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

[Chippiewill]

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

[Callum.]

looks like another paper paid story.

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

[Markeh]

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).

[HotelUser]

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.

[dbgtz]

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

[-Danube-]

What the hell? Where's my Xbox?

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

[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.

[GommeInc]

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.

[Replenished]

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?

[The Don]

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