£3,000 spent on Christmas & 'guess what - you're paying for it'

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...17_634x448.jpg

Like many mothers, Eloise Little has been stockpiling her four children’s Christmas presents for months.
She’s had to budget, too: what with the designer clothes and expensive gadgets on their wish lists, she needs to spend at least £300 to £400 on each of them in order to meet the demands for laptops, computer games, trainers and bikes.
Then there’s all the food and drink required to see the family through the festive season.

That, she reckons, will set her back several hundred pounds, on top of the thousand pounds or so she spends on other presents and festivities over the season.
They’re the sort of figures that would surely make the average working parent stare gloomily into their Christmas eggnog - few, after all, are in a position to contemplate spending such a sum.
But then, as 27-year-old Eloise, from Penryn, Cornwall, admits, she’s not a member of your average working family.
She’s on benefits, meaning that effectively it’s your money which is paying for her children’s Christmas - Xboxes and all.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz18pQ36gML

Posting this to see what ideas and debates it brings up ;)

Bloody rediculous IMO, yet another product of our glorious (ex)Labour government.

Surely it's her decision as to what she spends her benefits on?
I know this will bring up the argument, "get the stupid ***** off benefits" but surely us spending money on her benefits now will prevent her or her children dropping into a state of disrepair, needing hospital treatment and so on, thus saving money

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheryl

Surely it's her decision as to what she spends her benefits on?
I know this will bring up the argument, "get the stupid ***** off benefits" but surely us spending money on her benefits now will prevent her or her children dropping into a state of disrepair, needing hospital treatment and so on, thus saving money

---

No, no one needs multiple laptops or gaming consoles. And is it her decision? yes. Should it be? no, if she can afford to live AND buy all these things, her benefits should be significantly reduced. It's like all the people who are on benefits yet still have iPhones and 50" LCD TVs on their wall, they should be taken off benefits too rly.

Quote:

---

As she puts it: ‘I went to the JobCentre and we worked out that if I went back to work I would actually be £10 a week worse off. I receive £21,528 in annual benefits, and I’d need to earn 30 grand a year before tax to match that

---

aka the unemployment trap - where people realise they're better off on benefits rather than working
i say we cut her ******* benefits, look at how smug & spoilt her children look

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheryl

Surely it's her decision as to what she spends her benefits on?
I know this will bring up the argument, "get the stupid ***** off benefits" but surely us spending money on her benefits now will prevent her or her children dropping into a state of disrepair, needing hospital treatment and so on, thus saving money

---

No take the stupid ***** off benefits and tell her to work

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cocaine

aka the unemployment trap - where people realise they're better off on benefits rather than working
i say we cut her ******* benefits, look at how smug & spoilt her children look

---

The benefit system needs reform. I think the coalition's doing this anyway so that it's a lot more beneficial to work than live on benefits. Can't really blame people for not working if you get more money doing naff all.

Although finding a job in the current climate isn't as easy as some people would like to make out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

The benefit system needs reform. I think the coalition's doing this anyway so that it's a lot more beneficial to work than live on benefits. Can't really blame people for not working if you get more money doing naff all.

Although finding a job in the current climate isn't as easy as some people would like to make out.

---

i found a job when i had very little to no experience - whats other peoples' excuse?

This whole 'EMA' and benefit system is really up the left.

People on these disability allowances are driving about in their cars and jumping out like any normal person. There's physically nothing wrong with them!

People on benefits and the like are probably more richer than those that are hard working, dedicated to their job and are actually trying to raise an income for their family.
I'm getting really sick of hearing 'Oh, s(he)'s on the sick!' when they're driving about in big fancy cars and wearing designer clothes.

This woman is rediculous. If I was that family, I would have bought one game consoles for the whole bloody lot of them. That is the only way to treat them instead of wasting my parents and the UK tax payers money.

