Scrounger Alison Goulding rakes in thousands of pounds a year of your hard-earned cash - but she still wants MORE.
And she's even praying for one of her EIGHT children to be diagnosed with a serious medical condition so she can carry on freeloading.
Alison - who is five months pregnant - reckons she's been left struggling on the breadline by uncaring benefits chiefs.
Yet her family pocket more than £20,000 a year in handouts, even though none of them has done a day's work this century. They pay NOTHING for their three-bed house, which boasts a new ultra-modern kitchen.
The home is littered with state-of-the-art goodies including FIVE tellies - including a £1,000 widescreen - a hi-fi, Sky TV, two Play-Station 2s and four DVD players.
And their huge garden boasts a full-size trampoline, two sets of swings and FIVE mountain bikes.
But Alison, 38, insists she hasn't got enough to get by.
My heart fucking bleeds, it really does.
Shameless Alison revealed she is jubilant she is pregnant again - despite complaining about the overcrowding at home.
And she insisted it was her "duty" to have child No 9.
She said: "I love giving birth - it's always so quick for me.
"People say I should stop breeding but it's not their business.
No, no, no, Alison: you really haven't got the hang of this, have you? As I pointed out earlier this morning, everyone is in hock to the state. You, however, have run up a rather larger debt than most and, ultimately, since we productive people pay for your benefits, you are effectively in hock to us, the taxpayers.
Therefore, it is precisely our business whether you have more children or not, you fucking bitch. I mean, seriously, have you no shame? I suppose not: shame is not a popular attribute these days; in fact, people like Alison Goulding seem to be utterly unfamiliar with the concept.
Alison also blasted her local Broxtowe Borough Council.
She said: "My sister has nine kids and the council gave her two houses knocked into one.
"Then shemoved to Cornwall and the new council bought a private house for them.
"I don't know why they can't do that here."
Alison also hinted she was losing out to immigrants.
She said: "There were these lovely four-bed houses round the corner but an Asian family got one.
"I'm not racist but...
Oh dear fucking hell: do we know what's coming next? I think we do...
... I think we should look after our own first."
Ian added: "We're definitely not racist - I've got a distant cousin who's black."
Indeed, Ian: and I imagine that many of your best friends are black and, don't tell me, they actively encourage you to call them "nigger" and they laugh uproariously when you tell dodgy racist jokes, yeah? Something like that, is it?
The couple are now considering taking the council to the European Court of Human Rights.
Alison said: "We only want what's fair."
Well, Alison, if it were up to me, you would get absolutely no extra money for having children. Under my preferred system, you and Ian would have a Citizens Basic Income (CBI) of £5,200 per year and that would be your fucking lot.
And I would consider that more than fair, especially since we will have to pay for the education of your massive brood too.
And Alison defended claiming so many handouts by saying: "Even if we could work, we'd be worse off because you have to pay for childcare and rent.
"We just try to make sure we get enough benefits to get by."
If the list of hardware in the house is correct, this is a simple lie. TVs are not a necessity, let alone five of them. Playstations, DVD players, hi-fis and Sky TV are also not necessities. Were I Broxtowe Borough Council, I would be tempted to cut their benefits as those who can afford these luxuries obviously do not need this level of benefits.
But herein lies the crux of the matter, of course. The marginal deduction rates mean that it is cheaper for these two fucks to live on benefits, popping sprogs out left, right and centre, than for them to go out to work. The children are their meal ticket.
The CBI, as I envision it, would replace all other benefits and would only be paid to those over 16. That means that there is no reward or advantage for popping out children. At the same time, you would not lose your CBI if you got a job. But, this system is expensive, even at the minimal levels that I have outlined.
Wat Tyler has been looking at the government figures, especially at Incapacity Benefit, and I recommend that you read his whole post. Amongst other things, he absolutely gives the lie to the idea that there are no jobs out there: it is a lie that was exploded in an excellent comment by Dizzy Thinks.
If we get the indigenous population that can work into work with more stick and less carrot, then it will mean a less fluid job market for immigrants because it will no longer be economically attractive for them to come to Britain.
After all, immigrant labour, as important as it is, only occurs when the market conditions exist to encourage it. Brown has created a job economy reliant on it because he has actively encouraged large sections of the 'born here' population to sit on their backsides, or in the case of the young think they're too good to stack shelves in supermarkets.
We don't have an immigration problem in Britain. We have a benefit system problem. Tackling the cause not the sympton is the way forward.
This is, of course, precisely correct and, with politicos banging on about immigration and yet utterly unable to do anything about it—hamstrung as they are by the EU—now might be a good time to make that connection.
After all, if you believe that immigration is a problem, and we cannot legislate against it, then ensuring that Britain is less attractive to come to from an economic perspective is all that you can do (quite apart from being the free-market solution).
Anyway, back to Wat Tyler's post which is, as usual, chock-full of statistics and, although he ascribes the same problems as I, he proposes a slightly different system.
That's clearly barmy. But more fundamentally, it's barmy to have a welfare system that incentivises people like Alison to stay off work copulating and eating Pop Tarts.
And what life chances will any of her nine kids have? I think we know the answer- at best, they will become the welfare dependents and porch builders of the future; at worst, they will end up inside.
Let's take it as read that there is no magic bullet. But the current welfare system for people of working age is a social and fiscal disaster.
So what to do?
As a minimum, we should abandon the arbitrary and wildly unrealistic definition of poverty as 60% of median income, and revert to the traditional 50%. Nobody would starve at that level and it would hugely increase the relative attractiveness of paid employment. What's more, it would save taxpayers about £50bn pa, or £2 grand pa per British household (see this blog- £50bn equals abolishing Inheritance Tax and slashing 13 pence off the standard rate of Income Tax).
In addition, Frank Field's four key welfare reforms (blogged here) are all worth persuing:
- welfare benefits to be time limited, as under Clinton's reforms in the US
- authority over welfare spending to be localised- closer to the coal face (again cf US)
- incapacity benefit to be decided by local officials, not doctors, but current recipients to retain benefit for a year after finding paid work
- immigration to be tightly controlled so more jobs can go to current welfare recipients already here
Painless? In the short-term, no. But nobody has come up with a real world alternative. And unless we implement a radical programme along these lines we'll find ourselves dealing with more and more Alisons.
And her kids.
All the way to eternity.
And that, frankly, is not an attractive option. So, whether we go with Tyler's reforms or mine, something must be done—if only for the sake of my blood pressure...