wife swap - tv show


Z

Zoe Brown

Did anybody watch the wife swap program on tv last? It featured a couple
with 8 children who were claiming a staggering £38k of benefits a year !!!
Neither of them were working or wanted to work !!

Outrageous.
 
Ad

Advertisements

N

Natalie

Mind you if you have that many children, looking after them is more than a
full time job!!
 
P

Pat Winstanley

Did anybody watch the wife swap program on tv last? It featured a couple
with 8 children who were claiming a staggering £38k of benefits a year !!!
Neither of them were working or wanted to work !!

Outrageous.
With *eight* kids (assuming all are dependents), they won't have much,
if anything, to spare for luxuries on that sort of net income.

It works out at about £75 net per week each, for everything (including
all bills - and bills will be higher for the average household as they
will need the equivalent of a couple of houses so about twice the bills
for heating etc... plus probably have to cook/eat in shifts so extra
costs for that).

And with 8 kids those parents *must* be working (even though not
performing waged/salaried work)!

Perhaps that family is not as 'rolling in it' as you seem to think...
 
K

karen

I thought it was disgusting - they were obviously doing quite nicely on
handouts, it's no wonder there are so many happy to sit on their arse and
accept benefits if u get so much money, they both acted like brats I would
have walked if i'd been that poor woman, she'll probably need counselling to
get over it!
 
D

Dave

Did anybody watch the wife swap program on tv last? It featured a couple
with 8 children who were claiming a staggering £38k of benefits a year !!!
Neither of them were working or wanted to work !!

Outrageous.
I cannot believe they would get that much in benefits. I worked itr
out and it came to much much less
 
M

Mike

Natalie said:
Mind you if you have that many children, looking after them is more than a
full time job!!
And a lot of people have to work even harder to pay the taxes to subsidise
their breeding program.

They are what is wrong with the welfare state, very few working people would
be able to afford 8 kids without state benefits. Giving them another £38
each time they bred another state funded sprog just encouraged them to have
another. I'll give anyone 5-1 half their brood will do the same un-less we
finally get a government prepared to cap benefits.

Mind you when they have sex it must be like throwing a chipoloata into a jam
jar, unless she spends all day doing pelvic floor excercises or he's hung
like a pony ;-)

Mike
 
R

Rob

Zoe Brown said:
Did anybody watch the wife swap program on tv last? It featured a couple
with 8 children who were claiming a staggering £38k of benefits a year !!!
Neither of them were working or wanted to work !!

Outrageous.
Why is it outrageous? You have highlighted just 2 adults and 8 children out
of the millions that are living on benefits. Is it because they are all in
the same place?

Would you be happier if the benefits were spread across say 4 families with
2 kids each? That would of course increase the total spent, as 4 lots of
housing/ct benefit/family premium would have to be paid. The amounts for
adults and children would remain the same, wherever they lived.

Or are you advocating placing some kind of limit on the number of children
people can have, based on income perhaps?

Rob
 
A

Andy Pandy

Rob said:
Why is it outrageous? You have highlighted just 2 adults and 8 children out
of the millions that are living on benefits. Is it because they are all in
the same place?
I think what most people found outrageous was the attitude of the couple.

What I find outrageous is that if one of them had decided to get a job, work
hard, get promoted and end up on a very decent income, they would only be very
slightly better off than on benefits. There is simply no incentive for
unemployed people with a big family to work.

The government needs to realise that unless you allow people to keep a decent
proportion of the money they earn, and not take nearly all of it away in taxes
and reduction in benefits, you *will* end up with many people sponging off the
state.

Perhaps benefits should be set at levels where widescreen TV's, cigarettes, and
booze are unaffordable but where the family themselves benefit from at least
half of what they earn.
 
A

Andy Pandy

Dave said:
I cannot believe they would get that much in benefits. I worked itr
out and it came to much much less
This is how I worked it out:

Income support/income based JSA rates are approximately:

£4500 for a couple.

£2000 per child plus an extra £1000 for the first child (inc child benefit). So
for 8 children, about £17000. Tax free.

Housing benefit will cover the full rent, providing the council don't decree the
rent is too high or the house is too big for the family. Council tax benefit
will pay the full council tax for a property up to band E. Both tax free.

For a house big enough for a family of 10 I'd guess a rent of about £300 per
week - £15500 per year. Council tax I'd guess about £1500.

Making a total £38500. No income tax to pay, only the adult JSA is taxable and
that falls within the personal allowance.

For an illustration try a web based benefits calculator like:

http://www.chiltern.gov.uk/benefits/wbc-03.htm

Note the "applicable amount" for the family size you enter - this is the amount
the government thinks you need to live on excluding housing costs, and is about
what your income will be made up to in income support/JSA if you don't earn that
much. Then add housing benefit and council tax benefit.
 
Z

Zoe Brown

Pat Winstanley said:
With *eight* kids (assuming all are dependents), they won't have much,
if anything, to spare for luxuries on that sort of net income.

It works out at about £75 net per week each, for everything (including
all bills - and bills will be higher for the average household as they
will need the equivalent of a couple of houses so about twice the bills
for heating etc... plus probably have to cook/eat in shifts so extra
costs for that).

And with 8 kids those parents *must* be working (even though not
performing waged/salaried work)!

