Caring for the poor? This is what will happen if you pander to the needs of losers.

[Leongsam]

​

ONLY IN THE UK!
Family Bread Winners, state funded!

ANY WONDER THE UK IS BANKRUPT...!???

This is preposterous! A doctor told me that a woman in her late 20's came to the hospital today with her 8th pregnancy.

She told the first doctor she saw: "My mum told me that I am the breadwinner for the family." He asked her to explain. She said that she can make babies and babies get money from the State for the family. It goes like this:

The Grandma calls the Department for Work and pensions, and states that the unemployed daughter is not capable of caring for all of her kids. DWP agrees, and tells her the children will need to go into foster care.

The Grandma then volunteers to be the foster parent, and receives a cheque for £700per child each month.

Total yearly income: £58,800 soon to become £67200 when the 8th one is born, tax-free and nobody has to go to work! In fact, they get more if there is no husband/father/man in the home! The brother does not count.

Not to mention free dental treatment, free housing, free council tax, free school dinners, free tuition fees at college or Uni, free eye care and glasses, free prescriptions and various other benefits...

Total value of all benefits combined probably approaching £100,000 per annum which would require an income of around £148000 to create. About my salary as a senior consultant with years of experience and surgical skills in a central London teaching hospital.

Indeed, Grandma was correct that her fertile daughter is the "breadwinner" for the family.

This is how the liberal politicians spend your taxes. When this generous programme was invented in the '60s, the Great Society architects forgot to craft an end date... and now we are hopelessly overrun with people who vote only for those who will continue to keep them on the dole.....

No wonder the UK is broke! Worse, your Muslim brothers have been paying attention, and by mandating that each Muslim family have eleven children, they will soon replace the voting bloc above and can be running this country.


Don't forget to pay your taxes!!

There are a lot of “breadwinners”
depending on you!

 

[Leongsam]

Re: Caring for the poor? This is what will happen if you pander to the needs of loser

Welfare gamblers rack up $9 million debt

Updated

April 17, 2011 06:59:00

Hundreds of Centrelink customers caught gambling away their welfare benefits will have to repay a total of $9 million to the Government.

A Centrelink review has uncovered more than 500 casino high rollers in the past four years, who have been caught frequenting casinos while claiming welfare payments.

PHOTO:
A Centrelink review has uncovered more than 500 casino high rollers who were gambling away their welfare benefits.
After cross-checking information on high rollers, which casinos are obliged to provide authorities under federal legislation, hundreds of people receiving government assistance were found to be concealing assets or income.

Human Services and Social Inclusion Minister Tanya Plibersek says people who claim benefits they are not entitled to must not only repay the money, but can be prosecuted for fraud.

"Government benefits are for people facing financial hardship, not those who can afford to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in casinos," Ms Plibersek said in a statement.

Recent cases include:
A Victorian aged pensioner who lost $280,000 through gambling had more than $1 million in undeclared business income and received more than $96,000 in welfare payments, which he now owes.

A Queensland single mother and high roller who was regularly employed but did not declare her wages received $49,000 of single parenting payments, which she must repay.

A New South Wales disability pensioner who clocked up $350,000 in gambling losses had a higher income than declared and owes $15,000 to Centrelink.

Another NSW pensioner lost $40,000 gambling, and after undeclared investments were uncovered must now repay $10,000.
A 34-year-old Victorian on Newstart lost $94,000 gambling over three years. Despite being on the unemployment benefit, he was found to be a self-employed tradesman and had been overpaid more than $45,000.

 

[Leongsam]

Re: Caring for the poor? This is what will happen if you pander to the needs of loser

ALMOST 29,000 SA welfare recipients have been caught ripping off taxpayers by more than $2.7 million a week.

Centrelink figures, released to The Advertiser, show 28,923 South Australians had their benefits payments cancelled or reduced last financial year.

Reviews, including matching data with other agencies, random checks, federal police investigations and tip-offs from the public, uncovered the discrepancies.

Despite the figures, South Australian Council of Social Service executive director Ross Womersley said "the great majority" of people did not rort the system.

"We don't want anybody in a position where they are taking advantage of something that is there to protect the interests of people who are genuinely needy," he said.

Mr Womersley said the "complicated" welfare system didn't make it any easier for people to process their information and payments.

"There is no doubt we would encourage changes that would minimise the complexity so that people were not put off (by it)," he said.

Tip-offs uncovered 438 people illegally claiming benefits last financial year and contributed about $77,000 to the weekly savings.
The savings dropped from the 2009-10 financial year, when an average $3.3 million a week was deducted from Centrelink customers and more than 46,000 people had welfare payments reduced.

