Immigrants’ welfare eligibility undermines claim that benefits freeze is motivated by fiscal conservatism
In the same week as the British Government hinted at an end to inflation-linked rises in benefits – potentially rendering essentials more expensive for the most vulnerable – a Latvian woman who is claiming £34,000 worth of tax-payer funded state-handouts per year featured in a Daily Mail article and served as a reminder that the British Government is not acting out of economic conservatism when it applies Austerity measures in what it says are attempts to reduce the national debt.
Linda Kozlovska is a self-employed cleaner – who, therefore, is supposed to be an economically beneficial asset to this country according to the Progressive/Marxist mythology about immigration – and a single mother of 10 children – only 3 of whom were born in the UK. Living in a council house in Boston, which neighbours seem to imply is a half-way house enabling Latvians first coming to the UK to have somewhere to stay, each week Kozlovska receives £527 in child tax credit and working tax credit as well as £127 in child benefits. In total, she is in receipt of state-handouts that outstrip the average working salary by £8,000 per annum. Kozlovska rightly pointed out to the Mail that as she was an EU citizen, and as the British Government has only a risable amount of control over the country’s borders, she had as much right to live in Britain, and draw assistance from its welfare system, as anyone who had actually been born in the country: “I came to England to live – because we are from Latvia, which is in the EU, I could just come,” she said.
As such, Kozlovska’s case demonstrates that it is entirely futile for the British Government to reduce individual benefits payments in the name of reducing public expenditure when untold numbers of Europeans on an entire continent, after only having to meet extremely lax and flimsy conditions to qualify (which the EU now wants to eradicate entirely), are eligible to increase the burden on the welfare state – i.e. the steadily-robbed tax-payer – by completely unsustainable factors.
This situation is one of many indicators that the British Government – and the same would apply whichever established political party was incumbent – is using the impossible-to-repay national debt as an excuse to socially engineer British people in a particularly damaging way towards a kind of poverty-stricken society that could only be propped up through overt totalitarian government.
The Government is itself part responsible for high inflation because of George Osborne’s hike of VAT to 20% in January 2011. Because Whitehall officials say £14billion could have been saved since 2009 if the increase in benefits had been pegged to earnings instead of inflation, this relationship too is now an excuse to make the already welfare-dependent much poorer. Moreover, by spectacularly reducing the value of their welfare cheque, the Government may be trying to provoke an underclass, who generally may be more susceptible to criminally, to a level of civil disorder which would frighten an easily malleable public into accepting draconian legislation.
