[Herr]

'Outrageous case' of family who 'receive £50,000 on benefits'
A family of 12 who receive £50,000 a year tax-free on benefits have told how they are “taking advantage of the system” as the Department of Work and Pensions condemned their case as “outrageous”.

Stephanie and Ian Fennessy-Sharp, who live in a five-bedroom home, said they would be “silly not to take advantage of the system” and admitted benefits are “too easy to get if you don’t work.”

The Department of Work and Pensions will now be looking into the case and said people would be “astonished” to hear of benefit claimants receiving higher incomes than those in work.

Iain Duncan Smith has already promised to "make work pay", pledging to end a perceived culture of entitlement which has led families to deliberately rely on benefits instead of working.

The Fennessy-Sharp family, from Erith, Kent, told Closer magazine they had been moved into a privately-rented house with large garden because their old house was damp.

Mrs Fennessy-Sharp, a 29-year-old charity shop volunteer, said: ““We’re taking advantage of the system, but that’s the system’s fault – we’d be silly not to with so many mouths to feed.

“I feel this situation has been forced upon us by the Government. The minimum wage is too low and you lose your benefits if you work, but they’re too easy to get if you don’t work.

“If I have to get a job I want a good one. For now, I have to make the most of the system.”

The family are understood to receive £20,400 in housing benefit, £14,456 in child tax credits, £8,320 incapacity benefit, £4,524 child benefit and £1,200 council tax benefit.

Mr Fennessy-Sharp, 56, said he suffers light-headedness, migraines every three weeks and feels ill and stressed if he works for more than an hour. He used to be employed in a factory but has been unable to work for 20 years.

The couple have ten children between them: Mrs Fennessy-Sharp has three under ten years old from a previous relationship and her husband has seven aged between three and nine years.

She told the magazine she felt guilty about claiming so much money but that she was financially better off volunteering than working, adding: “I know taxpayers are being punished – I hate taking their money. But we’re being allowed to get away with it.”

A spokesman for the DWP said: "Outrageous cases like this is why we are changing the system.

“People will be astonished that benefit claimants can receive higher incomes than families who are in work.

“That’s why next April we’re introducing a cap on benefits so that no household can receive more than £26k a year."

Little wonder the HM Government has such a huge budget deficit.

Pictures here

[madders94]

These people are despicable, they give a bad name to genuine claimants and by printing the story, the newspapers and magazines aren't doing much to spread the truth that benefit claimant =/= scrounger.

[plimsolls]

Sterilisation.

[alexsasg]

This is disgusting, I completely agree - but benefit fraud costs 1 billion annually in comparison to tax evasion's 70 billion. I think the country needs to get its priorities straight.

EDIT: I'm not trying to justify this at all - like I said, it's horrible that they are abusing the system like this - but, despite how the Daily Mail portrays it, it is a small minority of benefits claimants who are large families such as the one in the article.

[yothi5]

I don't think the government will ever man-up and sort out the welfare system/excessive breeding. We might as well all stop with our degrees and jobs and claim benefits so that we won't be the tax payers getting ripped off!

[stormstar]

They're gonna be screwed next year when the cap comes in. The maximum they will get is £500 per week and £26,000 per year. I work in Housing Benefit so I see cases like this a lot...

[JollyGreenAtheist]

What this family has done is manipulative, dishonest and of objectionable moral ground.

However, the fact that this is making such a big splash suggests that it's not the norm, and it certainly does not detract from the fact many families do need income support. Unemployment is sky-high and there's no growth. Without jobs, it is incredibly difficult to get jobs in this climate.

It's imperative that this one example is not used as a stick to beat the welfare state.

[rach [shikari]]

People like this make my blood boil!

[najinaji]

(Original post by JollyGreenAtheist)
What this family has done is manipulative, dishonest and of objectionable moral ground.

However, the fact that this is making such a big splash suggests that it's not the norm, and it certainly does not detract from the fact many families do need income support. Unemployment is sky-high and there's no growth. Without jobs, it is incredibly difficult to get jobs in this climate.