Centrelink reviews reduced dramatically in 2010-11 to just over 191,000 compared to more than 298,000 the previous year.
A Department of Human Services spokeswoman said fewer clients were reviewed last financial year because most staff were assisting with disaster-relief payments.

"Customers most at risk of an incorrect claim were still selected for review activity," she said.

Most reviews led to reductions in payments and 5451 people had welfare entitlements cancelled.

The Centrelink spokeswoman said most customers receiving overpayments had made genuine mistakes or had delayed notifying the agency of changes to their living or working arrangements.

"In a small number of cases, customers may deliberately misrepresent their circumstances in order to receive welfare payments to which they are not entitled," she said.

 

[Leongsam]

Re: Caring for the poor? This is what will happen if you pander to the needs of loser

January 29, 2012

Why the Welfare State Is Doomed to Fail
By Nicholas Cheong

Why is gambling bad? Why do so many religions and governments abhor gambling?

Is gambling "bad" simply because it encourages greed? Or is it because it encourages laziness, as winners do not do anything significant to deserve their winnings? Or is it because it deals primarily in earnings through a game of chance?

No. It is because gambling is a zero-sum game. A zero-sum game is one where total gains exactly equal total losses among all the players at any one time. No net wealth is created or added to society by engaging in the activity.

For example, in a game of poker, your wins are exactly the other players' (including the house's) losses, and vice-versa. Compare this to a worker in a factory's assembly line -- the worker, by spending his time and labor on raw materials, enhances those materials' value and creates goods which are useful to those who demand them. The worker contributes to the economy and society by engaging in his work. Gamblers, on the other hand, contribute nothing to the economy and society and do not create anything of use to others.

Zero-sum games are just a matter of transferring money from the losers' pockets to the winners'. Wealth is not created via such activities. Ideally, society would be better off if the players (or gamblers) engaged in value-adding activities instead. Can you imagine whole communities doing nothing but moving money from one pocket to another? Who is going to grow the food they need to eat? Who will make the clothes they need to wear?

Yet this scenario is frighteningly familiar. A lot of money is being forcibly taken by the federal government from the pockets of those who worked hard to earn it and moved to those who have done nothing to deserve it yet feel entitled to it. Why is the government allowed to do what private citizens are not allowed to?

Consider this homeless woman featured in the New York Times in December 2011 during a particularly slow news day who gets more than $2,000 each month -- that's more than $24,000 a year -- from the government in various forms of aid. That figure does not include WIC checks. While she enjoys her six children, about a quarter of American households are struggling to get by on incomes of less than $24,000 that they toiled to earn.

To add insult to injury, a household that realizes that it cannot responsibly afford even one child on $24,000 a year is subject to punishing federal income taxes of up to $3,000. That is money that the household could be spending on its members instead of supporting another family. Eight responsible households are required to pay for the upkeep of one such irresponsible family. The old saying of "it takes a village to raise a child" suddenly rings true!

While it makes one feel good to help another person in time of need, the intent of social safety net programs is to make it easier for people to get back on their feet during temporary times of distress. (Social programs for the permanently distressed, such as the permanently disabled, are another matter.) It is easier for one to concentrate on getting a job when s/he does not have to worry about where the next meal is going to come from or to worry about where to wash oneself before a job interview. When it is easier for one to get back on one's feet after falling into a provisional period of unemployment, crime rates can be kept down, and anarchy can be avoided.

Programs like WIC ensure that innocent children who did not ask to be born into a poor family will not suffer from stunted development that resulted from childhood malnutrition. Hopefully, the young beneficiaries of such programs who might otherwise be stuck in a vicious cycle of poverty will grow up to be economically productive adults and "pay back" what society had previously given to them. That is the implied social contract we agreed to when we established these public assistance programs: one pays into it and will get help if or when one needs it, or one gets help when one needs it and will "pay back" to society what one has taken from it.

In the years following Singapore's independence from the British, then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew had a huge problem with corruption in the civil service. He concurrently employed three tactics to eradicate corruption: pay civil servants well so that they need not resort to corruption to feed their families; come down harshly on those guilty of corruption; and finally, require civil servants to adhere so rigidly to a set of rules when carrying out their duties that if they made exceptions to the rules, it would be grounds for suspicion of corruption.

The last idea is nothing new. After all, bureaucrats are notorious for not being able to bend the rules for the people whom they are supposed to serve. Imagine the opportunities for bureaucrats to extort money from the very people they were supposed to serve if they were allowed to use their discretion to determine if one case is more deserving of public help than another.