What you haven't thought about is that she probably gets all this stuff on credit. People with poor judgment like buying all the children consoles often are up to their necks in it - ie doorstep lenders like provident. Looking at the room behind the presents perhaps she needs to sort out her priorities and my guess is that the paper paid her for the story perhaps they shouldn't encourage her.

£300-400 EACH? They're on benefits and spoilt? Don't see the sense in that to be honest. That girl has a bloody macbook pro, if you can afford that then benefits should be cut.

Benefits should cover basics and SOME luxuries, not macbooks and Xboxs.

Edit: Why do they need two Xboxs?

if she can afford xboxes & macbooks then something is obviously very very wrong

to top it off look how smug she looks
uh i wanna smack her lol

I think this should be regarded as Daylight robbery. She even called herself a good mother despite the fact she doesn't even pay for them. /facepalm

My mother has a full time job and earns less than her. She hates her job and works 12 hours a day and yet there are people like this women who spend the money on luxuries for her kids - appeasing them - and no doubt reinforcing the cycle to them that all you need to be successful is a lot of pregnancy tests.

lol good mother? next joke

Hold on for a second - I thought the Tories would cut your benefits if you weren't searching for a job or doing community service?

she has a macbook and shes like 7 :( dissapoint

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fez

Hold on for a second - I thought the Tories would cut your benefits if you weren't searching for a job or doing community service?

---

Blue Labour do something different from New Labour? I would have thought by now most people would be alert to the fact that both these parties (come election time) often pledge to sort out benefits, clamp down on immigration, stop surrendering powers to the European Union yet when in office do the exact opposite.

The simple solution to sort out the benefits system is to simply say that in order to take out of the benefits system you have to contribute (be in work) for a sum of 10 years before you are able to take out of the system. This would prevent cases such as this, as these people would simply not be entitled to benefits until they have worked for a total of ten years. Of course, by the time they are eligable for benefits and say they lose their job - they would then want to work as they would be in that routine, rather than viewing benefits as a lifestyle/career choice as this womans children are very likely to now do in following their mothers example.

lol wouldn't you hate to be the kid that got the doll

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wixard

lol wouldn't you hate to be the kid that got the doll

---

When you're really little you don't care, and you'd be surprised how expensive most toys like dolls are nowadays.

My mums working and can only just afford to spend that on me and my sister and then people on benefits can seam to spend that without having to work for it.

£300-£400 is actually quite reasonable to spend on a child, however when you have multiple children that should be cut drastically - ever heard that the only child is a spoilt child? That is why.
Absolutely ridiculous that she has managed to save that up for EACH child, feed, clothe and bath all year round aswell?
She probably earns a fortune due to the fact she has an army of children, disgraceful women she is - yet people who have the exact same number of children and are working will probably earn far less.
We need a system where the un-employed get sent to courses and are MADE to work or go into national service. If you can't get a job, (which is always a lie), you should be forced to join an armed service in my opinion. See these young brave men dying in battlefields? It should be these despicable creatures that leech off the country who are coming home in coffins - that's where they belong.
I actually know a man, he lives not far from me, who won't go to work because he gets MORE money on the dole than he does if he works a 8 hour shift 7 days a week AND he paints on the side for cash in hand.
Absolutely disgusting - we need an actual political party which would CREATE jobs for people, then there would be far less excuses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swastika

If you can't get a job, (which is always a lie)

---

kinda contradictory when you go on to say

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swastika

we need an actual political party which would CREATE jobs for people

---

but whatever.
the only reason the government are limited in creating jobs is because public projects such as new roads, hospitals, schools, etc cost millions of pounds and in an era of cutting the budget deficit (BIG question mark surrounding this.. especially with the increase in foreign aid, absolutely unneccessary and completely irresponsible..) creating new jobs atm probably won't even be viable.

The problem with creating jobs is that government cannot create jobs, state sector jobs are a drain on the wealth creating sector and the bigger the state sector the small the private sector becomes because it is the private sector which generates the wealth for the state sector to gobble up. The only way you will create jobs and a real economy is by cutting the public sector right back (because we cant afford it this big, its an economic fact of life) which would then allow you to lower taxes and thus more private sector jobs come into being.

