I sense some lefty bashing coming this way...
EDIT: Is that £30,000 take home?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
£30,000 a year?
Sex God
I watched both nights (last night and tonight) and on the whole found it a very good programme...
The mother in question said she blamed her husband for them having so many kids
Perhaps she should have kept her legs closed
The reformed criminal living in Wolverhampton said he gets £114 per week out of which he pays £20 rent....
How the hell does he get that much ??......All I can get is £64 per week out of which I am expected to hand enough over to placate my mortgage lender....Then set about paying all the normal household bills and perhaps if there is any left feed myself AND keep enough back to get me to and from the countless interviews I am expected to attend to prove I'm not a career benefit recipient ....
The mother in question said she blamed her husband for them having so many kids
Perhaps she should have kept her legs closed
The reformed criminal living in Wolverhampton said he gets £114 per week out of which he pays £20 rent....
How the hell does he get that much ??......All I can get is £64 per week out of which I am expected to hand enough over to placate my mortgage lender....Then set about paying all the normal household bills and perhaps if there is any left feed myself AND keep enough back to get me to and from the countless interviews I am expected to attend to prove I'm not a career benefit recipient ....
This is no isolated incident...there are loads out there getting the same and in many circumstances more.
It is never a case of can't work, but won't work.
It is obscene where as Steve says he gets a pitiful ammount and because they never turn the telly on ( 52in plasma btw no doubt )they shag and make more babies!
More babies that the taxpayer has to fund.
Kick the lazy fecker out to work and make him see what the rest of us mugs have to do. But they won't...bad back no doubt.
Until there is a MASSIVE overhaul of the benefit system, these kinds of scroungers...that is what they are, will continue to take the piss out of us all. But you know the real sad thing about all this is that what they are doing has been made possible by Governments.
Makes me wonder why I bother to get up in the morning...oh yes I know now, as a taxpayer all my life I will get £64 a week just like Steve does.
It is never a case of can't work, but won't work.
It is obscene where as Steve says he gets a pitiful ammount and because they never turn the telly on ( 52in plasma btw no doubt )they shag and make more babies!
More babies that the taxpayer has to fund.
Kick the lazy fecker out to work and make him see what the rest of us mugs have to do. But they won't...bad back no doubt.
Until there is a MASSIVE overhaul of the benefit system, these kinds of scroungers...that is what they are, will continue to take the piss out of us all. But you know the real sad thing about all this is that what they are doing has been made possible by Governments.
Makes me wonder why I bother to get up in the morning...oh yes I know now, as a taxpayer all my life I will get £64 a week just like Steve does.
Quote by Kaznkev
I watched both nights (last night and tonight) and on the whole found it a very good programme...
The mother in question said she blamed her husband for them having so many kids
Perhaps she should have kept her legs closed
The reformed criminal living in Wolverhampton said he gets £114 per week out of which he pays £20 rent....
How the hell does he get that much ??......All I can get is £64 per week out of which I am expected to hand enough over to placate my mortgage lender....Then set about paying all the normal household bills and perhaps if there is any left feed myself AND keep enough back to get me to and from the countless interviews I am expected to attend to prove I'm not a career benefit recipient ....
completely agree steve, this is just what i was thinking. go on the pill, use a condom, get your tubes tied, send him for the snip, but don't blame him for the fact that you let him screw you knowing what would happen.
my gas and electric is £30 a week used as a minium. ok so i would get more coz i have the boy, but £64 for an adult compaired to what they are getting just coz she can churn out the kids is an insult.
whips
And the alternative?kid growing up in poverty without enough food,ok i accept some people play the system but as a rich country why cant we ensure children have a decent standard of living?
You obviously never watch the news then?
Rich? Where the heck do you get that from?
Sex God
Quote by northwest-cpl
What is the breakdown of the £30,000? How is it made up? Is it really £30,000, I didn't see the programme but would be interested to see what benefits are actually being claimed.
Including housing benefit of some £170 + per week they were in receipt of over £560 per week IIRC...
Sex God
Quote by Kaznkev
What is the breakdown of the £30,000? How is it made up? Is it really £30,000, I didn't see the programme but would be interested to see what benefits are actually being claimed.
exactly my thoughts, are they including housing benifit and council tax in that?
Read 2 posts up.....
Quote by Steve
What is the breakdown of the £30,000? How is it made up? Is it really £30,000, I didn't see the programme but would be interested to see what benefits are actually being claimed.