Because of the risk of corruption (and not because they are stupid), bureaucrats cannot be entrusted with the task or responsibility of using their discretion in deciding who the "responsible citizens" are who "deserve" public aid and who are not. Every case that fulfills simple and objective criteria (such as number of children below a certain age, income level, etc.) has to be considered for help.

Hence, regardless of whether or not that homeless woman featured in the New York Times article "deserved" to be helped, she has to be helped nevertheless so long as her case has been made known to welfare workers, especially from a humanitarian point of view -- her six children are innocent and did not ask to be born into poverty and homelessness.

Unfortunately, it is also this set of simple and objective criteria and the distrust in bureaucrats to use their discretion that makes it so easy for citizens to exploit public assistance programs. Before long, exploitation leads to reliance. Sooner or later, reliance turns into entitlement. That was never the intention of public assistance programs.

What then? Who will pay for these welfare programs? Such a society is unsustainable economically, especially if the beneficiaries of such programs never have "paid back" and never intend to "pay back" what they "owe" society. At least gamblers derive some form of entertainment from their activities. When more people start abusing the welfare system, our society will be akin to one where everyone gambles and no one works to grow the food we eat or the clothes we wear. Except that there will be nothing entertaining about it.

Nicholas Cheong writes at Comopolis and I Lost My Job Because of Social Media. Follow him on Twitter at @nicholas_cheong.

 

[kingrant]

Re: Caring for the poor? This is what will happen if you pander to the needs of loser

In Singapore, such a ruse will fail because the amount will not be enough to raise a child here uinder the oppressive environment created by the PAP govt. So automatically, the scheme fails.

​

ONLY IN THE UK!
Family Bread Winners, state funded!

ANY WONDER THE UK IS BANKRUPT...!???

This is preposterous! A doctor told me that a woman in her late 20's came to the hospital today with her 8th pregnancy.

She told the first doctor she saw: "My mum told me that I am the breadwinner for the family." He asked her to explain. She said that she can make babies and babies get money from the State for the family. It goes like this:

The Grandma calls the Department for Work and pensions, and states that the unemployed daughter is not capable of caring for all of her kids. DWP agrees, and tells her the children will need to go into foster care.

The Grandma then volunteers to be the foster parent, and receives a cheque for £700per child each month.

Total yearly income: £58,800 soon to become £67200 when the 8th one is born, tax-free and nobody has to go to work! In fact, they get more if there is no husband/father/man in the home! The brother does not count.

 

[brocoli]

Re: Caring for the poor? This is what will happen if you pander to the needs of loser

In Singapore, such a ruse will fail because the amount will not be enough to raise a child here uinder the oppressive environment created by the PAP govt. So automatically, the scheme fails.

the loser will want more until it is enough...

this thread need to be a sticky

 

[Leongsam]

Re: Caring for the poor? This is what will happen if you pander to the needs of loser

Of paramount importance is the need to alert ALL Singaporeans to the perils of providing welfare to those who purportedly have "fallen through the cracks".

People "fall through the cracks" for a reason and it's because they're either too dumb to know what a crack is or too blind to see them. Either way, providing them with money they haven't earned does nothing but generate bigger cracks and a larger number of blind idiots.

 

[Leongsam]

Re: Caring for the poor? This is what will happen if you pander to the needs of loser

.............


​

 

[Leongsam]

Re: Caring for the poor? This is what will happen if you pander to the needs of loser

This composite image shows some of the 32 people accused of stealing welfare benefits from New York City. (Brooklyn District Attorney's Office)​

 

[Leongsam]

Re: Caring for the poor? This is what will happen if you pander to the needs of loser

.................


​

 

[Leongsam]

Re: Caring for the poor? This is what will happen if you pander to the needs of loser

.................
​

 

[jw5]

Re: Caring for the poor? This is what will happen if you pander to the needs of loser

Of course a country would go bankrupt if you just gave to those who needed or wanted it and continued to reward others without justification.
The only solution is an equitable (not equal) distribution of resources. Not only to individuals but to projects and programs.

Stop rewarding those who are undeserving or reduce the rewards of those who have not performed up to mark.
Help those who are in need and their children if they have been hardworking, but have suffered some misfortune or setback through no fault of their own.
Get those who are able bodied and who have caused their own downfall or are simply lazy or choosy into some programs which make them work as they live.

All these simply requires some thought and investigation into the individual cases. Plenty of resources to do this from the civil service and the military. It is simply too expedient to do nothing or to continue to fatten the elites and connected. What is worse is that they actualy provide assistance to those who kpkb and shout the loudest, so that they can be rid of them and can tell the world that they have "helped the needy".

