A jobless couple rake in £95,000 in state benefits a year – and even have breakfast delivered to the door each morning, courtesy of the taxpayer.
The money – five times the starting salary of a teacher – goes to unemployed Pete and Sam Smith and their ten children, who live in a rentfree four-bedroom house.
[…]The Smiths were moved last month by the local authority from a house in Bath, which the landlord accused them of wrecking, to the large house in the Bristol suburb of Kingswood.
But Mrs Smith, 36, complained that the house was too small, the breakfast portions too stingy and said she could afford to buy her brood only one Nintendo Wii games console between them.
She claims she is also forced to pay £100 a week to keep her five cats in a cattery.
‘It’s very cramped here,’ she told the News of the World. ‘We’ve been told we might not be given a new house for another nine months, which is ridiculous.
‘The breakfast supplied by the council isn’t like proper hot food. It’s usually eggs, beans, tinned tomatoes and cereal, which isn’t really enough for us all and we have to heat it up ourselves.’
[…]Mrs Smith receives up to £140-a-week child benefits for her children aged from four months to 14 years.
The family also get disability living allowance, carer’s allowance, tax credits and income support.
The total with child benefits is £44,954. They then receive a £950-aweek bed-and-breakfast deal where the council pays for breakfasts delivered to their home, which comes to £49,400 – a total of £94,354 a year.
You may want to read this Arthur Brooks column that argues that it isn’t money that makes people happy – it’s the freedom to work, save and spend how you please. Arthur Brooks is the same guy who previously wrote a book showing that those who oppose redistribution of wealth give far more in charity than than those who support it. You can read about that in this article.
One of the things that makes it tough to figure out how much has to be charged for insurance is that people behave differently when they are insured from the way they behave when they are not insured.
In other words, if one person out of 10,000 has his car set on fire, and it costs an average of $10,000 to restore the car to its previous condition, then it might seem as if charging one dollar to all 10,000 people would be enough to cover the cost of paying $10,000 to the one person whose car that will need to be repaired. But the joker in this deal is that people whose cars are insured may not be as cautious as other people are about what kinds of neighborhoods they park their car in.
[…]Although “moral hazard” is an insurance term, it applies to other government policies besides insurance. International studies show that people in countries with more generous and long-lasting unemployment compensation spend less time looking for jobs. In the United States, where unemployment compensation is less generous than in Western Europe, unemployed Americans spend more hours looking for work than do unemployed Europeans in countries with more generous unemployment compensation.
People change their behavior in other ways when the government pays with the taxpayers’ money. After welfare became more readily available in the 1960s, unwed motherhood skyrocketed. The country is still paying the price for that– of which the money is the least of it. Children raised by single mothers on welfare have far higher rates of crime, welfare and other social pathology.
San Francisco has been one of the most generous cities in the country when it comes to subsidizing the homeless. Should we be surprised that homelessness is a big problem in San Francisco?
[…]We also hear a lot of talk about “the uninsured,” for whose benefit we are to drastically change the whole medical-care system. But income data show that many of those uninsured people have incomes from which they could easily afford insurance. But they can live it up instead, because the government has mandated that hospital emergency rooms treat everyone.
Much has been made of the fact that families making less than $250,000 a year will not see their taxes raised. Of course they won’t see it, because what they see could affect how they vote.
But when huge tax increases are put on electric utility companies, the public will see their electricity bills go up. When huge taxes are put on other businesses as well, they will see the prices of the things those businesses sell go up.
If you are not in that “rich” category, you will not see your own taxes go up. But you will be paying someone else’s higher taxes, unless of course you can do without electricity and other products of heavily taxed businesses. If you don’t see this, so much the better for the Obama administration politically.
This country has been changed in a more profound way by corrupting its fundamental values. The Obama administration has begun bribing people with the promise of getting their medical care and other benefits paid for by other people, so long as those other people can be called “the rich.” Incidentally, most of those who are called “the rich” are nowhere close to being rich.
[…]There was a time when most Americans would have resented the suggestion that they wanted someone else to pay their bills. But now, envy and resentment have been cultivated to the point where even people who contribute nothing to society feel that they have a right to a “fair share” of what others have produced.
The most dangerous corruption is a corruption of a nation’s soul. That is what this administration is doing.
Republicans prefer private voluntary charity as the best way to provide a safety net. Just because people on the left give less to charity than people on the right, it doesn’t mean that no one one gives to charity. Europe has the highest taxes, and they give the least in charity. Why not LOWER taxes for people who want to give MORE in charity? When government hands out money, it encourages people to be more dependent. But when a person in trouble has to go to a neighbor or a charity in their own community, it sends the right message – “this should be temporary – don’t let this become a habit”. It’s not GOOD for someone to depend on the government. People need to work in order to be happy.
Having the government take over the role of provider in the home is an insult to men. It’s not government’s job to replace men. They ought to stay right out of it. Leave money in the pockets of the working man so he can save for a rainy day himself. If you subsidize a behavior, you get more of it. If you tax a behavior, you get less of it. It makes no sense to subsidize irresponsible lifestyle choices and tax productive and moral lifestyle choices. You don’t want to make the rescue from bad decisions an anonymous and automatic affair. You want people to worry, so that they won’t want to make risky and irresponsible choices. Everybody goes through though times, but we shouldn’t make it normal. People ought to know that it’s not normal.
You may want to read about how government dependence makes people less happy than having a job. Don’t make people depend on government by taxing businesses and investment. We need more companies hiring – not less. And that means letting the profit motive provide an incentive for entrepreneurs to engage in more risk-taking and enterprise.
Last week, Little, 61, was one of 10 members of a Christian medical team — six Americans, two Afghans, one German, and a Briton — who were gunned down by the Taliban, which accused the volunteers of spying and trying to convert Muslims to Christianity.
[…]The victims — doctors, nurses, and logistics personnel — were found shot to death Friday near three vehicles in woods just off the main road that snakes through a narrow valley, provincial police chief General Agha Noor Kemtuz said.
Bridge Afghanistan, another relief organization, said on its website that the team included one of its members, Dr. Karen Woo, who gave up a job in a private clinic in London to work in Afghanistan.
[…]Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said they killed the foreigners because they were “spying for the Americans’’ and “preaching Christianity.’’ The Taliban also said the team was carrying Dari language Bibles and “spying gadgets.’’
[…]Frans said the International Assistance Mission, or IAM, one of the longest-serving nongovernmental organizations operating in Afghanistan, is registered as a nonprofit Christian organization but does not proselytize.
“This tragedy negatively impacts our ability to continue serving the Afghan people,’’ the charity said. “We hope it will not stop our work that benefits over a quarter of a million Afghans each year.’’
[…]In August 2001, Little and employees from other Christian organizations were expelled by the Taliban government after eight Christian aid workers were arrested for allegedly trying to convert Afghans to Christianity.
He returned to Afghanistan after the Taliban government was toppled in November 2001 by US-backed forces. Known in Kabul as “Mr. Tom,’’ Little supervised a network of eye hospitals and clinics largely funded through private donations.
[…]“We are a humanitarian organization,’’ Frans said. “We had no security people. We had no armed guards. We had no weapons.’’
Some “Christians” who vote Democrat think that it is OK to oppose the war in Afghanistan because it is “too expensive”. But both of our wars didn’t cost HALF of Obama’s FIRST YEAR DEFICIT of 1.5 trillion dollars. Not only do wars deter terrorism and protect our democratic allies, but they also allow aid workers to re-enter Islamo-fascist states so they can provide medical care to some of the poorest people on Earth. Not to mention safeguarding freedom of religion.
WINTERY KNIGHT 