Its funny how the 1 percent has convinced e eorld that the reason why your life is so bad and struggling because the poorest of the poor is taking it from you..classic scapegoat...wake up already

I know it's a problem but i think it's widely blown out of proportion when compared with tax avoidance and stuff like the royal family. Obviously, there are people like in the OP that scrounge off the state but surely more people rely on benefits because they aren't paid enough than those who are too lazy to work. Obviously, it's wrong but really the whole system (welfare, taxes etc.) is rotten anyways.

Blame immigrants all you want, but you can't blame them for all our problems.

OK, so I'm actually on UK unemployment right now. It's $5000/year. And in return I have to go in and get shouted at by some entitled civil servant every week, and they're always sending me on useless courses, and for neither of those things do they pay my bus ticket expenses so subtract another $500 from that. That amount is not livable, even if that doesn't include your rent. Your rent won't be completely paid for you and you'll be living in a terrible area in the middle of nowhere with regards to access to jobs or services.

In order to actually get "lots" of money on welfare, you need to be on disability as well. And preferably those children you have need to be disabled. For the people you're talking about, this involves fraud.

The reality of people living on welfare long-term is that people on it are either a) doing cash-in-hand undeclared jobs to support themselves or b) committing fraud for disability payments

So she gets reported...

then her kids don't get welfare and starve?

I mean, i'm not sure i see the end game here.

I guess the state could take her children... but there's nothing stopping her from having more.

Then the state could take those i guess but i mean really... children raised by the state probably won't be better off.

Really it's just the sort of thing you have to live with.

I dunno.  I imagine the Royal Family is a lot like college football.

It takes in more money they it costs.

I mean.  The Crown estates brings in more then the soverign grant...

and that's not even counting the fact that the minute you take away the monarchy tourism is going to take a huge hit... as it being the last living monarchy (rich white people) care about is a big tourist draw... and the various royal merchandise and branding on various stuff.

I don't really buy that argument that monarchy drives tourism here. There are so many areas for tourists to see just in London alone (let alone the rest of the UK) that i don't see why one family matters. Tourism won't stop or even go down if England became a republic. 

People come here for our history, our culture, our landmarks. That won't change if we abolished the monarchy. 

I suppose the only thing is that the monarchy is considered "British" when in reality they are all foreigners themselves anyway. Controversial, but i consider them scourgers as well. If people want to single out the poles, romanians, somalis etc as lazy scourgers then the royal family should be obvious especially with the OTT news coverage the royals get. The fact the media when on and on when that baby was born makes me despise them. They are just humans like us, why treat them as gods?

Why should they get all that money for being born into the Windsor family name and nothing else? They should have to work like everyone else. Even if they have a positive impact on tourism, they are such an antiquated and old fashion thing. Do they really have a place in English society anymore? I don't think so

You dont have problem with millions of muslims in the UK that after 50 years they still dont know anything about your culture, they dont even know if Robin Hood was a historical character, actually thay hate your culture, they are killing your soldiers on the streets anf you are to afraid to say anything. yet you are critisizing two white christian women, where most people from Poland is working 200h+/month and doing some shitty jobs that most spoiled brats from uk dont even consider doing.

And just the general brand of "the UK". Our reputation when deciding whether to do business here.

But by "I'm gonna be rich" she doesn't mean having 3 luxury cars and a 15 bedroom mansion. She means having enough money to get by while living in reasonable accommodations and having a bit left over. And if she's actually a good mum (might be doubtful) having a bunch of kids and raising them by herself is hardly an easy life. And if she's not a good mum she's mostly going to be miserable because her kids are going to make her life hell.

I don't know how it is exactly in the UK, but here the child support payments from the father(s) contributes to but does not augment the welfare money received from the state. So only if the father is really wealthy and their 20% of net income (I think) exceeds the welfare payment does the mother actually get more than the standard welfare payment. And in that situation there's no taxpayer money involved.

As already said, the only way to get really rich off welfare is to commit fraud, and even then that's not going to be millions. Spitting out kids at regular intervals but still only getting what you're legally entitled to is only a way to secure a livable income without having to find paid employment. It's not a get rich scheme by any stretch.

Beneficiaries have never caused a recession or a financial collapse or an economic downturn. All of the major economic crises have been cause by those at the top of the economic heap. If you want to actually fix society's economic ills look to the causes of the economic bad times, not the victims or the symptoms.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe they are relevant in the way they were, but should the royal family be untethered from the state so that they are just a rich family, most of their property (and the profits that they make) would then be purely theirs unless we have a civil war and take it from them. I see it as a similar situation to gun-control in the US, the country would be better off with strict gun control, but to put that into action now would cause a lot of issues that would remain for years (and that's ignoring the more modern problem of effective guns that can be cheaply printed).

As for the benefit issue, I am pretty sure that while more children = more dole... the cost of raising additional children outweighs what you are given by the government (each additional child gets a smaller percentage of the child benefit given for the first child, and I think there may have been a recent change that puts a cap on child benefit after 3 kids or something) The only way more kids will make someone richer is if someone is claiming illegally.