Post: #1

Quote:A jobless mother has provoked anger by urging her teenage daughter to get pregnant for an easy life on benefits.
Sinead Clarkson, 36, has no qualifications, has never worked and rakes in £1,200 a month from the State.
She has now admitted encouraging her 19-year-old daughter Melissa to follow her shameless example and ‘work the system’ by having a baby.
Melissa became pregnant six months ago, and is now in line for an extra £400 a month courtesy of taxpayers when her baby is born, as well as a two-bedroom council house.
Her mother, who has another daughter, Amie, aged 12, said: ‘I am better off on benefits. I refuse to work for a pittance and struggle.
‘I don’t have any qualifications so it is easier to claim money than persuade an employer to give me a job.
‘I told Melissa to work the system and have a baby so she could claim more benefits, get a house of her own and have a better life.
‘I don’t want her to work for peanuts in a low-pay job.’
Yesterday Robert Oxley, campaign director at the TaxPayers’ Alliance, called for the benefits system to be overhauled.
‘It is a deeply depressing waste of taxpayers’ money and human potential for someone to aspire to live their life on benefits – worse still to promote the same for their children,’ he said.
‘The welfare system should never be an alternative to work. A system that allows people to see having a child as a pay-cheque is fundamentally flawed and needs further reform.’

Miss Clarkson, from Rochdale, dropped out of school after becoming pregnant at the age of 15, and has been receiving government handouts since she was 16.
She said: ‘It wasn’t planned but I was happy to leave school because I didn’t like it – I had no career aspirations.’ She first began claiming £260 a month in income support.
And nine months after having Melissa in July 1994, Miss Clarkson – whose boyfriend left her – was given her own two-bedroom council house, along with £68 a month child benefit.

In an interview with Closer magazine, she said: ‘I was thrilled to get my own place. It was a nice house with lots of space.’
Miss Clarkson, who claimed as much as £328 a month while her daughter was a baby, said she felt lonely when Melissa started school. She gave birth to Amie in 2001 after a brief relationship.
And to her delight, her handouts increased to £1,020 a month, including her rent, child tax credits and other benefits. She was also given a three-bedroom house.
‘Amie was not planned, but I was excited about being a mum again,’ Miss Clarkson said.
‘Plus I knew my benefits would increase and the extra money would come in handy.’
She added: ‘Being on benefits suits me. I don’t have the stress of working like some of my friends. I spend a lot of time cooking and cleaning, or I will watch TV or have friends round.

‘I know people will be angry with my choices, but they should not judge. It is the system’s fault that I can choose not to work.
‘What is the point of having a job if I can’t earn much more than I get now? People decide to have babies so they can get benefits because this country allows it.’
Miss Clarkson said her 12-year-old daughter Amie ‘talks about having a baby’ too – and if she did she would support her decision. ‘Amie is still in school and hopefully will get some qualifications,’ she said. ‘But if she did decide to go down the same route as Melissa, I would support her.’
Clinical psychologist Dr Sharon Lewis warned yesterday that it is crucially important for parents to set a good example – and that those who aspire to a life without work may prevent their children from reaching their full potential as adults.
She said: ‘Children are more influenced by what their parents do, rather than what they say.
‘If a parent is not showing a responsible attitude to their role in society, their children will follow suit.
‘Individuals need to work to thrive.
'Otherwise it can hamper their future development and prevent them reaching their full potential.’

   
   
   

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...efits.html

Post: #2

she's not wrong no matter how deplorable her actions are
the system is built that way, i'd hate on the betas and feminists who decided these handouts are beneficial to society

Post: #3

Ugh! Vinman I'll have to find the Chicago one to add to this. Its almost the identical story too!

Post: #4

If the blonde is the daughter she would have been smarter to tell her to spread her legs for an older guy with money and live a better life than a small house and government handout provides.

Post: #5

Ok I can't find the more recent of the articles but I stumble across this one from the Reagan era.

Enter the welfare queen.

Post: #6

In Denmark it's even cushier - you make more money going on welfare than working for minimum wage. That's even before having a kid.

Post: #7

I don't blame these ho's at all. Why the fuck work for a living when you can get paid for 18 years for having sex a few times? And have the joy of a child?

The bigger question is why do men support this shit. They are slaves paying 40-60% of their yearly income so other people can live a life of leisure. They are the ones you should be hating on.

Post: #8

Chavs gon' chav.

Post: #9

This is what a women entrepreneur looks like.

