Tits on the taxpayer

[Gob]

Most families who are due to lose their child benefit are worrying about how they'll make ends meet without it.

But for Kelly Marshall, who has five children by four different fathers, the handout has never been about paying for nappies, food and other everyday expenses.

She saved her benefit money to help pay for breast enhancement.

And as many parents envisage tightening their belts after the Tories announced plans to cut the benefit for higher-rate taxpayers, she plans to save more of hers for liposuction and a tummy tuck.

Miss Marshall, who has never worked, rakes in almost £29,000 a year from benefits - and last year spent £4,500 to go from a 34A to a 34DD.

She explained: 'I have wanted a boob job since I was a teen. But it wasn't until I had five children that I could afford it - with all the extra benefits I get. Now I hope to have liposuction, a tummy tuck and regular Botox.

'I thought having children would make my boobs bigger, but that never happened so I decided to do something about them.

'I saved money from my benefits for four months to cover half the cost and put the rest on a credit card, which I pay back with my benefits.

'I know most people will think it is wrong I am spending taxpayers' money on my looks. But I deserve it because I am a good mum. Having children has taken its toll on my body. All mums should be able to have cosmetic surgery.

'I don't care that it is at the taxpayers' cost,' she told Closer magazine. 'I am just proud of my looks and family - and it's my decision what the money is spent on.'

Miss Marshall, 32, receives monthly payments of £870 in housing benefit, £975 in child tax credit, and £303 in child benefit, giving her an income equivalent to a pre-tax salary of £39,000.

On Monday, George Osborne announced plans to prevent families on benefits receiving more than £26,000 a year.

The Chancellor said the aim was to put a cap on the maximum amount it is possible for any one person to claim and linked the figure to the average working income.

Critics pointed out, however, that any working household would need to earn at least £35,000 to take home £26,000.

Miss Marshall has no plans to start working. She once went to a job centre, but quickly realised she would be financially much better off if she did not work.

'What's the point? My mum worked all her life and she paid taxes so I feel I am getting what I deserve,' she said. 'Some people might think I am a scrounger.

'But I don't think me or my children should miss out on nice things just because I have never worked.' Miss Marshall's children, aged between three and 16, don't appear to miss out.

They all have the latest computers and gadgets, and the family have been on two holidays abroad this year.

They have a PlayStation3, a Wii and an Xbox 360 and each of the children has an additional games console to themselves.

However, Miss Marshall said: 'They only have three laptops between them so I might have to buy another one soon because they don't like sharing.'

She also wants them to experience the benefits of travel.

'I always take the kids abroad,' she said. 'We have been to Tenerife and Cyprus, and this year we have been to Magaluf twice.

'Each holiday costs about £2,000, but it's good to get away, and the kids and I deserve it.'

Back home at the detached house that she shares with Lewis, 16, twins Mia and Kallie, 11, Nio, ten, and three-year-old Lenni, Miss Marshall has furnished each of the four bedrooms with a flat-screen TV and keeps a separate wardrobe just for her jeans.

She also says she has a penchant for designer labels, which is shared by her daughters, who 'love Armani'.

However, although Miss Marshall receives more than many hard-working families she admits that she has also run up £10,000 of debt.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... z11cwcDf5V

[loCAtek]

[Big RR]

I don't know the situation in england well enough to reach a conclusion, but if this were in the US I'd suspect she is some sort of plant from those opposed to any sort of assistance; it seems to me she is trying to be deliberately provocative by her statements and to hit all the bases designed to inflame the passions of those who work. I'm sure there are those who cheat and screw around with assistance enough to enjoy some luxuries, but why would they answer questions in a newspaper interview in a way that seems calculated to stop those benefits?

[oldr_n_wsr]

She saved her benefit money to help pay for breast enhancement.

And I am fighting my health insurance company to get breast reduction surgery for my daughter. I think they will finally approve it but it's a pain compounded by my switching jobs (thus insurers) this past august so I have to get all the doctors who have recommended the surgery to send all her records to the new company.

Maybe I'll just send her to the UK. with teh co-pay I'll end up with airfair might be cheaper.

[Gob]

I'm sure there are those who cheat and screw around with assistance enough to enjoy some luxuries, but why would they answer questions in a newspaper interview in a way that seems calculated to stop those benefits?

In the UK her benefits would not be stopped.

Also, the newspaper may have made her "a present" of some money for her time and trouble.

[Big RR]

No Gob, I didn't mean that; but IMHO if one were enjoying a gravy train of benefits, why would they be so provocative about it? Every one the comments seem designed to get working people angry about paying ther hard earned tax dollars to give people like her luxuries while they and their families go without. It's kind of like the old joke in the US about "welfare queens" screaming they didn't have enough to pay for a crib and the baby had to sleep in the wide screen TV box (the older version was the color TV box) or in the back seat of the cadillac. Pissing people off is the best way to get benefits cut.

[Gob]

No Gob, I didn't mean that; but IMHO if one were enjoying a gravy train of benefits, why would they be so provocative about it?

Jerry Springer ( or in the UK Jeremy Kyle) have a lot to answer for. Basically there is no shame nor sense of propriety there any more.

Pissing people off is the best way to get benefits cut.

If only it would work.

[Big RR]

:
No Gob, I didn't mean that; but IMHO if one were enjoying a gravy train of benefits, why would they be so provocative about it?


Jerry Springer ( or in the UK Jeremy Kyle) have a lot to answer for. Basically there is no shame nor sense of propriety there any more.

I guess if you buy that the action/discussion on those shows is real, you could be right; I think these shows consist of coached/compensated "guests" saying what the producers tell them to say. Re the OP, I'm not saying she isn't telling the truth (she well may be), only that her comments were orchestrated by some person or persons to make them provocative and spur the paper sales and/or publicizing of their political opnions.

Pissing people off is the best way to get benefits cut.


If only it would work.

The "welfare queen" myth prompted the passage of the US welfare reform act in 1996, and even prompted a supoposedly "liberal" president to sign the legislation. These sorts of misinformation/targetted kernels of truth said in deliberatly provocative ways have their effects eventually.

[Scooter]

Ah yes, depend on the Daily Mail to get half the facts wrong and distort the rest.

First, they appear incapable of basic arithmetic. This

Miss Marshall, 32, receives monthly payments of £870 in housing benefit, £975 in child tax credit, and £303 in child benefit

totals to £25,776 and not

almost £29,000 a year

as their faulty numeracy skills have calculated it.

But that is not all. The child tax credit is a universal credit, available to anyone who has children, not just those on welfare. So assuming the same total income, she would be receiving the same amount whether working or not (in fact, she would be receiving more if she were working, because she would be able to add child care expenses to her claim). So the $975 per month, the largest piece of her income, is not "dole" at all.

But wait, there is still more. The child benefit is also a universal benefit, and it is not even income tested. So she is receiving the same benefit as all families, working or not, with the same number of children in the same age groups. So the £303 also does not constitute "dole".

So what we are left with is the £870 in housing benefit. Assuming they actually got this number right, that works out to the princely sum of £10,440 per year in actual "welfare" funds to sustain herself and 5 children. Excuse me if I am incapable of mustering outrage over the profligacy of it.

[Joe Guy]

In the U.S. if she saved up $2000.00 (and the government knew about it) she would no longer be eligible for Cash Aid.

[Gob]

She would also receive unemployment benefit Scoot.

And the money is provided for her to make the best for her kids, not to spend on her tits and ass.

[loCAtek]

Isn't that a disorder now, if you're obsessed with body modification to the neglect of other areas of life?

[Jarlaxle]

She saved her benefit money to help pay for breast enhancement.

And I am fighting my health insurance company to get breast reduction surgery for my daughter...

(Must not make offensive remark...)
(Must not make offensive remark...)
(Must not make offensive remark...)
(Must not make offensive remark...)
(Must not make offensive remark...)
(Must not make offensive remark...)
(Must not make offensive remark...)

(Sorry...)

[Jarlaxle]

If you think the US is much better, check out today's Boston Herald front-page story. I read it and damn near threw up.

[Gob]

That woudl be this one I take it?

Bay State welfare recipients can play the slots, pick up a six-pack of beer or nab a flat-screen plasma TV under loosey-goosey Bay State restrictions that allow those on the dole to treat taxpayers’ wallets as their own personal ATM.

Recipients of the Department of Transitional Assistance programs get Electronic Benefits Transfer cards that work like regular debit cards, allowing them to withdraw cash from ATMs and use it for whatever they want - all with scant oversight by the state.

State officials were unable to say how many liquor stores and bars accept the EBT cards. Nor could they say for certain that welfare cash isn’t being used on Lottery tickets or even casinos.

The Herald review comes on the heels of a jaw-dropping expose by the Los Angeles Times that found California welfare recipients spent $1.8 million in taxpayer cash on casinos. Michigan legislators are also mulling a crackdown on welfare debit card use in casinos.

One Boston area bar owner told the Herald he was contacted this week by a company saying he could boost business by accepting EBT cards.

