Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

27 January 2013

“We Could Easily Get A Job But Why Would We Want To Work”

Danny Creamer, 21, and Gina Allan, 18

We get £17,680 a year in benefits, buy 40 cigs a day, have a laptop and a home with 47-inch TV.. why work?

From The Sun:

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 says 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 has 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.

Gina admits: “We could easily get a job but why would we want to work — we would be worse off.”

Danny’s father, 46, even offered him a job with his bowling alley servicing company — but could not pay him enough.

Danny’s mum, 45, works as a career, while Gina’s mum, 46, is a teacher and her dad, 53, is a manager with a security company.

Yet their parents’ work ethic has not rubbed off on Danny and Gina. Instead, they claim they are entitled to benefits because of their parents’ tax contributions — and even complain they should be given MORE.

Gina, flaunting fake tan and perfectly manicured nails, said: “I don’t see that we’re living off the taxpayers, we’re entitled to the money our parents paid all their lives.

“They’ve worked so hard since they left school and I’m sure they’d rather it went to us than see us struggle. They pay a lot of tax, and although they’d rather we weren’t in this situation and one of us had a job, they understand why we are where we are. We can’t help it, we’re stuck like it.”

Danny, who quit his job as a supermarket shelf-stacker after eight months, admitted: “I could easily go and work for my dad. He’s got a job for me, but could only afford to pay for my travel and accommodation because I’d be going around the country.

“After that he wouldn’t be able to afford to pay me a wage, so I’d be worse off.

“The same would happen if I was to work somewhere like a supermarket. If I was earning less than £26,000 a year, there wouldn’t be any point. I’d be no better off. Who in their right mind would do that?” The pair spoke after we revealed last Sunday that Lithuanian Natalija Belova, 33, branded Britain “a soft touch” for giving her £14,408 annual benefits. Mum-of-one Belova told how she lives a life of luxury in Watford, Herts, thanks to our “strange system”, adding: “I am not going to work like a dog on minimum wage.”

And yesterday Gina agreed. She said: “The only way we’d ever be better off is by both working. But then childcare would probably be one of our wages gone, and put us back in a more difficult position.

“We don’t feel ashamed for being on benefits. Neither of us have the slightest bit of guilt towards the taxpayers as both of our parents have been paying into the tax system for the last 30 years.

“So we are just getting back our parents’ huge contributions. My dad earns £65,000 a year so he’s paid more than his fair share of tax, so I don’t see what the problem is. The fault lies with the system, not us. There’s just no incentive to find work when we’ve got a better lifestyle than if we were to go out and work for 35-40 hours every week. Why would we give this up?”

The couple, who live in Hants, receive £340 a week, made up of £150 housing benefit, £60 child tax credit, £20 child benefit and £110 in Job Seeker’s Allowance. They pay just £25 towards their spacious £625-a-month home.

Their lounge is dominated by the huge TV and a leather sofa. A laptop and Tullulah-Rose’s toys are scattered around the room.

The couple’s monthly outgoings are £240 on food, £40 phone bill for their shared Nokia and an £80 payment towards their TV. They spend the same on tobacco as they do on their daughter’s milk and nappies.

The pair, who wants  another child, say they would need to earn at least £2,200 a month before tax to make working worth their while.

Danny said: “We’ve thought about a lot of things we wouldn’t normally have considered. Gina looked up escorting and saw you can make £110 an hour, but we decided we wouldn’t go down that route.

"We simply want the best for our daughter, which means even shoplifting becomes a temptation. We’d never do it, but being in this situation and feeling trapped changes you.

“We would work, but it’s just not worth our while because without qualifications we’ll only earn about £14,000 a year. That’s a lot less than what we get now. We need more money so we can maintain the way we live now but have a few extras, like holidays.

"People don’t understand — we’re actually stuck on benefits. In fact, we feel trapped.” Danny and Gina thought about going to college, but could not decide which course to take.

Gina said: “We have discussed getting more qualifications but just thought there’s no point when we don’t know what we want to do in the future. We wouldn’t know where to start.”

The couple is adamant that whatever they do in future, they want to enjoy the same luxuries as now. Gina said: “We spend £40 a month on clothes for Tullulah-Rose. It’s important she looks nice.

“We like a takeaway too.  Why shouldn’t we? It isn’t like I’m some scrounging single mum trying to cash in. It’s silly to think I’d actually be better off financially if Danny walked out on me and my daughter than if one of us got a job.

“Anyone else would do exactly the same if they were in our shoes. It’s actually really hard for us. We’re in a lose-lose situation here.”

Short story. A while back, I was home visiting my fam in the ‘Stan (that’s London a/k/a Londonistan to the uninitiated). Reading the paper one morning, I came across a story that pizzed me off so much that it made me want to go get my “trusty, rusty scimitar” and do some serious damage…not just to the principals, but to the entire society, especially the pols and the apparatchiks in government.

Here you have a married couple. Late 30s. They have 14 kids. The government had given put them up in a 5 bedroom, £1.5 million council estate house, and given them a people carrier. About 3 or 4 months earlier, they had advised the council that the wife was expecting twins (keep in mind that this is Britain so we’re talking “free” health care for everyone. Break out the balloons, cigars and champagne!) and that they needed a larger house. So, the pencil-pushers down at the council office started pushing paper and pencils around for a couple of months and finally find a £2.5 million house with 7 bedrooms and moved the family.

At this point, you are probably saying, “Wow! That’s a great country! The US should be like the UK. Of course, we could probably do without the families with the 16 kids, but Britain is so modern and forward-thinking!”

Well, here’s the little problem: In the entire two years that the family had lived in the old, government-doesn’t-take-good-care-of-us, 5 bedroom, £1.5 million house, the government had NEVER once made a visit. After the family left, the council went on a walkthrough and found THOUSANDS of old pizza boxes, feces everywhere, ripped out toilets, sheetrock completely removed, every appliance removed, floors gone, the sky visible in places, dead animals, live rats, bats, etc.

When the council paid a visit to the family in their new 7 bedroom, £2.5 million house to begin an investigation and take statements, along with open investigations with child services, the parents did what all good teat-suckers do:


And, you ask, “What is their complaint?”

Oh, my poor, naïve, little, friend!!! Tsk-Tsk-Tsk! Not “complaint”! “COMPLAINTS!”

You see:

1. The 5 bedroom, £1.5 million house was TOO SMALL for a family of 16.

2. The council only provided ONE PEOPLE CARRIER.

3. ONE PEOPLE CARRIER only allowed the parents to go to the doctor at the NHS for FREE once every YEAR because they needed ANOTHER vehicle so that they could both drive at the same time.

4. The WAITING PERIOD for the FREE HEALTHCARE was too long.

5. Having ONLY ONE PEOPLE CARRIER meant that they couldn’t go to the pharmacy enough to get their medications so they got DEPRESSED and they ATE and they GOT OBESE.

6. And, HAVING ONLY ONE PEOPLE CARRIER and ONLY BEING ABLE TO SEE THE DOCTOR because of the ONE PEOPLE CARRIER & the NHS WAITING PERIOD meant that they got even more depressed and more obese and had more sex and more children because they had no birth control.

7. It WAS NOT FAIR that some families (read: those with jobs) could SPEND MORE ON FOOD THAN they could.

8. It WAS NOT FAIR that some families (read: the Royals) had BIGGER HOUSES.

This is why Britain is bankrupt…financially, mentally, and morally. No one takes responsibility for anything.

No comments: