to be fed up of George sodding Osbourne and his Knobbish Ideas

(1000 Posts)
avivabeaver Mon 08-Oct-12 11:04:43

The economy is proving harder to fix than he first thought

Solution- suggest cutting £10bn from the benefits budget and "limit the number of children people can claim for". So- are you supposed to choose your 2 favourite and just feed them then? Or what?

Hammy02 Mon 08-Oct-12 11:30:37

I think all he was saying was that people that don't claim benefits have to work out how many children they can afford to have & this should also apply to those on benefits. Eg, if you can't afford more than 2 kids, don't have more. Bonkers system where people that can't afford to feed themselves then think its a good idea to have kid after kid.

TM08 Mon 08-Oct-12 11:35:11

Although something needs to be done, how can they impose it without sacrificing genuine claimants?

Should people on benefits become celibate to prevent accidental pregnancies? Should they not go out to avoid being raped? And god fobid they ended up giving birth to triplets, and had to choose which two to claim for.

i've been hearing lots of 'solutions' from my well-off friends this morning. "Force people to get a contraception injection before they get any benefits", "make them do drug tests each week".

Because apparantly benefit claimants aren't entitled to the same human rights as well-off folk.

niceguy2 Mon 08-Oct-12 11:36:15

I've long advocated putting a limit on the number of children the state pays out for.

But personally I prefer the limit to be fixed at however many children you have at the time you start claiming. So if you have 3 kids at the time you claim JSA then you get the appropriate benefits for 3 kids. If later you have a fourth then it's fine. Your choice. But the state doesn't have to pay for it.

We really have to move away from the bizarre notion that the state should support our lifestyle choices no matter how unaffordable they may be.

My OH & I work and pay our taxes. If we have another child our employers don't give us more money because of it. Why should the government?

I can totally understand why people want to limit the number of children people can have whilst claiming benefits. However, I don't think this limit should apply to current, born, children. I don't think that pushing currently unemployed families with a large number of children further into poverty will solve anything in the long run.

typicalvirgo Mon 08-Oct-12 11:40:15

What niceguy2 said.

Hammy02 Mon 08-Oct-12 11:40:31

I don't see what human rights have to do with anything here. Have as many kids as you want, just don't expect someone else to have to pay for them.

Dahlen Mon 08-Oct-12 11:41:54

I understand why so many people support this (and they do) because, on the face of it, it does seem to be simply about getting people to take responsibility for their choices.

However, my big concern is that it will be women and children who suffer. If a woman gets pregnant the father can abscond with no further penalty while she will be left facing the prospect of having another child with no help. No form of contraception is 100% safe and a woman whose benefits will be less than what she needs for her increased family will not be in a position to cough up for the CSA's services that now have to be paid for. In the meantime, that's a family sinking lower into a financial abyss. A child who will be prevented from ever realising its true potential because of lack of money and the opportunities it buys. It will simply perpetuate the downward cycle of deprivation and it will affect far more children than adults, and far more women than men.

That's actually a good point Dahlen

SammyTheSwedishSquirrel Mon 08-Oct-12 11:45:48

So are the children of parents who don't comply left to starve then? confused

While theoretically it might make sense, in reality it's madness. Reminds me of the abstinence stance some American politicians take towards dealing with teenage pregnancy. Utterly disconnected from real life.

TM08 Mon 08-Oct-12 11:48:32

But pregnancies aren't always the result of lifestyle choices.

I understand 100% something has to be done to stop women who fall pregnant just for extra money, but the only way to do this would be by sacrificing genuine claimants.

More children will be going hungry, more families will be torn apart, and yes, it will be mostly women and children who suffer.

JakeBullet Mon 08-Oct-12 11:50:28

YANBU.....The man is a tosser....pure and simple.

JakeBullet Mon 08-Oct-12 11:53:22

Lets not forget that people lose jobs so.....you mint well have your fourth child quite able to afford that......until you lose your job. Then you become a scrounger...God forbid! The man is an arsehole....as are the rest of this fecking Givt. Hate them.

juneau Mon 08-Oct-12 11:54:12

Totally agree with what niceguy2 says.

RatherBeOnThePiste Mon 08-Oct-12 11:58:06

I predicted these threads today. I am quite smug now.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Mon 08-Oct-12 11:59:07

I know no contraception is 100% safe but it is still pretty blooming good.

Over 99% for the pill (or injection) and condoms is 98%. The fact is that pregnancy is easily preventable.

