Hood Robin

[MarkA]

The Victorians had a great system for those without a job or the means to care for themselves or their children, it was called the workhouse. Imagine something as inhumane as having to work for society to ensure that you could live and eat with a roof over your head and imagine how hard people would try not to end up there. Instead we encourage the workshy with benefits, council houses and extra cash for having more kids - its no wonder half the western world want to try and get over here on this overcrowded island.
Society should look after the underprivileged and vulnerable but its time to balance the books now and ensure that there is a clear incentive to get out and work for living rather than sitting on your ar8se playing on an xbox.
Osborne got things right in the budget - its not a perfect world but this is the first step in redressing the balance to help those who want to work and pay their way and those who don't.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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.

I simply do not believe that a rich society such as ours should conscience deliberately putting helpless and innocent children into poverty - that is unacceptable - and will only end in misery for the children and according to your plan some or many ending up in care (for which we will have to pay). If the only means of ensuring that we do not do that is by providing some form of welfare and the only way of doing that is via the parents then so be it. What checks and balances should then applied to ensure that the financial or other welfare support actually gets to the children are for policy makers to determine not me - but clearly there is a need for some such checking as the system is open to abuse - as you say.

But why on earth do we think it acceptable to address the issue of the national debt and the deficit by putting children into poverty? We hear loud cries for the hardest punishments to be meted out to those who harm children - yet many think it acceptable for our government to implement policy that will...harm children.

 

[Hobbit]

I simply do not believe that a rich society such as ours should conscience deliberately putting helpless and innocent children into poverty - that is unacceptable - and will only end in misery for the children and according to your plan some or many ending up in care (for which we will have to pay). If the only means of ensuring that we do not do that is by providing some form of welfare and the only way of doing that is via the parents then so be it. What checks and balances should then applied to ensure that the financial or other welfare support actually gets to the children are for policy makers to determine not me - but clearly there is a need for some such checking as the system is open to abuse - as you say.

But why on earth do we think it acceptable to address the issue of the national debt and the deficit by putting children into poverty? We hear loud cries for the hardest punishments to be meted out to those who harm children - yet many think it acceptable for our government to implement policy that will...harm children.

But if feckless parents can go out and buy booze and fags, can be in the local social club a few afternoons and evenings a week and still feed and clothe their children surely the level of benefits paid out is too high.

And before you respond with "that's just a Daily Mail headline," there is a not too distant branch of my family that have done that for the last 50 years, and are on their 3rd generation of the benefits culture being a lifestyle choice. They've had the Spannish holidays every year... one of the children's children, now in his 30's and never worked, has bought a very nice static caravan on a holiday/theme park.

And giving vouchers instead of cash won't work either. They'll just sell the vouchers.

If there are people out there earning significantly less than £25k a year, and surviving on it, why should the state fund someone in excess of that? Whilst I absolutely support your sentiments, why should the state support someone to have a lifestyle that many hardworking people can't achieve?