Perhaps that family is not as 'rolling in it' as you seem to think...
This really isn't the issue these people have decided to have 8 children
without the means to support them. It would take many individuals working
full time/supporting their own families to pay enough tax to raise £38k per
year for these people to spend as they please.

Also I must point out that you claim that they *must* be working to bring up
the kids but there is nothing in the law to indicate that those in receipt
of benefits have to bring up their children to a certain standard. Also
plenty of other households manage to earn and bring up kids !!
 
Z

Zoe Brown

Or are you advocating placing some kind of limit on the number of children
people can have, based on income perhaps?
Yes this is how it works for those who earn a living !!! I couldn't afford
8 children of my own so I don't have them - why should tax payers have to
afford their 8 children !
 
Z

Zoe Brown

Andy Pandy said:
I think what most people found outrageous was the attitude of the couple.

What I find outrageous is that if one of them had decided to get a job, work
hard, get promoted and end up on a very decent income, they would only be very
slightly better off than on benefits. There is simply no incentive for
unemployed people with a big family to work.

The government needs to realise that unless you allow people to keep a decent
proportion of the money they earn, and not take nearly all of it away in taxes
and reduction in benefits, you *will* end up with many people sponging off the
state.
This is the case allready - I would be interested if somebody could work out
figures if one of the parent earnt 12k a year.

So 2 adults, 8 children, 12k per year income and housing cost of £300 a week
(bassed on a previous post). No childcare costs at this stage as we will
assume that mum.dad does this whille the other is at work.
 
K

karen

Oh and don't forget the large cash sum she gets everytime she has another
baby, must be like christmas each time, and don't say but baby stuff costs a
lot because as most women will tell you as soon as you tell people you are
pregnant you tend to get lots of stuff given to you and of course she would
have a substancial amount from earlier children. It was quite obvious that
they recieve a lot of money from somewhere, probably a bit of cash in hand
work because my friend who has 9 children (although elder ones all work)
could not afford a widescreen tv or nice furnishings and has to count every
penny to afford even small gifts for christmas. Even his tattoo's must have
cost a small fortune, my last one was £90 and they probably cost more since
3 years ago when I had that.
This country gives far too much away and it's us tax payers who foot the
bill.
 
K

karen

Oh and don't forget the large cash sum she gets everytime she has another
baby, must be like christmas each time, and don't say but baby stuff costs a
lot because as most women will tell you as soon as you tell people you are
pregnant you tend to get lots of stuff given to you and of course she would
have a substancial amount from earlier children. It was quite obvious that
they recieve a lot of money from somewhere, probably a bit of cash in hand
work because my friend who has 9 children (although elder ones all work)
could not afford a widescreen tv or nice furnishings and has to count every
penny to afford even small gifts for christmas. Even his tattoo's must have
cost a small fortune, my last one was £90 and they probably cost more since
3 years ago when I had that.
This country gives far too much away and it's us tax payers who foot the
bill.
 
N

nicky

Zoe Brown said:
Did anybody watch the wife swap program on tv last? It featured a couple
with 8 children who were claiming a staggering £38k of benefits a year !!!
I was far more concerned by the fact that she smokes around her chronically
asthmatic kids. If she was doing anything else that potentially was to cause
so much harm to them then social services would be involved. That truly was
outrageous and utterly disgusting. I smoke myself but I go out to the bloody
garden to do it, there is no way I want my children to be affected by my
disgusting habit.

Nicky
 
J

Jeep Beep

Perhaps benefits should be set at levels where widescreen TV's,
cigarettes, and booze are unaffordable but where the family themselves benefit from at least
half of what they earn.

Sadly as they were such horrible selfish gits, they'd still most likely buy
cigarettes to blow smoke in their kids faces and do without fruit and
vegetables for the kids instead.

Jan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
K

karen

HERE HERE! Well said - We should not have to pay for them to have 8
children! Well they will probably have more so it could be 9 or 10
 
P

Pat Winstanley

This really isn't the issue these people have decided to have 8 children
without the means to support them.
How do you know there were no means to support the kids when the kids
came along?

I suspect you are assuming circumstances without being fully acquainted
with the circumstances.

Since noticing your poster earlier I have been thinking about a set of
sextuplets (now in their late teens or early twenties I suppose) all
born from a single pregnancy!! I seem to recall that the parents both
stopped paid work when the babies were born, because it was such a full
time job just caring for them all.

It's perfectly feasible that the eight children you were mentioning were
from several multiple births, or perhaps from two seperate families
which both split up, and all the kids coming to live together... each
with one parent and one step parent etc, etc.

You don't seem to have any detail about *why* they are in this situation
now.

(As a matter of interest, have you any children?)
 
K

karen

She obviously gets free prescriptions too, so why does she care if they are
all on inhalers - I am a light smoker and I smoke in the garden too, so does
anyone who wishes to smoke at my house.. Then of course there'l be the huge
bill to the nhs when she needs a heart bypass or treatment for lung cancer -
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

Jeep Beep

Since noticing your poster earlier I have been thinking about a set of
sextuplets (now in their late teens or early twenties I suppose) all
born from a single pregnancy!! I seem to recall that the parents both
stopped paid work when the babies were born, because it was such a full
time job just caring for them all.

It's perfectly feasible that the eight children you were mentioning were
from several multiple births
There was only one set of twins (the babies). I take it you didn't see the
programme?

Jan
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Top