice and it's something you choose to do. You shouldn't.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2270247/ITV-This-Morning-Couple-living-17k-handouts-say-working-minimum-wage-unfair.html#ixzz2JRnyzg6P
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 9095
Re: Unemployment and Benefits
« Reply #391 on: January 30, 2013, 09:08:16 am »
Once again, it's having the child that protects them. The options, however, are not simple: the state will never reduce their benefits to the point where the child might suffer. Some argue that the child should therefore be placed in care, but the costs involved are significantly higher than paying them benefits. And that's at the root of the issues: the right-wing press can scream itself hoarse about benefit scroungers all it likes, but nothing substantial will change while children are in the picture.
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.


Offline DaveR

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 13781
Re: Unemployment and Benefits
« Reply #392 on: January 30, 2013, 09:13:56 am »
In that case, why could he not work to earn their benefits? He could work a 40 hour week doing something useful for the community whilst he is unemployed. It's the idea that they receive all this money for doing nothing that I think really infuriates working people.

Offline Yorkie

  • Member
  • Posts: 5255
Re: Unemployment and Benefits
« Reply #393 on: January 30, 2013, 09:27:08 am »
They can't do community work as that would interfere with their meetings with friends in the pub or the park, or whilst smoking, drinking and gambling, or watching their 50 inch Plasma Televisions or . . . . . . . . !   
 Z**   ZXZ     X:((    $drink$   $eu
Wise men have something to say.
Fools have to say something.
Cicero

Offline Merddin Emrys

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4426
Re: Unemployment and Benefits
« Reply #394 on: January 30, 2013, 10:20:11 am »
Why did they have a child if they could not afford it? Was it just so they could claim benefits? What's with this £22.50 a week on TV? I see plenty of channels with no subscriptions etc.
A pigeon is for life not just Christmas

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 9095
Re: Unemployment and Benefits
« Reply #395 on: January 30, 2013, 10:26:59 am »
Quote
In that case, why could he not work to earn their benefits? He could work a 40 hour week doing something useful for the community whilst he is unemployed.

I completely agree.
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline Merddin Emrys

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4426
Re: Unemployment and Benefits
« Reply #396 on: January 30, 2013, 10:35:58 am »
" plus utility bills, which the pair say they receive no help with."

No help with!!!  17 grand a year sounds like a heck of a lot of help!  ???  &shake&
A pigeon is for life not just Christmas

Offline Fester

  • Ad Free Member.
  • *
  • Posts: 6660
  • El Baldito
Re: Unemployment and Benefits
« Reply #397 on: January 30, 2013, 11:22:40 am »
The £17k Gross figure is taken up almost entirely by the elements listed, (Food, Rent etc..)

The utility bills are growing all the time, I suspect that they are getting a 'little extra' from somewhere.

Now, although as Ian says, the benefits will not reduce radically, (coalition politicians will never agree to that).. the squeeze needs  be applied to a certain degree, and quickly, enough to ensure that this lad is highly motivated to stack shelves again!

Fester...
- Semper in Excretum, Sole Profundum Variat -

Online Hugo

  • Management board member
  • *
  • Posts: 15188
Re: Unemployment and Benefits
« Reply #398 on: January 30, 2013, 11:34:58 am »
It's people's attitudes like that, that make me sick.   Once they take that stance they are on a downward spiral and will never have the notion to seek work.    Job seekers allowance is what it says it is and if this couple are not interested in taking a job if one can be found, then the JSA should be withdrawn immediately.        :rage:

Offline born2run

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1792
Re: Unemployment and Benefits
« Reply #399 on: January 30, 2013, 12:38:17 pm »
In that case, why could he not work to earn their benefits? He could work a 40 hour week doing something useful for the community whilst he is unemployed. It's the idea that they receive all this money for doing nothing that I think really infuriates working people.

Wouldn't work. Already tried and failed with the 'work fare' schemes, if he did do work for his job seekers allowance it would be under minimum wage - therefore taking away jobs from minimum wage workers who need them.

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 9095
Re: Unemployment and Benefits
« Reply #400 on: January 30, 2013, 12:45:38 pm »
The big problem is that people like him are fouling it for the genuinely in need claimants.
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline Fester

  • Ad Free Member.
  • *
  • Posts: 6660
  • El Baldito
Re: Unemployment and Benefits
« Reply #401 on: January 30, 2013, 01:32:12 pm »
Update...
Danny Creamer has been offered and accepted a labouring job at £60 per day.

Due to his appearance on the daytime TV programme, a local employer was very impressed with his attitude, and made him an immediate offer.er says that this will actually be a cut of £2000 per year for his family, but at least he will be earning it!

What a remarkable turnaround!
Fester...
- Semper in Excretum, Sole Profundum Variat -

Online Hugo

  • Management board member
  • *
  • Posts: 15188
Re: Unemployment and Benefits
« Reply #402 on: January 30, 2013, 03:09:07 pm »
Full marks to Danny Creamer then,   it would be interesting to see if there is a follow up to this at a later date.

Offline Merddin Emrys

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4426
Re: Unemployment and Benefits
« Reply #403 on: January 30, 2013, 03:37:34 pm »
Yes if he sticks at it, then great! $good$
A pigeon is for life not just Christmas

Online Hugo

  • Management board member
  • *
  • Posts: 15188
Re: Unemployment and Benefits
« Reply #404 on: January 30, 2013, 10:24:51 pm »
My thoughts too, but only time will tell.