Benefits child limit

[SocketRocket]

But why are we paying child benifits to anyone other than someone falling on genuine hard times. I include working people in this.

Why is it the states responsibility to subsidise children? we are not in the position where we need more births and have to encourage population increase, quite the opposite. I think this is something from past generations where after wars there was a need to encourage population increases. It seems to me we should take more responsibility for our own lives and not have a government that squeezes the tax out of us untill the pips squeek so they can give out goddies to win votes.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Sorry but if you can not afford children then quite simply you should not have them.

It is not the governments responsibility to look after and pay for offspring, it is your own, if your cant afford them dont have them.

Breeding has become a career choice for many, earlier on today I overheard a 19/20 year old who already has 2 children telling the shopkeeper she had to get pregnant again soon because the youngest child starts school in september and she is afraid that "they" would force her to get a job. She then paid for her 20 cigarettes costing nigh on £7 with the line, same time tomorrow.

People who have fallen on hard times during the recession deserve to be helped out assuming they are actively seeking work and trying their best to rectify the situation.

OK - let's just take the first two statements of this lot - the rest is besides that first point.

You are saying that if you can't afford kids you shouldn't have them and if you do have kids don't expect the state to help you out. Oh good grief. So please let's just for a moment take the parents out of this statement and your evident dislike of prioviding state support to them in suppport of their children. So children come in to this world as they will (despite anything anyone says children will come in to this world - it happens youu know) and their parent(s) can't afford to feed, clothe and house them.

And you would be quite happy and comfortable that these children would likely go hungry, cold and homelesss - you would be happy with that would you. REALLY? Would you?

That is why we do have something called society - and why we as humans have evolved to care for each other - though it would seem that some would rather not be part of any such caring society. Good luck to them - but they needn't come running to the state if they suffer misfortune, fall on hard times or become ill.

 

[Siren]

OK - let's just take the first two statements of this lot - the rest is besides that first point.

You are saying that if you can't afford kids you shouldn't have them and if you do have kids don't expect the state to help you out. Oh good grief. So please let's just for a moment take the parents out of this statement and your evident dislike of prioviding state support to them in suppport of their children. So children come in to this world as they will (despite anything anyone says children will come in to this world - it happens youu know) and their parent(s) can't afford to feed, clothe and house them.

And you would be quite happy and comfortable that these children would likely go hungry, cold and homelesss - you would be happy with that would you. REALLY? Would you?

That is why we do have something called society - and why we as humans have evolved to care for each other - though it would seem that some would rather not be part of any such caring society. Good luck to them - but they needn't come running to the state if they suffer misfortune, fall on hard times or become ill.

You do realize that this country offers free contraception?

Having children is a choice, im sorry you can argue all you want but it's a fact any other points you try to make are invalid.

 

[bluewolf]

I do love the tabloid outcry everytime a case like this appears. They whip everyone up into a feeding frenzy, foaming at the mouth, shouting that benefits for more than 2 kids should be stopped. Claiming that the vast cost is ruining British society....

Do you know what will happen when a single child dies of malnutrition on a council estate in Birmingham? These self same Tabloids will whip everyone up into a feeding frenzy, foaming at the mouth, shouting that the current government despises the working classes and is attempting to socially engineer a master race of Tory voters with no chins and less hair. That restrictions of benefits to children is tantamount to mass slaughter of innocent hardworking, salt of the earth lads and lasses....

Welcome to the world of politics by tabloid soundbite........

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Welcome to the world of politics by tabloid soundbite........

+1 correct

 

[Darth Fader]

If you cant afford children dont have children, why should the state look after them.

 

[Wolfman]

If you cant afford children dont have children, why should the state look after them.

+1 +1

 

[SocketRocket]

Prevention is much better than cure. We all know that you cant take it out on the children.

Do you think its fair that working people have to manage the size of their family due to cost but many work shy can have as many as they want as they dont have to fund them.

Oh! and some seem to be ignoring the fact that the whole welfare system is unsustainable unless working people are prepared to pay much more tax while receiving less back. We are currently on a road to financial disaster, the so called cuts are nothing like what we need to have, currently we are borrowing more each year to prop up a system open to abuse. What has happened in Greece and Cyprus is nothing against what we are heading for.

Wake up!!

 

[sydney greenstreet]

If you cant afford children dont have children, why should the state look after them.

Because it is the States duty to make sure that a childs welfare is met.

 

[SocketRocket]

Because it is the States duty to make sure that a childs welfare is met.

And it's the responsible citizen's duty not to have children they cant afford to keep.

 

[stevie_r]

Prevention is much better than cure. We all know that you cant take it out on the children.

Do you think its fair that working people have to manage the size of their family due to cost but many work shy can have as many as they want as they dont have to fund them.