Including housing benefit of some £170 + per week they were in receipt of over £560 per week IIRC...
£170 seems cheap for a 6 bed house, student houses in Preston are coming on for that price for 3 beds, I wonder where they live.
I did a little research, they will probably be getting £100 couple's income support and then £56 for each dependent child which with the £170 will get to the £560 more or less.
The £56 for each child seems a bit excessive, I can understand that for the first but after that I would have expected the rate to drop considerably since the kids will be sharing things and should be wearing hand me downs.
On the face of it it looks wrong and community work of some sort for long term unemployed would put something back into the kitty. Still, I'm sure it will all change in May.
Quote by Steve
I watched both nights (last night and tonight) and on the whole found it a very good programme...
The mother in question said she blamed her husband for them having so many kids
Perhaps she should have kept her legs closed
The reformed criminal living in Wolverhampton said he gets £114 per week out of which he pays £20 rent....
How the hell does he get that much ??......All I can get is £64 per week out of which I am expected to hand enough over to placate my mortgage lender....Then set about paying all the normal household bills and perhaps if there is any left feed myself AND keep enough back to get me to and from the countless interviews I am expected to attend to prove I'm not a career benefit recipient ....
It was £114 per fortnight.
Quote by Ms_Whips
i'm watching the jobless celeb program where there is a couple with five kids, one on the way and living in a six bedroomed house. they get just short of £30,000 a year!
although the dad is saying that he wished he could get a job, why the hell would he with that coming in? he's not had a job for 7 years and then not a job that would pay that sort of money.
£30,000 a year ffs!! i doubt that there is any job he could get that would bring in that sort of money.
whips
One of the problems with that process of totting up the amount they have coming in is the amount of it going straight back out again. £700 per month was housing benefit. If there was a council house for them to live in then, at typical council house rents, it would have been half that. So half the money we pay for their housing is going to make some scabby buy to let landlord rich. If that's a sensible use of public money I'm a Dutchman.
Incidentally, it was obvious that the dad has some serious issues relating to grief and bereavement. It's always fun to see some fuckwit celebrity like Diarmuid Gavin doing instant diagnosis of other people's troubles when it's apparent that the subject needs a professional, not a celebrity gardener.
Quote by Ms_Whips
I watched both nights (last night and tonight) and on the whole found it a very good programme...
The mother in question said she blamed her husband for them having so many kids
Perhaps she should have kept her legs closed
The reformed criminal living in Wolverhampton said he gets £114 per week out of which he pays £20 rent....
How the hell does he get that much ??......All I can get is £64 per week out of which I am expected to hand enough over to placate my mortgage lender....Then set about paying all the normal household bills and perhaps if there is any left feed myself AND keep enough back to get me to and from the countless interviews I am expected to attend to prove I'm not a career benefit recipient ....
completely agree steve, this is just what i was thinking. go on the pill, use a condom, get your tubes tied, send him for the snip, but don't blame him for the fact that you let him screw you knowing what would happen.
my gas and electric is £30 a week used as a minium. ok so i would get more coz i have the boy, but £64 for an adult compaired to what they are getting just coz she can churn out the kids is an insult.
whips
And the alternative?kid growing up in poverty without enough food,ok i accept some people play the system but as a rich country why cant we ensure children have a decent standard of living?
i'm not saying they should kaz, but what i do know is that it doesn't take an extra £20,000 a year to look after 4 more kids than the other family who only had one. having kids is all well and good if you can afford them, but why should the state pay for baby churners? ok if you already have a big family and things go wrong, but then that is something that can happen to any of us. alternatively, if you are already on benefits stop having the kids, get off your arse and work.
whips
Here's the problem, and it's an age old problem.
It's the parents who are irresponsible, or feckless, or in the case you're talking about, possibly suffering from undiagnosed or untreated mental health issues. The money goes to them. But if you don't give them enough to feed the kids, it's the kids who will suffer.
I thought last night's programme was incredibly optimistic. By the end of the show the supposedly feckless father of six was knocking on doors asking for work. The out of work middle manager had new contacts and new optimism. Even the reformed ex-crim was looking upbeat and hopeful of finding work. The single mum was volunteering and being positive about changing the direction of her life. Instead of fuelling the 'scroungers' versus 'respectable working classes' debate that has been clogging up discourse on work and benefits since the eighteenth century, I saw a programme that showed what can happen when you make positive interventions, when you do more than just treat people like creatures in a reality tv zoo.
There again, I like people.
