SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
I'm guessing that the only answers are the very, very difficult and possibly unacceptable ones that would shift the benefits system back to what it was at the outset - a social security system.
Hood Robin
- Thread starter Doon frae Troon
- Start date
I'm guessing that the only answers are the very, very difficult and possibly unacceptable ones that would shift the benefits system back to what it was at the outset - a social security system.
S
Snelly
Guest
No need. Stick some of your man goo in a test tube and get it held in storage. Then get spayed.
If you fancy more children later in life when you can actually afford another money pit then make a withdrawal and your good lady can be inseminated. Not exactly romantic but if you are on your third bambino then I can't imagine either of you would be all that bothered about the absence of champagne, roses and fresh Egyptian cotton sheets!!
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
It's called the 'Block'
bluewolf
Money List Winner
Interesting discussion on a very complex subject. The main sticking point when discussing the unfortunate situation whereby children become an easy way to claim more from the State is the unfortunate fact that the birth rate in this country (and most of the civilised world) is well below what is necessary to maintain a population.
Wha-hey I hear you cry, we're an over-populated Island as it is!! Unfortunately, a decrease in birth rate means that the population decrease happens at the lower end of the age spectrum (obviously I suppose). Less children equals less people entering the workforce, which means that you have a very dangerous imbalance in your population. The State Pension will be unaffordable with a decreasing Tax base.
It's an incredibly complex situation which isn't helped by the fact that the families who can afford kids tend to have 2 working parents, meaning that they often choose to have only 1 or 2 children. As soon as 1 parent stops working, the family often becomes eligible for the Tax Credits we don't want to be necessary.
I'm glad there are smarter people than me making policy decisions.......
Wha-hey I hear you cry, we're an over-populated Island as it is!! Unfortunately, a decrease in birth rate means that the population decrease happens at the lower end of the age spectrum (obviously I suppose). Less children equals less people entering the workforce, which means that you have a very dangerous imbalance in your population. The State Pension will be unaffordable with a decreasing Tax base.
It's an incredibly complex situation which isn't helped by the fact that the families who can afford kids tend to have 2 working parents, meaning that they often choose to have only 1 or 2 children. As soon as 1 parent stops working, the family often becomes eligible for the Tax Credits we don't want to be necessary.
I'm glad there are smarter people than me making policy decisions.......
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
It is indeed complex. The attached link gives an alternative view:
http://populationmatters.org/2013/population-matters-news/uk-population-growing-faster-the-economy/
bluewolf
Money List Winner
Yes, but that is primarily as a result of the other great talking point, immigration. If you cut immigration and curb tax credits and child benefit then you put an abrupt halt to that. Complex times and some interesting discussions ahead.
Foxholer
Blackballed
For a man with 4 kids and a bleedin' great Volvo gas-gobbler, that's 'fighting talk'!
How would you fare if you lost your job?
CheltenhamHacker
Journeyman Pro
I think it's a bit different someone having a kid then losing their job, to not having a job in the first place. The welfare system should be designed for the first (until they get a new one), not for the second
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
Is the correct answer :thup:
Foxholer
Blackballed
Totally agree!
Unfortunately there are too many example of the 2nd - especially highlighted by certain parts of the media - and no disincentive (indeed, significant incentive) to take that route!
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Putting aside for a moment the rights or wrongs or affordability or not of having children; fecklessness and irresponsibility of parents; and considerations of what the state should and shouldn't be expected to provide in terms of financial support - it seems to me that the majority here (and in the country?) seem happy to consign to poverty the children of larger poorer families. These children did not choose to come into the world and did not choose their parents - yet many seem happy to say - sorry - tough - nothing to do with me.
British values of caring and compassion. Yeh - right.
British values of caring and compassion. Yeh - right.
Rooter
Money List Winner
I would get off my ass and find another job. Been there mate with a redundancy last year and 3 months off while finding a new job. Did i claim any money or sign my wife back up for child tax credits? No. I was sensible and had a savings account knowing my job is not forever, try and keep 6months living expenses tucked away should the worst happen. Its call being sensible.
There is a gent (perhaps not the right word) called Mick Philpott who tried to correct the population imbalance by having 17 children by 5 different women. Apparently he had an income on State benefits and child allowance of over £60k per annum, a figure that many graduates would like to earn. Basically his children were cash cows to fund his life style. Unfortunately he managed to accidentally kill 6 of them in another scam and is now in jail. He once appeared on the Jeremy Kyle show and I am sure that some of his kids will also be in that program at some point in the future! How the underclass lives! :mmm:
Last edited:
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
We could do with more like you Rooter :thup:
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
You assume wrong then!
I suppose you agree that the blame for the situations of such children lies with the parents then? Regarding the children: Of course they cant be left to go hungry or live in a deprived state. The Social service already has mechanisms to deal with such cases and a lot more could be done to improve it. Simply throwing money at feckless parents is no way to guarantee their children will be well looked after, often the money is wasted by the parents, I would agree not always but in many cases. Paying food and household necessities in vouchers would be better and if the children are not cared for then take them away. Harsh I know but the misuse welfare merry-go-round needs slowing down and stopping as does the disgrace of bringing children into this world as cash cows.
Last edited:
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
I'm not considering 'blame' - I'm simply thinking of the situation that arises with >2 children with the third not being financially supported.
I have not heard anything from the government about creating and funding other ways of ensuring children of 'feckless' parents do not suffer and get brought up in poverty - unless I missed something - which means I assume you are reconciled to accepting that the children of bigger families will have to suffer for the 'irresponsibility' of their parents.
And you'll take them away from the parents - because the parents can't afford to look after them properly - even although that might well be because the government won't provide financial support. You really think it acceptable to remove children from their families for that reason? Even if it was acceptable who do you suggest is going to look after these fortunate children?
chellie
Tour Winner
I'm currently having to look for work through no fault of my own. If businesses paid a decent wage there wouldn't be a need for tax credits etc. imo
In 1998 in my part time job I was paid £7.50 per hour which was the then going rate. Minimum wage now some 17 years later is £6.50 per hour
I'm looking at a huge salary decrease
In 1998 in my part time job I was paid £7.50 per hour which was the then going rate. Minimum wage now some 17 years later is £6.50 per hour
I'm looking at a huge salary decrease
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
So you think welfare should be available for anyone, no matter how many children they have and whether they can afford them or not.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
I am asking whether it is a sign of a civilised and compassionate society (of the sort that Britain has aspirations to be - or pretends that it still is) - for government to have a policy that knowingly will result in children being brought up in poverty - and that has some suggesting that if parental care to the children is subsequently poor then the children be taken into care.
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
It's not much of a civilised, caring and compassionate society where people have children to increase benefits.
If people have children and fall on hard times then of course they should have a 'hand up' rather than a 'hand out'. I ask you again: Do you think welfare should be available for anyone, no matter how many children they have and whether they can afford them or not.
