From the UK Sun:
A SKIVING couple told last night how they claim £17,680 a year in benefits — and don’t even bother looking for work because it would leave them worse off.
Danny Creamer, 21, and Gina Allan, 18, spend each day watching their 47in flatscreen TV and smoking 40 cigarettes between them in their comfy two-bedroom flat.
It is all funded by the taxpayer, yet the couple say they deserve sympathy because they are “trapped”.
They even claim they are entitled to their generous handouts because their hard-working parents have been paying tax for years.
The couple, who have a four-month-old daughter Tullulah-Rose, say they can’t go out to work as they could not survive on less than their £1,473-a-month benefits.
The pair left school with no qualifications, and say there is no point looking for jobs because they will never be able to earn as much as they get in handouts.
Financially, they as individuals can see what’s in their best interest. It’s in their best interest to take from the taxpayer.
Gina admits: “We could easily get a job but why would we want to work — we would be worse off.”
They’re just a symptom. The disease is the governmental policies that enable and support them.
Consider the American Welfare Cliff:
The blue is take-home wages after taxes, and the rest are handouts from various sources. There are greater rewards to less work. In Britain, it’s become so bad that there are greater rewards for no work at all.
The welfare-taker is just exploiting a system that’s set up for exploitation. It works the same in the US. The working stiff is busting her butt for 8-10 hours a day, while the welfare-taker is at home on his butt playing Xbox for 8-10 hours a day, then going out to party at night. He doesn’t have bills to worry about, as they’re all paid for by people who are working. She does have to worry about bills. He has an entire political party dedicated to telling him that he’s downtrodden and oppressed, and that only they, who give him free stuff, will help him. She’s got a choice between two parties – one that says they support her, but that takes her money and gives it to the welfare-taker, and the other that “compromises” because they don’t want to look like meanies… and so mostly does the same thing.
The welfare-taker (or zero-liability voter, as Andrew Wilkow likes to call them) is voting himself largesse from the public treasury, and one party wholly supports him – because they know they have his vote for as long as they give him plunder from other citizens. The working stiff has her tax money diverted from legitimate functions of government (national defense, post roads, etc.) and sent to the welfare-taker.
At some point, solely looking at the bottom line, it becomes clear that one is the winner – having their life provided for by the state, and one is the loser – being taxed by the state to provide for others they have no obligation to. In the long run, the system implodes. In the short term, the politician who provides welfare is the one who gets benefits – being able to demonize those who oppose welfare as “heartless”, directly giving handouts to people to pay for support, and they get the constant reassurance that their meddling is “necessary” because they are the only ones who can “save” the little people. It’s Munchausen by proxy on a massive scale. And it serves the interest of the politicians’ Curley Effect.