Sex God
Quote by awayman
I watched both nights (last night and tonight) and on the whole found it a very good programme...
The mother in question said she blamed her husband for them having so many kids
Perhaps she should have kept her legs closed
The reformed criminal living in Wolverhampton said he gets £114 per week out of which he pays £20 rent....
How the hell does he get that much ??......All I can get is £64 per week out of which I am expected to hand enough over to placate my mortgage lender....Then set about paying all the normal household bills and perhaps if there is any left feed myself AND keep enough back to get me to and from the countless interviews I am expected to attend to prove I'm not a career benefit recipient ....
It was £114 per fortnight.
Yes.....I've just watched it again on iplayer and he says a fortnight but then that is less than the minimum payment which is per week which is what I get
Sex God
Quote by awayman
One of the problems with that process of totting up the amount they have coming in is the amount of it going straight back out again. £700 per month was housing benefit. If there was a council house for them to live in then, at typical council house rents, it would have been half that. So half the money we pay for their housing is going to make some scabby buy to let landlord rich. If that's a sensible use of public money I'm a Dutchman.
Goverment will happily pay that out to a private landlord yet will only help me to the tune of about £50 per month and I have to wait 13 weeks for that as I'm lucky enough ?
to have a mortgage
Quote by flower411
How much would he have to earn for tax credits or other benefits to make up the shortfall ?
This is one of the points - the whole system is too complicated and the interface between low paid work and "genuine" benefits has not worked since the 1970s when the scenario first came noticable as a problem.
There is another dimension to this as well - if the interface had worked, then more people would have been in work over the years and there would have been less need for immigrants to fill low paid vacancies. Work that out since the 1970s! and the population would be noticably smaller now than it is.
Plim :sad:
Ok I'm on benefits cos I'm a full time career to my disabled some, I get a week after paying out all my bills, including £25 a week buses fares to get the kids to school I have £47 left a week to feed all 3 of us. So thats £10, a year I get for the 3 of us. On top of that theres £1200 in council tax and £7,800 rent I get paid which in total is a year I cost the government.
Up until my disabled son was born 5 years ago I worked full time, I wish I could work now, but unfortunately, every interview I have had the companies have said the same sorry but we cant afford for you to take time off when your son is ill so we are unable to offer you the job.
Also it makes me mad that if there was council housing available the rent would only be around £260 a month and yet theres a 12 year waiting list in my area to even be considered for a council place.
If I could get back into my old job and find a council place to live in I would be able to afford to get in a live in nanny to look after my son when he was ill (and also look after my daughter before and after school) so that I was able to work, but until the council sort out the shortage of housing there is no way I will be able to work.
Up until my disabled son was born 5 years ago I worked full time, I wish I could work now, but unfortunately, every interview I have had the companies have said the same sorry but we cant afford for you to take time off when your son is ill so we are unable to offer you the job.
Also it makes me mad that if there was council housing available the rent would only be around £260 a month and yet theres a 12 year waiting list in my area to even be considered for a council place.
If I could get back into my old job and find a council place to live in I would be able to afford to get in a live in nanny to look after my son when he was ill (and also look after my daughter before and after school) so that I was able to work, but until the council sort out the shortage of housing there is no way I will be able to work.
Quote by Kaznkev
Ok I'm on benefits cos I'm a full time career to my disabled some, I get a week after paying out all my bills, including £25 a week buses fares to get the kids to school I have £47 left a week to feed all 3 of us. So thats £10, a year I get for the 3 of us. On top of that theres £1200 in council tax and £7,800 rent I get paid which in total is a year I cost the government.
Up until my disabled son was born 5 years ago I worked full time, I wish I could work now, but unfortunately, every interview I have had the companies have said the same sorry but we cant afford for you to take time off when your son is ill so we are unable to offer you the job.
Also it makes me mad that if there was council housing available the rent would only be around £260 a month and yet theres a 12 year waiting list in my area to even be considered for a council place.
If I could get back into my old job and find a council place to live in I would be able to afford to get in a live in nanny to look after my son when he was ill (and also look after my daughter before and after school) so that I was able to work, but until the council sort out the shortage of housing there is no way I will be able to work.
mmmm yes,the sell off of the housing stock and the ban on allowing the money from the sales to be reinvested in new stock,whose bright idea was that again?
And just think if the right to buy hadnt been touted as the ultimate programme in social mobility we may never have had the bubble in house prices and the attendant problems that has caused
Am glad you used the word " may " there. Obviously you did not buy your council house?