Prarieflower Mon 08-Oct-12 12:01:42

What Niceguy said.

It simply can't go on,we can't afford it and that is the bottom line.It's a ridiculous state of affairs when hard working families have to stick to 2 dc or even just 1 due to lack of finances but those on benefits can have as many as they like.confused.How unfair is that!

The maj of people needing benefits and likely to need them in the future will already be claiming.You have to start somewhere.

Sorry contraception is pretty safe by and large,women have to take responsibility for themselves for the children they already have and those they may have in the future.If you're scrupulously careful you don't get pregnant.

I do think there should be exceptions for children born from rape though and unplanned (non IVF)multiple births.

You know claimants could also plan ahead to get off benefits if they really want more dc or money (get training whilst looking for work),having a baby doesn't have to be now,now,now.It's what many working families have to do.

CogitoErgoSometimes Mon 08-Oct-12 12:03:01

YABU. People who work don't get paid extra the more kids they have. When the UC comes in with a maximum cap, that just puts everyone on the same footing.

flatpackhamster Mon 08-Oct-12 12:03:27

avivabeaver

The economy is proving harder to fix than he first thought

Well, he is an idjit who had no comprehension of just how bad things were. But I don't think that any of the political class really know how bad things were after 13 years of Labour.

Solution- suggest cutting £10bn from the benefits budget and "limit the number of children people can claim for". So- are you supposed to choose your 2 favourite and just feed them then? Or what?

Bloody good idea, but here's how I would institute it:

On budget day in April, I'd announce in February of the next year, no family who has a 3rd child or more will receive child benefit for that child.

This would mean that people who currently had large families would not be affected but that there would be no financial incentive to have more children for families in the future.

I'd imagine there would be a place for caveats for people who ended up with multiple births.

JakeBullet Mon 08-Oct-12 12:04:13

Twitter is better Rather, Gideon is taking a right kicking on there.

mollymole Mon 08-Oct-12 12:04:47

totally agree with niceguy2

JakeBullet Mon 08-Oct-12 12:05:24

It's nowt to do with "13 years of Labour", there is a worldwide recession.....or have you missed that?

TM08 Mon 08-Oct-12 12:06:14

PrairieFlower - r.e.the rape exepction rule - I think this would result in a lot of false rape allegations. If a woman knows the only way she can claim benefits for her unborn child is by claiming to have been raped, she'll go for it if desperate enough.

As far as I was aware, there's already a cap in place for benefit claimants (I think you can't claim more than £25,000 a year - a vast amount of this is housing benefit-), so why deduct more?

It's all too much too soon.

hattifattner Mon 08-Oct-12 12:07:23

I think its a great idea - as long as it is phased in. SO on December 1st they announce it will come into effect on September 1st, and that any additional children born after this point wont be included in benefts, but existing kids will continue to be covered.

I would not like them to make families with 6 kids live on 2 kids worth of money But equally, the statistic being bandied about is that 53% of households now cost more than the tax revenue they bring in...this is madness and is not sustainable.

avivabeaver Mon 08-Oct-12 12:09:03

but that is it- its great IN THEORY. It makes a lovely headline in the Daily Mail. How is is actually possible to enforce it? All is actually means is that an enormous number of people are worried out of their minds to try to get a "feckless few". The people I know that have found themselves on benefits do not see it as a lifestyle choice. They have made plans to support themselves and their dc- but big life events- illness, redundancy have happened. Surely the whole point is to provide a safety net for these people. If you agree, how the jeff do you differentiate between them and the feckless few? How do you have a system that makes sure that every kid eats if you happen to have 4 ?

RatherBeOnThePiste Mon 08-Oct-12 12:09:04

<off to Twitter>

JakeBullet Mon 08-Oct-12 12:09:12

"Planning ahead to get off benefits"

ROFLMAO

But the laughter is hollow because there simply are not enough jobs to go around and some will always be in and out of work.

I know...lets sterilise anyone not likely to have long term work. Bloody scroungers daring to want a family. How bloody dare they....work shy bastards. hmm

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:09:27

He means, if you have more children when you're on benefits you have to pay for them yourselves. No number's been put on the number of children.

Jake Bullet: there was a note left by Labour "there's no money left". And need I say AGAIN today that under Labour the proportion of people taking out more than they put in (to the state pot) ROSE to over half the population. So, yes, it has got something to do with Labour.

