If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
was just watching wife swap...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
would you label two parents who decided to live off benefits as a sacrifice to bring up all their children as 'spongers'?
0
Comments
good to see someone agrees
Yes.
It’s great if both the parents want to bring up the kids. But I don’t see why the state - the rest of us should have to subsidise it. If one parent wishes to stay at home I think that should be encouraged as it is possible and could work but both parents - I don't think it's really that feasible and it's probably not even necessary. I mean very few people have that luxury and most people are okay. One of them should work like everyone else. Spongers.
If they are having so many kids that one parent cannot cope, then they have had too many kids and it is their own tough shit. It's their choice, they can get off their arse to support them, lazy scrotes. If they can't get a job that pays enough then they should get tax credits to support them, but if they can't be arsed to get off their arse to get a job then they should get nothing.
One parent staying at home on benefits is good, I wish more parents would stay at home and I wish parenting was considered an extremely important vocation.
If we all stayed at home to bring up our kids then the world would collapse in hours. Which means they are intentionally scrounging and robbing me of my labour just as much as the CEOs are.
Give me something to back up what you're saying as staying away from employment as a "sacrifice".
Because all I see is them abusing money that's earned through other people's expense because they're more than lazy.
Makes you wonder why they made the choice to stay at home really.
Working mothers pay for childminders and nannies to bring up their children on their behalf. This couple are - in effect - being paid by the state to raise children.
Children can be brought up perfectly well with one parent working full time, and as he was so pleased to get his wage packet, one wonders whether that family would be better off in all senses if he went out to work.
We've shafted ourselves really because of our high single-parenthood rate. Benefits must be generous enough to support a family with one non-working parent, so when there is a mum and a dad there is no incentive for one to work.
Newsflash: They can also be brought up perfectly well when both parents work full time!
They can afford Sky, two flash cars, and other stuff - We can't, and my parents are in full time work!
So, I propose that hte benefits system should supply just enough to get by, with no luxury. Then they would actually be enouraged to work, to get a job. Then maybe we'd see some pride in them and this country getting better.
They mostly got Sky and BMW's round the council estates here, or at least a a big Vauxhall and an SUV. Just not right, you ask me... the whole class system become a big horseshoe!
I know that, know many people who work there... But I know who does and doesn't work through these friends. Mainly as they have to put up with them shouting at each other, or thier kids all the time. :rolleyes: Either that or they are to busy playing shit music out loud.
Put the Daily Mail away...
Benefits are pretty minimal. DSS is what, £70 a fortnight?
And the rest.
No council tax to pay- £30pw.
No rent to pay- £70pw.
No prescription charging.
Subsidised travel.
The actual benefit cheque is quite small, but it is money that doesn't need to go on rent, travel or tax, because they're already paid for.
I wish I had £45 a week to spend on fags, beer and Sky.
actually the guy by the end of the show wanted a regular part time job so he has wages, and time to see the kids
thats probably on credit first of all... my mum spent mine and my sisters first few years bringing us up by herself on a mix of part time work and benefits - we didnt have that much as my mother didnt spend money she didnt have, when we started school she went back into full time work - was my mum a scrounger, nope she jsut focused on bringing us up for our 1st few years which im grateful for as she taught me to read write and add up by the time i went to school
thats why i tend to disagree with the means testing of public services because a small increase in personal income means paying out for a lot more in things like prescriptions/student tuition etc etc
Job Seekers benefits are for people looking for a job.
Income support is for hard up people... If you can't afford kids then don't have them, simple as. However, I'm all for a sort of income support type thing so mother or father can work part time and get a bit of extra cash for the child.
yup, sadly capitalism as a system doesnt reward things like parenting, which is why id like to see a system where parents can both work part time, and get paid some money by the state as well
both parents working can work as they can afford childcare, one parent working, one at home sounds fine but if both want to see their child regulary, which is a right not a privilige, it can be very degrading
Lets all just give up work and live of the state, oh wait...
We got a new (used) car last year, only after having the other one 9 years. My dad works full time and my mum part time.....great isn't it?
Sadly the attitude of alot of people here is....''sod it, i'll stay at home, pop out a few kids so the estate will look after me''
£35/£40 a week is fuck all to live on. Before the beer, fags and Sky comes food, clothing, general utilities...which eat up most of the money.
Don't you get milk and bread coupons when you sign on?
no excuse.
shame is, their children will grow up being exactly the same, i see it happen a lot round here, they just breed and breed and breed every generation just being as bad as the last one.
really gets my goat.