 

[Liquigas]

Caring for the poor? This is what will happen if you pander to the needs of loser

JFK said in his inaugural address in 1961 that if a society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

In the local context, the PAP government is very clever. It has made life tough but generally the people are not poor. The people can be weak and powerless but they cannot be too poor. The PAP knows that if there is widespread poverty in Singapore, they cannot hang on to power....

 

[Char_Azn]

Re: Caring for the poor? This is what will happen if you pander to the needs of loser

Throwing money at the poor is the best way to ensure the poor remains poor. Who the hell would want to work if they get money just by NOT working

 

[singveld]

Re: Caring for the poor? This is what will happen if you pander to the needs of loser

View attachment 3823
.................
​

This is not true, these people will work in part time or black market. they dun pay taxes, but continue to get social welfare like disable benefit or unemployment benefit.

there is nothing the gov can do about it. every time they want to remove the benefit, the bill will be shot down by priests, bishops in the lords, leftist ministers in the common. they do not want to change the law, because it will affect the young children of these family.

once welfare is given , it cannot be taken back.

 

[kingrant]

Re: Caring for the poor? This is what will happen if you pander to the needs of loser

This will never happen to the Chinese. They are a proud race. Die hungry also never beg.

Maybe the Ah Nehs.

 

[kukubird58]

Re: Caring for the poor? This is what will happen if you pander to the needs of loser

hahaha.....ah sam, u then kuku.
when the opps form the gahmen, they will make tons of money from shrewd investments so there will be plenty of money for everyone.

 

[rusty]

Re: Caring for the poor? This is what will happen if you pander to the needs of loser

Sam, I agree with what you said and your proofs with illustrations are very real but are the people asking all those you illustrated?
What the people asked for is a more listening and caring government instead of being too rigid and being tied down by their own rules and regulations when helping the poor. Rules can be broken in good faith if it enhances progress and well being of a person without criminal implication. Yes the government is helping but is their help well received and appreciated by the applicants who have to go through all those inquisitory, humiliating and lengthy procedures with no guarantee of getting it?
The people is angry with this greedy PAP government not just the neglects on the poor alone, there are many other pricky and irritating recurring issues which they took for granted and shove aside successfully by turning on a deaf ear to the people as what the betterest minister in Zorro outfit boasted.
I also agree that once welfare is given, it cannot be taken back but what the people failed to realise is that once power is given it is damned fucking difficult to take back!

 

[cass888]

Re: Caring for the poor? This is what will happen if you pander to the needs of loser

Please make this thread sticky. We need to let the losers here know what happens if we pander to them.

 

[neddy]

Re: Caring for the poor? This is what will happen if you pander to the needs of loser

Welfare gamblers rack up $9 million debt

Updated

April 17, 2011 06:59:00

Hundreds of Centrelink customers caught gambling away their welfare benefits will have to repay a total of $9 million to the Government.


"Government benefits are for people facing financial hardship, not those who can afford to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in casinos," Ms Plibersek said in a statement.

Recent cases include:
A Victorian aged pensioner who lost $280,000 through gambling had more than $1 million in undeclared business income and received more than $96,000 in welfare payments, which he now owes.

A Queensland single mother and high roller who was regularly employed but did not declare her wages received $49,000 of single parenting payments, which she must repay.

A New South Wales disability pensioner who clocked up $350,000 in gambling losses had a higher income than declared and owes $15,000 to Centrelink.

Another NSW pensioner lost $40,000 gambling, and after undeclared investments were uncovered must now repay $10,000.
A 34-year-old Victorian on Newstart lost $94,000 gambling over three years. Despite being on the unemployment benefit, he was found to be a self-employed tradesman and had been overpaid more than $45,000.

Let's be kind to the "poor". These gamblers are just messengers delivering money to the final people who deserved the money.

Eg. Some of the money is paid annually to workers who light up the sky

Also, if they have not gambled away the money, the govt would not have uncovered their frauds.

View attachment 3820
​

ONLY IN THE UK!
Family Bread Winners, state funded!

ANY WONDER THE UK IS BANKRUPT...!???
The Grandma then volunteers to be the foster parent, and receives a cheque for £700per child each month.

Total yearly income: £58,800 soon to become £67200 when the 8th one is born, tax-free and nobody has to go to work! In fact, they get more if there is no husband/father/man in the home! The brother does not count.

£67200 ?? Many City workers do not even earn that much.