English Socialism at Work

[pusher robot]

living on three grand a year (about fifty quid a week) each. But the way the paper tells it, you would think they were living in a mansion with servants. And what precisely does the entire thing have to do with News anyway.

Maybe I misinterpreted the article:

All ten members of the clan share a council house and live off benefits amounting to around £32,000 a year.

Now, I'm no maths professor, and I'm definitely no Briton, around here a "grand" is a "thousand," so it seems to me that would be about 32 grand a year (is about 600 quids a week?) For my USian brethren, I believe that exchanges to around $63,000/year. With $80 rent no less!

Now, perhaps the article is all lies and none of it is real. Maybe there is no such report by the MP's, and maybe the family's greedy attitude of entitlement is completely made up. But if it is real, it's disgusting.

[Kami]

Now, I'm no maths professor, and I'm definitely no Briton, around here a "grand" is a "thousand," so it seems to me that would be about 32 grand a year (is about 600 quids a week?) For my USian brethren, I believe that exchanges to around $63,000/year. With $80 rent no less!

You're certainly no mathmatician. You forgot to divide by 10.; that's £3,200 each a year, making it around £62 a week. And don't try to pluralise "quid" to "quids", it makes my eyes bleed.

[Dean]

Maybe I misinterpreted the article:


Now, I'm no maths professor, and I'm definitely no Briton, around here a "grand" is a "thousand," so it seems to me that would be about 32 grand a year (is about 600 quids a week?) For my USian brethren, I believe that exchanges to around $63,000/year. With $80 rent no less!

I would be in debt if I only had 6.3k a year to live off of.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You're certainly no mathmatician. You forgot to divide by 10.; that's £3,200 each a year, making it around £62 a week. And don't try to pluralise "quid" to "quids", it makes my eyes bleed.

[FONT=Arial]Oh boy. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]To think you guys would cite a source less reliable than Fox News. Did you even read the article, Robot? Anyone who has taken basic journalism can spot a rat:
Of course they do, poor lambs. What a damning verdict on our claim-it-all society, a grotesque mirror of the dark television drama Shameless.

This is passed off as news?

On a side note, capital-infested news is just a shill to the advertisers and whimsical tabloid fetishism. BBC, C-Span, and Al Jazeera are much better. [/FONT]

[Bud Struggle]

OK, OK, so the Daily Mail isn't quite the Daily Worker in RevLeft eyes.

But the point still remains that people that don't have to work often scrimp by living in or near poverty than actually getting off their butts and going to work.

If that behavior happens in enough people "after the revolution" we all may be in trouble.

[Demogorgon]

Maybe I misinterpreted the article:


Now, I'm no maths professor, and I'm definitely no Briton, around here a "grand" is a "thousand," so it seems to me that would be about 32 grand a year (is about 600 quids a week?) For my USian brethren, I believe that exchanges to around $63,000/year. With $80 rent no less!

Now, perhaps the article is all lies and none of it is real. Maybe there is no such report by the MP's, and maybe the family's greedy attitude of entitlement is completely made up. But if it is real, it's disgusting.

They are living on an average of three thousand a year each. The fact there is ten of them cramped into that house does not mean that they are any richer for it.

Now perhaps being crammed into a house with nine other people and living on a tenth or so of the average person's annual pay strikes you as great living, but I am not sure everyone would agree.

Those with small enough minds to be fooled by cheap tabloid journalism can easily get mixed up though, wouldn't you agree?

[RGacky3]

The Walfare State and Socialism are 2 different things.