“I’m offended. The idea is welfare benefits are supposed to go to people who can’t work and are just barely getting by,” said the bar owner, who requested anonymity. “As a taxpayer I’m surprised the state wants to make it this easy to allow welfare recipients to misuse our money like this.”


http://www.bostonherald.com/news/region ... on=comment

[Scooter]

She would also receive unemployment benefit Scoot.

Not for more than 26 weeks after the last time she worked, which was, oh yeah, never.

And the money is provided for her to make the best for her kids, not to spend on her tits and ass.

Assuming the housing benefit covers the entire cost of housing (which I'm not sure it does), there is less than £11,000 left to support six people, out of which she spent £4,500 on a boob job and £2,000 on a family vacation. Oh yeah, plus flat screens and XBoxes for all the kids plus enough to support an Armani addiction for herself and her daughters.

I get the distinct sensation of someone peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining.

[loCAtek]

You're distinctly assuring me she's being paid too much; should stop having kids and get a real job.

[Jarlaxle]

That woudl be this one I take it?

Bay State welfare recipients can play the slots, pick up a six-pack of beer or nab a flat-screen plasma TV under loosey-goosey Bay State restrictions that allow those on the dole to treat taxpayers’ wallets as their own personal ATM.

Recipients of the Department of Transitional Assistance programs get Electronic Benefits Transfer cards that work like regular debit cards, allowing them to withdraw cash from ATMs and use it for whatever they want - all with scant oversight by the state.

State officials were unable to say how many liquor stores and bars accept the EBT cards. Nor could they say for certain that welfare cash isn’t being used on Lottery tickets or even casinos.

The Herald review comes on the heels of a jaw-dropping expose by the Los Angeles Times that found California welfare recipients spent $1.8 million in taxpayer cash on casinos. Michigan legislators are also mulling a crackdown on welfare debit card use in casinos.

One Boston area bar owner told the Herald he was contacted this week by a company saying he could boost business by accepting EBT cards.

“I’m offended. The idea is welfare benefits are supposed to go to people who can’t work and are just barely getting by,” said the bar owner, who requested anonymity. “As a taxpayer I’m surprised the state wants to make it this easy to allow welfare recipients to misuse our money like this.”


http://www.bostonherald.com/news/region ... on=comment

That's the one!

Fucking depressing, isn't it?

[rubato]

That woudl be this one I take it?

Bay State welfare recipients can play the slots, pick up a six-pack of beer or nab a flat-screen plasma TV under loosey-goosey Bay State restrictions that allow those on the dole to treat taxpayers’ wallets as their own personal ATM.

Recipients of the Department of Transitional Assistance programs get Electronic Benefits Transfer cards that work like regular debit cards, allowing them to withdraw cash from ATMs and use it for whatever they want - all with scant oversight by the state.

State officials were unable to say how many liquor stores and bars accept the EBT cards. Nor could they say for certain that welfare cash isn’t being used on Lottery tickets or even casinos.

The Herald review comes on the heels of a jaw-dropping expose by the Los Angeles Times that found California welfare recipients spent $1.8 million in taxpayer cash on casinos. Michigan legislators are also mulling a crackdown on welfare debit card use in casinos.

One Boston area bar owner told the Herald he was contacted this week by a company saying he could boost business by accepting EBT cards.

“I’m offended. The idea is welfare benefits are supposed to go to people who can’t work and are just barely getting by,” said the bar owner, who requested anonymity. “As a taxpayer I’m surprised the state wants to make it this easy to allow welfare recipients to misuse our money like this.”


http://www.bostonherald.com/news/region ... on=comment

That's the one!

Fucking depressing, isn't it?

Hey, I know! Just for you we can have the "all nanny state" where all state benefits are vetted so that no one ever uses them for anything which is junk food, junk literature, or entertainment junk or for things which might be traded for same. Fuck-all the lazy crap heads with back injuries, or paraplegia, who are laying around watching television!.


"Fascism is a dream, sh-boom, sweetheart."


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

'Some people might think I am a scrounger.

Not at all my dear...

"scrounging" requires at least some exertion and and talent....

You're merely a leech.....

the passage of the US welfare reform act in 1996,

One of the finest pieces of legislation in a generation. It was a tremendous success. Kudos to all involved.

Basically there is no shame nor sense of propriety there any more.

That's exactly it.

It's difficult for people who possess a sense of values and self respect to grasp this fact, (these things are so second nature for most of us) but there are some people who simply do not have these qualities as part of their make up. This woman didn't believe she was saying anything provocative; she honestly believes this is her just due, and she's not the slightest bit embarrassed by it.