It's imperative that this one example is not used as a stick to beat the welfare state.

Sorry to tell you this, but this sort of thing is pretty normal, especially for drug dealers.

[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by alexsasg)
This is disgusting, I completely agree - but benefit fraud costs 1 billion annually in comparison to tax evasion's 70 billion. I think the country needs to get its priorities straight.

EDIT: I'm not trying to justify this at all - like I said, it's horrible that they are abusing the system like this - but, despite how the Daily Mail portrays it, it is a small minority of benefits claimants who are large families such as the one in the article.

Cutting down costs through legal means by fiddling around with money that was already yours versus deception to rack up money that was never yours?

[f1mad]

****ing brilliant, another joins the queue.

[21stcenturyphantom]

“I feel this situation has been forced upon us by the Government"

Seriously laughing out loud at this. Oh look at how evil the western world is, the government is forcing this high amount of free money at me, it is their fault. Complete madness. These people who simply breed and live off the government need their abhorrent way of life to be corrected.

Mr Fennessy-Sharp, 56, said he suffers light-headedness, migraines every three weeks and feels ill and stressed if he works for more than an hour. He used to be employed in a factory but has been unable to work for 20 years.

Hahaha! You couldn't make this up. Oh no, I have a slight headache, excuse me whilst I take the next 20 years off work. What horrible people.

[alexsasg]

(Original post by Mendeleev's Table)
Cutting down costs through legal means by fiddling around with money that was already yours versus deception to rack up money that was never yours?

Actually, tax evasion is an illegal attempt to avoid paying money that is owed. What you are talking about in tax avoidance.

And yes, it should certainly be a priority if is costs 70 times more.

[HeyyImRyan]

(Original post by 21stcenturyphantom)


Hahaha! You couldn't make this up. Oh no, I have a slight headache, excuse me whilst I take the next 20 years off work. What horrible people.

Exactly what I thought! People have no legs and still want to work, or severe physical or mental illnesses! He gets a slight headache every three weeks and can't work for 20 years, so instead gets to claim incapacity benefit and carer's allowance?!

[katyness]

That is actually funny. My mum is a single mum (my dad died) and my brother is disabled yet housing benefit only pays a quarter of our house. My mum pays more than her salary... how great is this system

[bahjat93]

12 kids, and they'll go and have 12 kids EACH who will claim more benefits!

Thank You labour!

[VoodooCharles]

You know if you have a child and you are not fit to look after it, the social services takes the child away from you until you are able to look after it? Well if you can't afford to feed/clothe/house your child then surely that should be classed as not being able to look after it? And in that situation instead of giving out benefits, the child should be taken away untill the parent can afford it.

I know there would be some minor cases where this might controvene human rights, but i'm sure people who decide to live on benefits currently, would have a lot less children if this was the case.

[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by alexsasg)
Actually, tax evasion is an illegal attempt to avoid paying money that is owed. What you are talking about in tax avoidance.

And yes, it should certainly be a priority if is costs 70 times more.

Apologies, I've been doing so much maths revision words don't compute properly anymore

[redpanda41]

(Original post by VoodooCharles)
You know if you have a child and you are not fit to look after it, the social services takes the child away from you until you are able to look after it? Well if you can't afford to feed/clothe/house your child then surely that should be classed as not being able to look after it? And in that situation instead of giving out benefits, the child should be taken away untill the parent can afford it.

I know there would be some minor cases where this might controvene human rights, but i'm sure people who decide to live on benefits currently, would have a lot less children if this was the case.

So you propose taking children away from low earners?

Newsflash.... most people on benefits are working. The cost of living is very high, many, many people get help in the form of housing benefit, child tax credit etc etc... doesn't make them all scroungers

[Skip_Snip]

We're aiming to work hard and get atleast semi-decent jobs which may or may not have equal pay to them, and they get paid for having sex ... you have to wonder who the clever ones really are