PUBLIC faith in the benefits system is plummeting. There used to be widespread support for welfare, which was seen as a badge of our civilisation.
But attitudes have changed over recent decades as the system has remorselessly expanded and handouts have become more lavish. People now recognise that social security is no longer driven by real compassion. Instead it provides perverse incentives for idleness and irresponsibility.
The anger of taxpayers is bound to be fuelled by outrageous cases such as that of the Maidstone couple who have not worked for the past eight years, yet live on annual bene-fits worth £26,000. Sustained by this largesse from the state, the jobless pair have produced six children since 2005, a level of fecundity that has only reinforced their sponging lifestyle.
The mother of this subsidised brood, Maggie Flisher, claims she cannot work because of mental health problems. Her husband Gavin argues that he has to stay at home to look after the family. But far from showing any gratitude they are indignant at the way they have been treated. Because of the size of their family the Flishers believe that they should be moved by the council from their one-bedroom flat to far bigger accommodation, preferably a four-bedroom house.
This offensive saga embodies everything that is wrong with the system. Most couples in work do not have more children than they feel they can afford. But the Flishers have no such sense of personal responsibility and keep on reproducing regardless of the consequences, knowing that the state will pick up the tab.
Indeed, in the insane world of welfare Britain, indiscriminate reproduction brings its own financial gain in that every extra child leads to more benefits. In the case of the Flishers, they are estimated to be making around £1,400 a month from their offspring through child benefits and child tax credits.
Maggie Flisher claims she has tried female contraception but it has not worked because she is, supposedly, “super fertile”. On medical grounds that is highly unconvincing.
The Flishers exhibit that nauseating sense of entitlement that is all too common among serial claimants, who know all about their rights and nothing about their duties.
If they want bigger accommodation then why not earn it instead of just demanding it? Their case also reeks of a profound injustice against the public. There are millions of citizens who go out to work every day and earn nothing like £26,000 a year. Yet even while they struggle with their own living costs and childcare bills, they are required through taxes to subsidise parasitical households.
- ‘Super fertile’ jobless parents-of-six on £27,000 benefits demand a bigger council house (express.co.uk)
- Couple ‘trapped’ in one-bed flat with six children (metro.co.uk)
- Jobless couple who claim £27,000 a year benefits want a new council house because they’ve had SIX children ‘by accident’ while living in a one-bedroom flat (dailymail.co.uk)
- Jobless couple who claim £27,000 a year benefits want a new council house because they’ve had SIX children ‘by accident’ while living in a one-bedroom flat (thisismoney.co.uk)
- jobless couple six children demands four-bed home (thesun.co.uk)
- Jobless couple have six children ‘by accident’ while squeezed into one-bedroom flat (mirror.co.uk)