Dawndonna Mon 08-Oct-12 12:09:42

This
demonstrates that the poor and those on benefits really are taking the brunt of the cuts, in fact significantly more than others.
I'm actually quite frightened, the demonisation of benefit claimants of any kind is fast becoming de rigeur for all, encouraged by a government that only looks after its own.

Prarieflower Mon 08-Oct-12 12:10:15

Jake so every person on benefits is a write off and doomed to never work?hmm

RatherBeOnThePiste Mon 08-Oct-12 12:10:38

Before I go... judgement and integrity? hmm

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:11:24

"But pregnancies aren't always the result of lifestyle choices."

Let's be honest with ourselves here - the vast majority of pregnancies are. If you forget, or are lazy, or drunk, or are on ABs and get slipshod, it's still a choice.

Dawndonna Mon 08-Oct-12 12:11:24

Yep, the note was left by Labour. As information. The banks fucked it, not the Labour Party and frankly anyone who thinks that is daft, the Labour Party cannot possibly have caused the WORLDWIDE recession. That would be the recession that other countries are finally moving out of because they didn't slash so hard and so fast.

vj32 Mon 08-Oct-12 12:12:30

Millionaire pensioners have been told their winter fuel payments are protected while £10billlion has to be cut from welfare. Its a joke, but its a typical Tory stance (protect the rich to win their support and those with aspirations to be rich, screw the poor and the careful people in the middle), I am getting progressively more annoyed at the people who voted Tory, especially those who are now not happy with the policies they are enacting.

One of the fundamentals of the welfare state, and in fact one of the earliest issues that the Liberal Govt in the early C20th tried to address, was child poverty. Saying a family can only have 3 children and if they have a 4th they have to starve is a complete betrayal of the welfare system. I don't want to live in a country where small children are deliberately, with full knowledge of the government, left to starve because their parents didn't act in a way 'we' would like.

Teeb Mon 08-Oct-12 12:13:19

I think what niceguy said might be worth looking into, that it's set at the point you begin claiming benefits. So if it's a family where the father has been laid off but they already have three children, then all three children should be provided for.

I wish these initiatives would work hand in hand though with better sex education, more freely available birth control and access to the morning after pill.

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:13:20

Dawndonna: how many times. More people were pushed onto welfare - a quarter more people - under Labour. During a time when hundreds of thousands of jobs were being taken by (harder-working?) incomers every year.

JamNan Mon 08-Oct-12 12:13:55

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey

This government is despicable. General Election now please. And let's not forge that children are the tax payers of the future.

OP YANBU and yes Gideon is a knob.

Crazyx4 Mon 08-Oct-12 12:14:23

Jakebullet, I grew up in a place where it was expected that you voted labour and I supported them for years, but you can't deny it was them who got us in this mess. Not that I am saying Osbourne is getting it right and no I don't accept all his policies. I am losing child benefit next year and with 4 kids that is a big deal for us, but at the end of the day I chose to have 4 and it is my responsibility to provide for them.

JakeBullet Mon 08-Oct-12 12:14:30

Gideon starting to sound more like Comical Ali every day "They're not poor, they're just pretending to be poor".

Fabulous tweet just seen.....and so so true. The man is n arsehole ...

More a tweets...

£55 Carers Allowance is so much money...am amazed more people don't try for a disabled child.

Forgot to pull my blinds this morning #Osbourne #scrounger

...and plenty more there....the man is hated by many so if the Tories here are pissing you off get over to Twitter for some fresh air.

KellyMarieTunstall Mon 08-Oct-12 12:14:31

It can be a calculated decision on the part of many couples.

I have spoken with many women claiming lone parent income support who are reporting details of their new baby. The new baby invariably has the same surname as older child/ren (ie the fathers but not the mothers name) even though the woman has been a lone parent for many years. The gap is often just enough to ensure LPIS continues for a few more years.

This practice has diminished recently but has not vanished.

stubbornstains Mon 08-Oct-12 12:14:33

"It simply can't go on,we can't afford it and that is the bottom line.It's a ridiculous state of affairs when hard working families have to stick to 2 dc or even just 1 due to lack of finances but those on benefits can have as many as they like..How unfair is that!"

Umm....many families on benefits ARE hardworking. Working hard for the minimum wage, and still having to be topped up, due to low wages and high rents.

This government is trying to depict an artificial divide in its propaganda: "hard working families" versus "scrounging benefit claimants". Well, it's not that simple, is it? Most benefit claimants will have worked in the past, or will go on to work in the future. A period of having to claim benefit is most likely when you have pre school age children, when their claims on your time are the greatest, and when childcare costs can be prohibitive.