Specialty: Human Resources

Post: #10

She's simply advising her daughter to get married and make babies early while she's young and fertile.

It's very traditional and a good advice. Mothers used to do this ages ago. That's what women should naturally be doing.

The only difference is that this modern mother wants the State as the son-in-law, instead of some reliable beta provider.

Or to put it another way, instead of one beta provider being married to the daughter, we have every beta provider in the country married to her through taxation, minus the icky sex part.

Post: #11

Samseau we have no choice living in the UK. Why should we be 'hated on' for paying taxes. Ppl on welfare, public sector workers and immigrants make up a big voting bloc so will never vote for benefit cuts.

Post: #12

Sadly it is great advice in the modern western decaying society. Ladies, you need to find a good man who can provide for you and have a family. Your life will be more fulfilling if you do this rather than chase some career.

But with socialist tax policies, the govt. can provide nearly as good as any beta male, maybe better. And the woman will not have to have sex with her husband or be faithful.

The problem is, how much longer will the beta males continue to live a life where they get paid little to nothing to work themselves to the bone and live a life that is completely unhappy and sexually starved? Because when they finally wake up, the whole system will crash down. And even if the beta males do not wake up, the whole system will crash down as it is. You can't continue to spend more than you bring in forever and ever.

Samseau has a good question. Why does any man vote for liberal economic policies, they destroy your life as a man. A majority of men do not, but some men still do so. Seems to be based in jealously of "the rich", even though the true elites do better under socialism.

Post: #13

(04-17-2014 02:11 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  Samseau has a good question. Why does any man vote for liberal economic policies, they destroy your life as a man. A majority of men do not, but some men still do so. Seems to be based in jealously of "the rich", even though the true elites do better under socialism.

Women can vote this shit in with little assistance from men's votes.

The majority of women lean way left and love entitlements, so their elected officials pander to them.

The more of them that decide to remain unmarried, the worse it will become as once married many vote along similar lines to their husbands. Without marriage, they need the government for support.

Post: #14

I am all for taxing the rich. But I am not for taxing the working class.

Income taxes need to go or be reduced as much as possible. Taxes should be collected by net worth:

Of the nation's top richest 1%, take 5% of their total net worth each year. Of the nation's top richest 5%, take 2% of total net worth. For the richest 20%, take 1% of total net worth. For anyone else take nothing.

Corporations should also be counted as individuals for this tax law.

Although I am a libertarian in principle, taxes are still a necessary evil. So if they must be collected, it should be done so ruthlessly from the rich. Not enough to crash the economy, but enough to keep the richest players from becoming too dominant. Losing 5% of your total net worth each year in taxes would amount to hundreds of billions from the trillionares in this country.

But instead, this country just grinds it's working class into non-existence.

Post: #15

(04-17-2014 02:27 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 02:11 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  Samseau has a good question. Why does any man vote for liberal economic policies, they destroy your life as a man. A majority of men do not, but some men still do so. Seems to be based in jealously of "the rich", even though the true elites do better under socialism.

Women can vote this shit in with little assistance from men's votes.

The majority of women lean way left and love entitlements, so their elected officials pander to them.

The more of them that decide to remain unmarried, the worse it will become as once married many vote along similar lines to their husbands. Without marriage, they need the government for support.

Yes. I don't think 100 years ago the average man had any idea of how uncivilized women would become if we removed the reigns over their impulsive behavior. But once they gave women the right to vote, they sealed the fate of their society. It was only a matter of time before women bankrupted the country in an attempt to not have to be responsible adults and put all their shit on the men.

Post: #16

(04-17-2014 02:30 AM)Samseau Wrote:  I am all for taxing the rich. But I am not for taxing the working class.

Income taxes need to go or be reduced as much as possible. Taxes should be collected by net worth:

Of the nation's top richest 1%, take 5% of their total net worth each year. Of the nation's top richest 5%, take 2% of total net worth. For the richest 20%, take 1% of total net worth. For anyone else take nothing.

Corporations should also be counted as individuals for this tax law.

Although I am a libertarian in principle, taxes are still a necessary evil. So if they must be collected, it should be done so ruthlessly from the rich. Not enough to crash the economy, but enough to keep the richest players from becoming too dominant. Losing 5% of your total net worth each year in taxes would amount to hundreds of billions from the trillionares in this country.

But instead, this country just grinds it's working class into non-existence.