The period under the last government was high unemployment throughout its term, even though it created hundreds of thousands/millions of public sector jobs which of course in turn ended in the closing of the private sector as it could not afford the tax burden levied on it. I mean you only have to look at real unemployment figures to see that when Thatcher cut the state sector (hence the large peak in unemployment) the recovery was by the private sector which prospered thanks to her tax cuts and the ending of masses and masses of red tape and regulation which stifles growth;

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images...ment-feb10.gif

Thatcher 1979 to 1990
Major/Blair and Brown 1990 onwards

Then again, we can't cut regulation now because we have political parties in office which are dedicated to big government and government interference (the Lib/Lab/Con) along with regulation which comes from the European Union which we have no control over and no powers to prevent until we leave the ridiculous thing.

What a mess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swastika

£300-£400 is actually quite reasonable to spend on a child, however when you have multiple children that should be cut drastically - ever heard that the only child is a spoilt child? That is why.

---

If you're fairly well off then that's fair on one child. On benefits it's actually quite easy as well because you get a set amount per child.

Quote:

---

If you can't get a job, (which is always a lie), you should be forced to join an armed service in my opinion.

---

a) It's not WW1/WW2, we don't need conscription
b) Of course, because single mothers with four children should go to war in Afghanistan/Iraq leaving their children with .. oh wait.

In fairness it says that she saved, they're trying to make it sound like she got enough to pay all that in one bundle. Spoiling them isn't going to change the fact they're council housed povos though lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swastika

£300-£400 is actually quite reasonable to spend on a child, however when you have multiple children that should be cut drastically - ever heard that the only child is a spoilt child? That is why.
Absolutely ridiculous that she has managed to save that up for EACH child, feed, clothe and bath all year round aswell?
She probably earns a fortune due to the fact she has an army of children, disgraceful women she is - yet people who have the exact same number of children and are working will probably earn far less.
We need a system where the un-employed get sent to courses and are MADE to work or go into national service. If you can't get a job, (which is always a lie), you should be forced to join an armed service in my opinion. See these young brave men dying in battlefields? It should be these despicable creatures that leech off the country who are coming home in coffins - that's where they belong.
I actually know a man, he lives not far from me, who won't go to work because he gets MORE money on the dole than he does if he works a 8 hour shift 7 days a week AND he paints on the side for cash in hand.
Absolutely disgusting - we need an actual political party which would CREATE jobs for people, then there would be far less excuses.

---

You really think people who cannot get jobs should be FORCED to go to war? So once I finish Uni, I won't be able to get a job straight away, so what you're saying I should go into the army after getting the education, just throw it away and go into the army?

The government should really not create any more jobs, it's the government jobs that are causing this country to get into so much debt. The public sector is paid for the private sector, but the public sector is BIGGER than the private sector which really shouldn't be. If the government cut down on jobs, the private sector would then be able to make a profit from this and create their own jobs. Since that would mean the government would be getting more from tax (since the tax will be coming from private sector jobs and not public sector jobs), tax would decrease and the private sector would be able to create even more jobs since their expenditure would be lower.

Quote:

---

I actually know a man, he lives not far from me, who won't go to work because he gets MORE money on the dole than he does if he works a 8 hour shift 7 days a week AND he paints on the side for cash in hand.

---

Same here - but the thing is, this guy that I know is really nice and generous. He's not lazy, he doesn't sit around the house all day and he is extremely skillful - in fact, he's known for being the 'computer guy' around an area which is local to me and he doesn't charge anyone for computer repairs.
Thing is, one of his sons is a professional footballer in a big UK club and I'm guessing he's sending big money home every week. It's ridiculous. I see people who are on the dole driving around in flashier cars than the working class.

