In the news

Council do have a duty of care, that's right. And I am not a Tory, but this sort of thing does perplex me. I work, so each commitment I enter into has to be weighed up, and that includes having another child (I have three, so no more, but hypothetically speaking). I have to do that, so why should someone who is living on benefits, that is my tax, not have to make the same decisions? We pay benefits based on someone's needs, but I think there should be a maximum - why is it right that there needs can keep on being met as they expand (to 11 fucking kids for fuck's sake!), and continue to be met indefinitely, whereas mine can only be met up to a point - i.e the limits of my paypacket?

I would love to hear someone explain why?

this might interest you.

for example,

Myth 9: “There are large numbers of families receiving out-of-work benefits
living in expensive houses the vast majority of people could never afford”/ “the state pays for workless people to live in mansions”
The truth is that only a small number of households were receiving support through Housing Benefit worth £50,000 or more a year before a cap came in on the amount of support a household can receive through Housing Benefit (£20,800 a year).
 In March 2012 just 110 households in receipt of Housing Benefit received over £50,000 a year (out of 5,014,650 recipients)
 According to the latest DWP figures, the average Housing Benefit award is £4651.92 a year.
 In fact, only 0.037% of Housing Benefit claimants are receiving more than £30,000 per annum and most of those are receiving between £30,000 and £40,000.
 Surprisingly a third of children in poverty live in owner-occupier families with around a third in social housing and a third in privately rented housing.