I have a much easier solution: disband the military and get rid of income taxes all together.

Oh, and WB the daughter.

Post: #17

This is the kind of life advice women start to get when you take away every possible consequence a women could actually face in society and begin to reward her for doing stuff that would usually be considered negative.

It's true. Women pretty much see men as walking ATM's and sex toys now.

This article just highlights that.

Post: #18

Yup . Mom is going to leech off the daughter now to continue the lifestyle . Daughter is going to use her mom as a free babysitter to party and spend like her friends . Fair trade .

Post: #19

This is why when I take over the UK, I'll rescind voting rights from anyone who does not own land. At the moment 30% or so of the electorate vote on who gives them the most benefits.

Can't blame the woman, she's playing the system, hustling it. Blame the system.

Post: #20

(04-16-2014 09:47 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  If the blonde is the daughter she would have been smarter to tell her to spread her legs for an older guy with money and live a better life than a small house and government handout provides.

Depending on where you live in Northern Europe, you can actually get an obscene amount of money in benefits as a single mother.

There have been discussions in Denmark because of examples where a single mom with two kids got about $3500 in benefits, which converted by danish tax rates is a monthly income of $5000, which is what a doctor makes in Denmark on their first pay scale.

It is in fact a very good career in some countries to be a single mom and MANY take advantage of it and then supplement with a disability pension on pseudo-diagnosises like Fibromyalgia, Social Anxiety, Depression etc.

It is a massive scam and in the scandis you have families where 3 generations have lived on benefits.

Post: #21

(04-16-2014 10:06 PM)Tytalus Wrote:  In Denmark it's even cushier - you make more money going on welfare than working for minimum wage. That's even before having a kid.

Total BS.

There is no minimum wage in Denmark.

Post: #22

A few years ago I asked a female relative of mine who'd had several kids by the age of 23 (and who now has six or seven of the bastards [and yes that is the correct term in this case] - can't remember exactly how many) why she wanted to have so many kids. Her answer, verbatim: "So I can go on the dole and not have to work."

(Would bang the daughter. Mum probably would have been all right back in the day but has definitely hit the wall)

Post: #23

(04-17-2014 05:22 AM)berserk Wrote:  Depending on where you live in Northern Europe, you can actually get an obscene amount of money in benefits as a single mother.

There have been discussions in Denmark because of examples where a single mom with two kids got about $3500 in benefits, which converted by danish tax rates is a monthly income of $5000, which is what a doctor makes in Denmark on their first pay scale.

It is in fact a very good career in some countries to be a single mom and MANY take advantage of it and then supplement with a disability pension on pseudo-diagnosises like Fibromyalgia, Social Anxiety, Depression etc.

It is a massive scam and in the scandis you have families where 3 generations have lived on benefits.

Sounds like another Right wing myth. Source?

Post: #24

(04-17-2014 05:30 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 05:22 AM)berserk Wrote:  Depending on where you live in Northern Europe, you can actually get an obscene amount of money in benefits as a single mother.

There have been discussions in Denmark because of examples where a single mom with two kids got about $3500 in benefits, which converted by danish tax rates is a monthly income of $5000, which is what a doctor makes in Denmark on their first pay scale.

It is in fact a very good career in some countries to be a single mom and MANY take advantage of it and then supplement with a disability pension on pseudo-diagnosises like Fibromyalgia, Social Anxiety, Depression etc.

It is a massive scam and in the scandis you have families where 3 generations have lived on benefits.

Sounds like another Right wing myth. Source?

Do you read Danish?

Here is one such example: http://www.bt.dk/danmark/enlig-mor-til-f...efter-skat

Translated headline: "Single mom of four children on welfare gets $4200 after tax".

Another opinion piece by a woman who left the 'lower class' and now speaks out against their culture: http://politiken.dk/debat/ECE801945/unde...kke-penge/

Translation: "The lower clases lack morality - not money"

A famous quote from that articles: "The lower class celebrate disability pension with party and cake".

This is unfortunately the truth and not right wing myth.

Post: #25

(04-17-2014 05:28 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 10:06 PM)Tytalus Wrote:  In Denmark it's even cushier - you make more money going on welfare than working for minimum wage. That's even before having a kid.

Total BS.

There is no minimum wage in Denmark.

Yes there is a minimum wage, just not government mandated. Minimum wages are negotiated between labor unions and industry organisations. The minimum wage in Denmark is generally about $15 for the least skilled work and significantly higher for skilled work.