This man could be making a FORTUNE if he actually decided to work and stop taking money from the taxpayers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cocaine

kinda contradictory when you go on to say
but whatever.

---

Not really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

If you're fairly well off then that's fair on one child. On benefits it's actually quite easy as well because you get a set amount per child.
a) It's not WW1/WW2, we don't need conscription
b) Of course, because single mothers with four children should go to war in Afghanistan/Iraq leaving their children with .. oh wait.

---

You don't need to be well off to save £300-£400 for one child, a whole gang of them is a different story.
I didn't say go to war, i said join the armed forces - how about you read my posts next time?
There are alot more jobs these bums could be doing in the army rather than sitting at home, having more kids who they can't afford etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moh

You really think people who cannot get jobs should be FORCED to go to war? So once I finish Uni, I won't be able to get a job straight away, so what you're saying I should go into the army after getting the education, just throw it away and go into the army?.

---

Once again i did not say war, i said the army or another armed forces.
Just because your in the armed forces doesn't mean your going to end up in Afghanistan.
I believe that if your sitting around doing nothing, leeching off the country then you should be infact made to join the army (or navy or RAF) and actually give back to the country for all the money you've leeched off of us taxpayers.
It makes complete sense, the fact your arguing against it is absolutely ridiculous - do you have any respect for your country or nationality?
You should not be sent to the army straight away, absolutely no way, but there should defiantly be a limit on how long you can stay on the dole before your made to either work or give back to the country by means of national service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snatter

Same here - but the thing is, this guy that I know is really nice and generous. He's not lazy, he doesn't sit around the house all day and he is extremely skillful - in fact, he's known for being the 'computer guy' around an area which is local to me and he doesn't charge anyone for computer repairs.
Thing is, one of his sons is a professional footballer in a big UK club and I'm guessing he's sending big money home every week. It's ridiculous. I see people who are on the dole driving around in flashier cars than the working class.
This man could be making a FORTUNE if he actually decided to work and stop taking money from the taxpayers.

---

He has absolutely no motivation, after all not many people do living in this country anymore.
Don't get me wrong i am a proud British man but our country is seen as an easy target for immigrants and asylum seekers, we get absolutely walked all over on.

Another election.
Vote in a independence party or hopefully the BNP, leave the EU, withdraw from Afghanistan, put a cap on the length of time you can be on the dole, re-introduce national service, create jobs and re-create British pride and nationalism.
Job done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swastika

Once again i did not say war, i said the army or another armed forces.
Just because your in the armed forces doesn't mean your going to end up in Afghanistan.
I believe that if your sitting around doing nothing, leeching off the country then you should be infact made to join the army (or navy or RAF) and actually give back to the country for all the money you've leeched off of us taxpayers.
It makes complete sense, the fact your arguing against it is absolutely ridiculous - do you have any respect for your country or nationality?
You should not be sent to the army straight away, absolutely no way, but there should defiantly be a limit on how long you can stay on the dole before your made to either work or give back to the country by means of national service.

---

Considering "armed forces" is either the army, the navy or the RAF then after your training, you're going to end up in a war fighting for oil.

So to have respect for the country, that automatically means you should risk your life for it? I respect a lot of people, doesn't mean I would risk my life for them either.

The last thing I would want is some idiotic chav be allowed access to a gun.

You'd also leech more money by being in the army and not going to war, don't get your logic.

looks like another paper paid story.

why would they have their main gifts of xbox and macs out of the wrapping paper already?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Recursion

No, no one needs multiple laptops or gaming consoles. And is it her decision? yes. Should it be? no, if she can afford to live AND buy all these things, her benefits should be significantly reduced. It's like all the people who are on benefits yet still have iPhones and 50" LCD TVs on their wall, they should be taken off benefits too rly.

---

I have 3 laptops. I have to use all 3. I do kind of need them.

I have one for me, a netbook when I'm out and about and one for coursework (provided by school).

