English Couple: Why Work? The Government Gives Us Plenty of Money

Indeed.

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.

We can pour moral scorn on them, but they'll ignore the moral scorn and just keep taking the $2400 per month (or whatever) benefits.

If you're paying someone to do a job, they're going to do that job, because they have to do that job to stay alive. Moral scorn won't deter them. And in this case, England -- and the US, too -- is hiring people to sit in their apartments and collect checks from taxpayers.

And so they're going to keep doing that job, aren't they?

Even Bill Maher noted this, in his inimitable style (by which I mean not funny, and also not perceptive). And yet, he still finally got around to wondering that if we continue escalating benefits for the nonworking, gee willickers, doesn't that mean the working will have to pay a lot more?

Solvency, generous government benefits, a social order that no longer penalizes people for engaging in costly behaviors they can't pay for, but rather encourages them to do what thou will: Choose any two.

posted by Ace at 07:41 PM

| Access Comments