I do not know the figures of people that did buy, but it was a heck of a lot of people.
People who would otherwise have never got onto the housing ladder, and would forever have been stuck in council accommodation. Cannot understand anything other than positives there.
Of course those who did not have that opportunity may well be miffed, but my parents and four other people I personally know, did buy their own homes. The right to buy scheme was in my opinion a fantastic opportunity for so many people, to be able to buy their own home.
Good one Maggs for that one I say....unless of course someone is miffed?
Sorry if off topic.
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
snip
I do not know the figures of people that did buy, but it was a heck of a lot of people.
People who would otherwise have never got onto the housing ladder, and would forever have been stuck in council accommodation. Cannot understand anything other than positives there.
Of course those who did not have that opportunity may well be miffed, but my parents and four other people I personally know, did buy their own homes. The right to buy scheme was in my opinion a fantastic opportunity for so many people, to be able to buy their own home.
Good one Maggs for that one I say....unless of course someone is miffed?
Sorry if off topic.
Right to buy in itself was a laudable thing. But the problems came when councils didn't replace their housing stock. Typically, the worst housing - or housing in the worst areas - wasn't bought by the tenents meaning that the council had A) fewer houses to offer and B) what they had to offer was lower quality.
Council/social housing is a mainstay of a society (I feel) and allows a buffer for people on low income and a step away from home for young people who need cheap rent so they can afford to save up a deposit.
Quote by foxylady2209
snip
I do not know the figures of people that did buy, but it was a heck of a lot of people.
People who would otherwise have never got onto the housing ladder, and would forever have been stuck in council accommodation. Cannot understand anything other than positives there.
Of course those who did not have that opportunity may well be miffed, but my parents and four other people I personally know, did buy their own homes. The right to buy scheme was in my opinion a fantastic opportunity for so many people, to be able to buy their own home.
Good one Maggs for that one I say....unless of course someone is miffed?
Sorry if off topic.
Right to buy in itself was a laudable thing. But the problems came when councils didn't replace their housing stock. Typically, the worst housing - or housing in the worst areas - wasn't bought by the tenents meaning that the council had A) fewer houses to offer and B) what they had to offer was lower quality.
Council/social housing is a mainstay of a society (I feel) and allows a buffer for people on low income and a step away from home for young people who need cheap rent so they can afford to save up a deposit.
Hardly the fault of the Government....the councils just gladly took the money.
Quote by flower411
mmmm yes,the sell off of the housing stock and the ban on allowing the money from the sales to be reinvested in new stock,whose bright idea was that again?
And just think if the right to buy hadnt been touted as the ultimate programme in social mobility we may never have had the bubble in house prices and the attendant problems that has caused
That`d be the same person that dismantled the local taxation system and replaced it with an unworkable system that caused rioting in the streets and also sold off the utilities that are now being purchased by foreign state owned utility companies !!
The person who presided over the selling off of most of the countries assets which started the enivitable decline to the bankrupt state this country is in.
As for the rioting in the streets I guess that was the Poll tax?
Nothing wrong in that at all, only the ammounts people had to pay was wrong.
People use services...NOT houses, so it is people and the ammount of people who live in a property that should determine what that household pays.
Also how can you continue to blame a Government for todays failings, when the now PM ( Bottler Brown )had been bloody Chancellor for what ten years?
Eleven years of a Labour Government is the reason we are bankrupt, and the inability of Brown to know a banking crisis was looming. You cannot keep blaming a PM who has not been around for how many years now?
If selling the companies utilities was such a bad thing, why did this Government not buy some of them back? They sold our gold reserves at a rock bottom price, and have had opportunities but failed to do anything about them.
Quote by kentswingers777
snip
I do not know the figures of people that did buy, but it was a heck of a lot of people.
People who would otherwise have never got onto the housing ladder, and would forever have been stuck in council accommodation. Cannot understand anything other than positives there.
Of course those who did not have that opportunity may well be miffed, but my parents and four other people I personally know, did buy their own homes. The right to buy scheme was in my opinion a fantastic opportunity for so many people, to be able to buy their own home.
Good one Maggs for that one I say....unless of course someone is miffed?
Sorry if off topic.
Right to buy in itself was a laudable thing. But the problems came when councils didn't replace their housing stock. Typically, the worst housing - or housing in the worst areas - wasn't bought by the tenents meaning that the council had A) fewer houses to offer and B) what they had to offer was lower quality.
