Benefits child limit

[stevie_r]

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.

good post

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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.

a +1 on this from me

 

[SocketRocket]

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.

I made a few points that answer your concerns. One was ' Those that have not contributed to the pot' I fully support looking after people that have done their best, worked when they can and have contributed into National Insurance . I also didn't suggest 'forced adoption' what I did suggest was that single mothers that have a number of children (often by different fathers) should not be put on the priority housing list but rather be given a form of hostel accommodation (if their families cannot house them)where they and their children can be given suitable care. Often the Fathers pay nothing towards the children's costs as they are also out of work.

I would also like someone here to explain to me how we can finance the current welfare system when it currently costs more than the complete tax and national insurance revenue combined. Please dont say tax the bankers bonuses or keep the 50% rate, worthy as it may be it will not scratch the surface.

 

[stevie_r]

I made a few points that answer your concerns. One was ' Those that have not contributed to the pot' I fully support looking after people that have done their best, worked when they can and have contributed into National Insurance . I also didn't suggest 'forced adoption' what I did suggest was that single mothers that have a number of children (often by different fathers) should not be put on the priority housing list but rather be given a form of hostel accommodation (if their families cannot house them)where they and their children can be given suitable care. Often the Fathers pay nothing towards the children's costs as they are also out of work.

The problems I see with that idea are firstly that it wouldn't provide a huge saving. Secondly, once that young mother eventually leaves the system they would not necessarily have the skills to then cope and care whilst unsupported and running their own home. I think we need to be clear here that yes, there are some utter abominations of young mothers; I strongly suspect that they are outweighed by those who do a very good job in trying circumstances.

 

[SocketRocket]

The problems I see with that idea are firstly that it wouldn't provide a huge saving. Secondly, once that young mother eventually leaves the system they would not necessarily have the skills to then cope and care whilst unsupported and running their own home. I think we need to be clear here that yes, there are some utter abominations of young mothers; I strongly suspect that they are outweighed by those who do a very good job in trying circumstances.

I did add a bit more to that statement after posting. I can see the point you make, it's not so much the initial saving that is important but the statement given out that you cant by creating children jump over others that are doing the right thing. The only reasons to have a child should be 'love' and the responsibility that you can give it the care and support it needs.

 

[Liverbirdie]

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........

Well said that man.

 

[SocketRocket]

Well said that man.

Other than rubbishing the press what did it add to the debate?

 

[Liverbirdie]

Other than rubbishing the press what did it add to the debate?

It's not just the rubbishing of the press, its the way that so many people are easily influenced by the press, facebook, media soundbites these days and everything is knee jerk. No considered thought anymore, just extremist thought all the time.

You only have to look at footy fans for that nowadays. Is it any wonder that there are so many manager sackings these days - mainly down to press(ure).

 

[bluewolf]

Other than rubbishing the press what did it add to the debate?

If you think that my post is rubbishing the press, then can I politely suggest you read it again with a bit more attention to detail. FWIW, I've spent the last 20 years working for the press, albeit in a satellite capacity (little in joke there for those in the know). I've probably read more newspapers in the last 20 years than most on here will read in a lifetime.

If it helps, the post was more about the lynch mob mentality of today's society, and the ease with which it is whipped up.

By the way, The walking dead was good this week eh??

 

[sydney greenstreet]

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

It was a good season finale. :thup:

 

[Iaing]

So, is an ideal solution not to charge VAT on the newspapers? How much would that raise?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I would also like someone here to explain to me how we can finance the current welfare system when it currently costs more than the complete tax and national insurance revenue combined

That may well be true, but is removing child benefit from those deemed 'undeserving' or 'abusing the system' really the answer? I think that we ALL know in our hearts that it is not. We may not like the idea that some abuse the system - but those that abuse the system in the context of child benefit still have children. The benefit may disappear - the children won't.

So let's get away from listening to and believing the frankly uncaring and calculating (I might say nasty) spoutings from too many politicians and commentators and headline writers in the media. It is easy to go along with that sort of stuff when it is couched in the language of 'fairness' and 'necessity' and when you know that you yourself will not be affected - never mind hurt - by it.

We keep hearing that the cuts are 'fair' - I would like to know which part of community that this fairness extends to, to which it benefits. That community may include me - but I feel no benefit - indeed I feel the opposite - a feeling of despair that so many seem to think that a fair way out of this mess that we are in is to hit the poorest of our country.

 

[bluewolf]

So, is an ideal solution not to charge VAT on the newspapers? How much would that raise?

I think a better idea would be to levy a cliche tax on all newspaper and news outlets. That would raise billions, and as a side effect, may also improve the shoddy standards of journalism in this country/union.

 

[bluewolf]

That may well be true, but is removing child benefit from those deemed 'undeserving' or 'abusing the system' really the answer? I think that we ALL know in our hearts that it is not. We may not like the idea that some abuse the system - but those that abuse the system in the context of child benefit still have children. The benefit may disappear - the children won't.

So let's get away from listening to and believing the frankly uncaring and calculating (I might say nasty) spoutings from too many politicians and commentators and headline writers in the media. It is easy to go along with that sort of stuff when it is couched in the language of 'fairness' and 'necessity' and when you know that you yourself will not be affected - never mind hurt - by it.

We keep hearing that the cuts are 'fair' - I would like to know which part of community that this fairness extends to, to which it benefits. That community may include me - but I feel no benefit - indeed I feel the opposite - a feeling of despair that so many seem to think that a fair way out of this mess that we are in is to hit the poorest of our country.

the voice of reason. Good post.