52 week all inclusive holiday

**hebblemarine** · 2nd February 2012, 07:37

Just found a cracking deal on this holiday:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185

**Rob12** · 2nd February 2012, 08:12

Unbelievable but prob all to common. The amount spent per week on booze cigs sky mobiles etc hardly life necessities. Just think what they would have to earn before tax to get that amount net.

**FLOB** · 2nd February 2012, 09:16

just think how much more they'd cost the taxpayer if they couple didin't share a home and lived in london and rented a private sector house- that would cost about 1200 a month each in rent- being paid by the local authority!!!! I'd rather they were in wales together lol
I've always thought those who will not contribute should be sent to areas where housing is plentiful and cheap- to help reduce the strain on the people whose taxes pay for the lifestyle of those who would rather scrimp by than have a real life.
I remember Barrow in furness being ****** cheap- small terraced houses were starting at 6k when i worked there in 1999.

**Ben50n** · 2nd February 2012, 10:52

I think the cap is very reasonable, that equates to a salary of about £35K. He would never be able to earn that amount of money.

People in receipt of benefits are the only people who get a rise in their income for having more children, what would your boss say if you went to ask for a raise in your wages because you are having another child??

Luxuries of smoking, drinking alcohol, mobile phones and SKY MOVIES can all be stopped.

Years ago, there was a reduction in the amount of benefit called a "Wage Stop". This would stop people from receiving more on benefit then they would doing their normal job. Simple example, works as a security guard and would nrmally earn £100 per week, benefit would be restricted to that or less.

**Das** · 2nd February 2012, 11:03

Originally Posted by Ben50n

I think the cap is very reasonable

I do too. Benefits should be at a level that encourages people back into work.

**bigdave1701** · 2nd February 2012, 11:50

24 cans a week?!?! That's 4 cans a day PLUS a night out on friday!... I think he needs to check into AA!

As for "The market for my skills dried up 10 years ago".. HOW ABOUT YOU RE-TRAIN YOU LAZY HALFWIT!! In the last 10 years he cold have retrained in mobile technology & software development and be earning £40k+ easy!! OR if he could have been bothered he could have taken a Degree course, a Masters and a Doctorate!!

There is no excuse for people like him to sit around doing ****** all! As for his bi-polar wife, there are millions of people in the same boat who are all working and leading a normal life!

**Duncan** · 2nd February 2012, 12:40

Don't get me started! I saw that article before the OP started this thread and it made my blood boil then!

As already said, the guy is clearly capable given his previous occupation/skills so it shouldn't be difficult to retrain in an area of software/IT that pays as much, or more probably, as the benefits.

Think he's lost sense of reality as to what are essentials when you're not working. What's the incentive though when you're getting paid that much in benefits?!

EDIT:

Originally Posted by bigdave1701

24 cans a week?!?! That's 4 cans a day PLUS a night out on friday!... I think he needs to check into AA!

Err durr! What do you think the kids are drinking?!

**mcpitman** · 2nd February 2012, 13:05

As Peter Griffin would say "This really grinds my gears"....

The lazy (expletive deleted) could have re trained for anything by now, for free & got a job.

**Hideous** · 2nd February 2012, 13:43

would cap it even lower than 26k.
what i would do to make some cuts here: -
1) food allowance for families like this who claim benefits should be provided by "vouchers" -- rationed, so they can't gluttonise and the correct type of food is given. Also, put a "fat tax" on junk food - they do this in denmark for instance.
2) alcohol and tobacco should not be funded by the taxpayer

basically, many such as these have shown they can't be trusted with cash -- so don't give them cash. provide the basic living items in an alternative way.

**Ben50n** · 2nd February 2012, 14:03

Originally Posted by Hideous

would cap it even lower than 26k.
what i would do to make some cuts here: -
1) food allowance for families like this who claim benefits should be provided by "vouchers" -- rationed, so they can't gluttonise and the correct type of food is given. Also, put a "fat tax" on junk food - they do this in denmark for instance.
2) alcohol and tobacco should not be funded by the taxpayer

basically, many such as these have shown they can't be trusted with cash -- so don't give them cash. provide the basic living items in an alternative way.

If you only knew how long the exact same argument has gone on? The "Do" gooders don't want the stigmatism of people claiming benefits to have the embarrassment of having to use food vouchers as it takes away their dignity!

I have said this many a time, I used to work for DWP some 20+ years as we used to issue food vouchers for emergency payments when a customer had lost their money stamped with "No tobacco, alcohol or sweets" on them.

The Benefit Boom has to stop, I am not saying dont help the real needy, the disabled, the old (you know those people who have worked most of their lives and are treated worse then most prisoners).

What we need to do is stop the benefit culture, whole generations claiming benefit, with no intention to work.