Council/social housing is a mainstay of a society (I feel) and allows a buffer for people on low income and a step away from home for young people who need cheap rent so they can afford to save up a deposit.
Hardly the fault of the Government....the councils just gladly took the money.
Even by your standards this is lamentably inaccurate.
Councils were not allowed, by government edict, to reinvest their capital receipts in new properties. Instead they were required to use their receipts to invest in the money markets - in many cases they couldn't even pay down outstanding loans because they were fixed term loans that couldn't be redeemed early. Where they did pay down loans they found their HRA subsidy calculations altering so that they couldn't retain reserves. New public sector housing grants were closed to local authorities and instead awarded to housing associations who had to borrow in the money markets at rates higher than those usually paid by local authorities, so that effectively government subsidy was used to enrich bankers. The fiddling of the HRA subsidy calculation meant there was a backog on most council housing stock of more than ten years worth of maintenance that was only fixed post 1997 by the Decent Homes programme.
I can understand you want to defend Thatcher, but from the moment she cancelled the parker Morris standard Thatcher's housing policies served only to enrich her friends in the private house building industry and the financiers in the city of London. The cancer of buy to let crooks that is distorting the housing market today is the logical conclusion of her cynical, wicked policies.
Quote by kentswingers777
mmmm yes,the sell off of the housing stock and the ban on allowing the money from the sales to be reinvested in new stock,whose bright idea was that again?
And just think if the right to buy hadnt been touted as the ultimate programme in social mobility we may never have had the bubble in house prices and the attendant problems that has caused
That`d be the same person that dismantled the local taxation system and replaced it with an unworkable system that caused rioting in the streets and also sold off the utilities that are now being purchased by foreign state owned utility companies !!
The person who presided over the selling off of most of the countries assets which started the enivitable decline to the bankrupt state this country is in.
As for the rioting in the streets I guess that was the Poll tax?
Nothing wrong in that at all, only the ammounts people had to pay was wrong.
People use services...NOT houses, so it is people and the ammount of people who live in a property that should determine what that household pays.
Also how can you continue to blame a Government for todays failings, when the now PM ( Bottler Brown )had been bloody Chancellor for what ten years?
Eleven years of a Labour Government is the reason we are bankrupt, and the inability of Brown to know a banking crisis was looming. You cannot keep blaming a PM who has not been around for how many years now?
If selling the companies utilities was such a bad thing, why did this Government not buy some of them back? They sold our gold reserves at a rock bottom price, and have had opportunities but failed to do anything about them.
If you follow the logic of that, why did the poll tax only start at the age of 18? Kids use loads of services, and those disposable nappies take loads of cleaning up - so why wasn;t there a surcharge for children? Answer? Because it was a lie, a cynical, made up on the fly lie intended to change the shape of society by forcing people off the voters roll, creating an underclasss who wouldn't exist for political purposes.
Sex God
Quote by awayman
If you follow the logic of that, why did the poll tax only start at the age of 18? Kids use loads of services, and those disposable nappies take loads of cleaning up - so why wasn;t there a surcharge for children? Answer? Because it was a lie, a cynical, made up on the fly lie intended to change the shape of society by forcing people off the voters roll, creating an underclasss who wouldn't exist for political purposes.
How does the Poll Tax force people off the electoral roll?
Sex God
Quote by flower411
If you follow the logic of that, why did the poll tax only start at the age of 18? Kids use loads of services, and those disposable nappies take loads of cleaning up - so why wasn;t there a surcharge for children? Answer? Because it was a lie, a cynical, made up on the fly lie intended to change the shape of society by forcing people off the voters roll, creating an underclasss who wouldn't exist for political purposes.
How does the Poll Tax force people off the electoral roll?
As part of the collection process is was rumoured that the Poll Tax collectors would resort to taking names from the electoral register to see who was living in a property and that people would, therefore, not register if they were trying to avoid paying the tax.
Why would that be a rumour? If I was collecting that kind of tax, the electoral roll would the first place I'd start.
But I see you point. But it works for a load of benefits as well. I'm not sure that anyone who cared about voting would remove themselves from the roll to avoid poll tax.
It's hard for me to judge. I'm cerftainly not on the ER in order to protect my voting rights - since I haven't voted for years. It's so I can register at a good doctor's. Quote by foxylady2209
If you follow the logic of that, why did the poll tax only start at the age of 18? Kids use loads of services, and those disposable nappies take loads of cleaning up - so why wasn;t there a surcharge for children? Answer? Because it was a lie, a cynical, made up on the fly lie intended to change the shape of society by forcing people off the voters roll, creating an underclasss who wouldn't exist for political purposes.