Oh! and some seem to be ignoring the fact that the whole welfare system is unsustainable unless working people are prepared to pay much more tax while receiving less back. We are currently on a road to financial disaster, the so called cuts are nothing like what we need to have, currently we are borrowing more each year to prop up a system open to abuse. What has happened in Greece and Cyprus is nothing against what we are heading for.

Wake up!!

I've got a good idea, how about we don't send £12.6 billion overseas next year but spend it on regeneration in this country?

 

[bluewolf]

And it's the responsible citizen's duty not to have children they cant afford to keep.

So what do you suggest? Forced contraception? Mandated abortion? State sponsored child abduction?

 

[SocketRocket]

So what do you suggest? Forced contraception? Mandated abortion? State sponsored child abduction?

If you post a grown up response then I would be happy to discuss it with you.

 

[bluewolf]

If you post a grown up response then I would be happy to discuss it with you.

Funny. So what is your suggestion then. Carrot or stick.

 

[SocketRocket]

I've got a good idea, how about we don't send £12.6 billion overseas next year but spend it on regeneration in this country?

Well at last, something we agree on.

 

[stevie_r]

Well at last, something we agree on.

there had to be something

 

[SocketRocket]

Funny. So what is your suggestion then. Carrot or stick.

I have made my opinion clear. To reiterate, you cant blame the children but you can create a situation where the parents cannot make a living out of being work shy and creating children to promote their lifestyle and will think twice before they have children, just like working people have to do all the time. I explained before that those that have not suitably contributed to the pot should do community work for their benefits and be paid by a debit card that can only be spent on essential items, not 50 inch TVs, Sky, fags, booze and iphones. Rather than young single mothers having children to get a subsidised council home, if they didn't have family to support them they could be homed in hostels until in their thirties. Many of the children would probably be better cared for, just look back at baby 'P' and that horrible Mathews woman.

 

[Iaing]

It's not just the out of work who use child allowance to maintain their lifestyle.
It used to be that parents made sacrifices in order to have kids. This doesn't seem to be popular now.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

...but you can create a situation where the parents cannot make a living out of being work shy and creating children to promote their lifestyle and will think twice before they have children, just like working people have to do all the time

But how can you do this? What situation do you propose to create? No matter what you do people will have children and if the situation that you create is not supporting these children, then these children are going to suffer. Whether or not the parents are 'making a lifestyle' out of this, or bunking on any community work in return for benefits - removing benefits will mean that the children will suffer. And then what do you propose society does about these children? Abandon them? The children of today - ALL children of today and not just those in two parent two child families - will comprise the society of tomorrow. What sort of society might we have if it is full of children who grow up knowing that they were effectively abandoned by the state. I would suggest that were that the case it will not be a very nice society at all - and a potentially difficult and dangerous one.

 

[bluewolf]

I have made my opinion clear. To reiterate, you cant blame the children but you can create a situation where the parents cannot make a living out of being work shy and creating children to promote their lifestyle and will think twice before they have children, just like working people have to do all the time. I explained before that those that have not suitably contributed to the pot should do community work for their benefits and be paid by a debit card that can only be spent on essential items, not 50 inch TVs, Sky, fags, booze and iphones. Rather than young single mothers having children to get a subsidised council home, if they didn't have family to support them they could be homed in hostels until in their thirties. Many of the children would probably be better cared for, just look back at baby 'P' and that horrible Mathews woman.

So, you're answer to my non "grown up" question is forced adoption? Let me reiterate, as the first 2 times were obviously a little too subtle. How would you deal with families who, in your opinion, had too many children. How would you ensure that children did not suffer for the profligacy of the parents. Who exactly would you hold responsible.

Also, how would you decide who would suffer least from your suggested cuts. Would you means test all families. Would you check that these families had not fallen on hard times due to circumstances beyond their control. OR, would you assume, as you appeared to have done in the statement above, that all families existing on the breadline are somehow predisposed to sociopathic behaviour a la the baby P and the Shannon Marthews cases.

As an addendum to the questions above, I should state that we have 2 children. We stopped at 2 as that is the number we could comfortably afford. I do agree that there is now a culture of state dependency. That the family unit has broken down. It does annoy me when I see (rarely) the number of people who brazenly abuse the system with no intention of ever contributing to it. BUT, that abuse is a small price to pay for the help that is given to the much bigger number of honest people who have fallen on hard times, through no fault of their own, and need a temporary hand. I'm proud of our imperfect social model. I believe that it tries to do a worthy job. Coupled with the NHS, I believe that it is something that should be allowed to evolve naturally into a less imperfect model. Rather than be knee jerked into oblivion by intelligent people who react to sensationalist media muckstorms.

Rant over, so I'm going to pour a glass of Powers Irish Whiskey and watch the walking dead.