HARD-working taxpayers are subsidising the rents of big jobless families to the tune of almost £1billion a year.Benefits should be a safety net for the able, a necessity to the sick and disabled and a comfort to the elderly in their twilight years, not a means to support those who want large families but not work to keep them. It should not be down to the state via the taxpayer to pay out to those who haven't paid in. If you have as the rest of the news article claims, eleven children then that's your problem if you don't work to support them, not mine. I'll grit my teeth and help support the first two (for population maintenance) but after that you're on your own if you choose to have any more, you can hand them over for adoption if you can't manage or get a job and get ancillary benefits by working to assist you that way (again only for your first two)
The full price of paying for unemployed parents who choose to have large broods but cannot meet the cost is laid bare in new statistics.
The Department for Work and Pensions figures reveal that keeping 140,000 households with four or more children in homes many workers would struggle to afford is costing the public purse £916million a year. And eight households are still getting an astonishing £1,100 a week to cover their rent despite the coalition Government phasing in a £500-a-week cap last year.
Being on basic benefits if you haven't paid in ought to be an incentive to get off them by working, if you've paid in, you should get more for the first six months then it's back to basic. Same for a pansioner who has never worked, they should get a basic pension whilst someone who has worked all their life gets the enhanced one.
Common sense would dictate that if you do pay in you get more and better, sadly when it comes to common sense, those at the top who lumbered us with the system don't ever appear to have had it.