I have multiple computers. My setup consists at the moment of two iMacs, a Windows laptop and an iPad. I use them all in their own way for various things.

community service
people complain about litter
people who are on benefits clean up our litter once a week or so.

What the hell? Where's my Xbox?

Oh yeah... i forgot! I paid for this scrounging, low life's Xbox!

I really can’t see any political party rectifying what is a ridiculous situation.

Why should hard working families be worse off? They shouldn’t be, with hard work should come rewards, the rewards of a better quality of life.

Most working families don’t have more than 2 or 3 children, because they simply cannot afford to. I don't know if this idea is worth considering, and I’m not suggesting for one moment capping the number of children anyone is free to have, but I do feel child benefit shouldn’t stretch to every child a couple decides to have, and there should be a set maximum amount that’s payable, possibly for a maximum of 2 or 3 children. Then if a couple or a single mother wants to have more children, she will know in advance that her child benefit is not going to increase, no pay rise ;) If you can’t afford to raise such large families then don’t have them. This will teach mothers and fathers alike, like the one in this story that taxpayers aren’t going to subsidize families like theirs.

I don't know if my idea is good or bad, but something does need to be done.

Seems about average for benefits, especially if she's saved it up. However, I think the figures are incorrect - She is a single adult living in a residency and receives Child Benefits. She is exempt from paying council tax. Althugh this is a cost for the public, it would not be in the figure of £1,300 per annum, so the article is already misleading as it puts council tax above Child Benefit. It is an either/or situation. Secondly, IF she did pay council tax, it would be discounted at 25 percent, which judging by the band ratings for Council Tax in the Penryn area, is a completely made up sum. The closest are £1226 and £1379, and knowing how any media source will round up or over-exaggerate, I honestly believe if the Daily Mail had researched their news, then they would of chosen £1,400 to stick within guidelines, even though if she had the 25% discount, she'd be paying £975, NOT £1,300 per annum as the article suggests.

Next:

The child credits do not have a monetary sum, they're tax credit, they do not have an value. It's like the Government giving out bus passes to the elderly and saying they cost £130 p/a. They don't, they would if you were a normal person paying out, but credits and money are very different.

Next again:

Children are usually entitled to free spectacle/eye tests, any one can be. And going by the picture of the family, none of them wear them. The NHS usually pay out for free dental care, even at private dentists (although private ones tend to have their own systems in place). The school meals is a bit dodgy, but hardly anything to cry over. Dodgy meaning are other children entitled, do they even get free meals etc. Milk vouchers mean very little too, and is down to the school, not the Government (in most cases).

So all in all, the only things here that matter are the low council tax she may have to pay AND the child benefit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MissAlice

I really can’t see any political party rectifying what is a ridiculous situation.

Why should hard working families be worse off? They shouldn’t be, with hard work should come rewards, the rewards of a better quality of life.

Most working families don’t have more than 2 or 3 children, because they simply cannot afford to. I don't know if this idea is worth considering, and I’m not suggesting for one moment capping the number of children anyone is free to have, but I do feel child benefit shouldn’t stretch to every child a couple decides to have, and there should be a set maximum amount that’s payable, possibly for a maximum of 2 or 3 children. Then if a couple or a single mother wants to have more children, she will know in advance that her child benefit is not going to increase, no pay rise ;) If you can’t afford to raise such large families then don’t have them. This will teach mothers and fathers alike, like the one in this story that taxpayers aren’t going to subsidize families like theirs.

I don't know if my idea is good or bad, but something does need to be done.

---

Agree completely with this.

Benefits aren't supposed to give people high quality lives, they should only cover life's necessities. They have obviously all been eating and drinking well and are dressed well, certainly don't look to of been struggling saving up all that cash for Macbooks and Xbox's. This proves that they have been receiving more than is actually needed to live to a decent standard. Why can't they just cut benefits so getting a job is almost guaranteed to pay more?

I hate things like this. Get off benefits if they can afford that, although this is made to get a reaction from us :L