How does the Poll Tax force people off the electoral roll?
People sought to evade the poll tax by vanishing below the line - so they didn't register to vote either. It took a couple of years for government to realise that the reason why local taxes were previously property based was because properties can't move or sleep on their mate's sofa. When I can get into our library catalogue in the am I'll post some links.
I still believe it is right that people had that chance to buy their own homes. I am fully aware there are SOME out there that pour scorn on home ownership. There is nothing wrong in that at all and whilst there are not a huge ammount of benefits whilst still paying for it, when it is paid for you have the freedom to move elsewhere, and when you do retire you will not have to find the rent for your property from your pension.
The Poll tax debate on people avoiding it is a fair point, but there are loads of people out there who avoid things as to not pay for it.
The Poll tax WAS a much better idea than what we had, but as I have said already...it was the ammounts that were wrong. People use services...NOT houses so why band houses?
My Father lives in a three bedroom house which he has brought. Why should he pay the same ammount of money that next door does with four kids and two adults? Yes he gets a single occupancy allowance but even so pro rata he still pays a heck of a lot more than
his neighbours next door do.
With very clever people working for Governments, I am sure they could have come up with a plan to make it harder for people to have avoided paying the Poll tax.
Off topic but I thought I would just make a point.
The Poll tax debate on people avoiding it is a fair point, but there are loads of people out there who avoid things as to not pay for it.
The Poll tax WAS a much better idea than what we had, but as I have said already...it was the ammounts that were wrong. People use services...NOT houses so why band houses?
My Father lives in a three bedroom house which he has brought. Why should he pay the same ammount of money that next door does with four kids and two adults? Yes he gets a single occupancy allowance but even so pro rata he still pays a heck of a lot more than
his neighbours next door do.
With very clever people working for Governments, I am sure they could have come up with a plan to make it harder for people to have avoided paying the Poll tax.
Off topic but I thought I would just make a point.
Am I the only person that agreed with poll tax tax. I lived in a studio appartment which I had a mortgage for and shared it with a boyfriend and both of us paid, yet my friend who lived at home with his brother and mom and dad in a council house refused to pay it. They all worked full time, they used the same services as me yet they paid far less than me in rent than I did in mortgage.
Quote by soul-girl
Am I the only person that agreed with poll tax tax. I lived in a studio appartment which I had a mortgage for and shared it with a boyfriend and both of us paid, yet my friend who lived at home with his brother and mom and dad in a council house refused to pay it. They all worked full time, they used the same services as me yet they paid far less than me in rent than I did in mortgage.
Check my above posts.
Sex God
Quote by Kaznkev
I watched both nights (last night and tonight) and on the whole found it a very good programme...
The mother in question said she blamed her husband for them having so many kids
Perhaps she should have kept her legs closed
The reformed criminal living in Wolverhampton said he gets £114 per week out of which he pays £20 rent....
How the hell does he get that much ??......All I can get is £64 per week out of which I am expected to hand enough over to placate my mortgage lender....Then set about paying all the normal household bills and perhaps if there is any left feed myself AND keep enough back to get me to and from the countless interviews I am expected to attend to prove I'm not a career benefit recipient ....
completely agree steve, this is just what i was thinking. go on the pill, use a condom, get your tubes tied, send him for the snip, but don't blame him for the fact that you let him screw you knowing what would happen.
my gas and electric is £30 a week used as a minium. ok so i would get more coz i have the boy, but £64 for an adult compaired to what they are getting just coz she can churn out the kids is an insult.
whips
And the alternative?kid growing up in poverty without enough food,ok i accept some people play the system but as a rich country why cant we ensure children have a decent standard of living?
I watched this program also
To be perfectly frank Kaz, no I do not care about his kids at all, I care about mine! I work 7 days a week to earn far less than they get handed out, just so the tax man can take my money to pay these people to stay at home!
They had 5 kids, with one in the oven, all looked under the age of seven, which is how long he had been out of work. That to my mind is irresponsible and using the system.
I am still fecking livid!!!!!!!!!
Swinging Heaven features sexually explicit material. To access this site you must be of the legal age to engage with the material of an adult site.
By entering Swinging Heaven you agree to the following;
- I am deemed an adult where I live, and I am at least 18 years old
- I am allowed to access & view sexually explicit material
- I accept responsibility for accessing this site