And let's think for a moment...what would happen if no one who, albeit temporarily, "couldn't afford" kids didn't have them? That's a hell of a lot of prospective kids not being born. That's a hell of a lot of future taxpayers and workers we'll be missing out on 20 years down the line, when the baby boomers all start getting frail and needing billions and billions of pounds' worth of care.

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:15:30

1. And pensioners are often people who've saved all their lives. What's the point of saving if it's all taken away from you? and 2. Means testing of this group definitely would be more costly than the money saved.

Dawndonna Mon 08-Oct-12 12:16:47

Brycie. Read the evidence, and remove your racist views.

Oh, and bear in mind people on benefits also include carers and disabled people and their families.

Meglet Mon 08-Oct-12 12:17:15

this Jamnan - 'children are the tax payers of the future'.

I remember the Tories in the 80's, hence I grew up very wary of them. At this rate (am a single parent) my DC's will be the most ferocious left wing MP's going.

Prarieflower Mon 08-Oct-12 12:17:39

I do agree with Vj over the winter fuel allowance for wealthy pensioners.totally angry that this won't be touched,just how can they justify it?

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:17:46

Sorry but this "we need the children" isn't necessarily true, there are pensioners now paying tax to support children in non-working families. How is that helping the pensioners? As long as they are supported by the state, there's no contribution to the social contract.

JakeBullet Mon 08-Oct-12 12:18:11

There is a world wide recession folks......Labour did not "get us into this mess" and the Tories were promising to match their spending pound for pound.

A WORLDWIDE RECESSION....and Gideon is vetoing a mansion tax but shaving another £10b of the benefits bill .....from where I don't know.

Then again can't have anyone "enjoying" (yes the arsehole actually used that word) a life on benefits. Tosser.

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 12:18:17

Why not just bring in steralization for the feckless and put the children straight in the workhouse? We could have the Sex-factor on tv and vote for who deserves to procreate and who doesn't.

How does this fit with Hunt The Cunt's stance on abortion prior to 12 weeks?

And how soon before we have prescription free contraception withdrawn?

Of course none of us actually gave any thought to being able to afford children before having them. We're all too busy rutting away with men we barely know in our council houses in front of our plasma tellies.

Will nobody think of the goats?!

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:19:21

What racist views? Are you joking? You need to resort to that? You have GOT to be kidding me.

Meglet Mon 08-Oct-12 12:19:28

I've always wanted a goat sad. I only have a couple of mice in my compost bin <<sobs>>.

Dawndonna Mon 08-Oct-12 12:19:45

This discussion is exactly what Osbourne wants. Whilst some are demonising the families on benefits, other policies can be slipped into place. Let's have a go at benefit claimants, then we miss out that the taxation of the rich is unchanged.
Let's make all the savings from those who can't afford it. If I phrase it carefully I can make everyone side with me because they're stupid enough to have a knee jerk reaction and not think it through. Then I can claim that they all supported me.

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:20:21

"children are the tax payers of the future."

not all children. What about the generations of families who've never worked?

RatherBeOnThePiste Mon 08-Oct-12 12:20:49

I have shut my blinds on principle - I vote we all do the same.

Brycie - I do not like your comment about 'incomers'

JakeBullet Mon 08-Oct-12 12:20:55

My great aunt's, cousins, sisters boyfriend is "on he sick" and there's nowt wrong with him because he goes for a walk with his goat.

How comes he has a goat and I don't?

Bye bye.....this thread is pissing me off now.

Off you all go and pull the ladder up quick in case the scroungers try and get aboard.

stubbornstains Mon 08-Oct-12 12:21:13

(stealth boast alert)...

Only mice Meglet? I've got rats!

(It's a lifestyle choice)

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:21:39

You need to withdraw the accusation of racism Dawndonna. You are off the wall with that.

And you need to get your arguments straight. They are all over the place. I wouldn't even call them arguments.

Prarieflower Mon 08-Oct-12 12:21:54

Brycie they saved because they could. I don't buy that one group(particularly a very wealthy one) gets to sit in clover whilst the rest have to take pain it's not fair.

Poor pensioners should get the WFA but the well off and the fabulously wealthy shouldn't.I kind of resent my taxes going on the bar bill on my inlaw's latest cruise.

But lets not forget pensioners vote Tory,that is why they're not touched.

Still agree with Niceguy though on this.

Dahlen Mon 08-Oct-12 12:22:04

Coming back to the pregnancy being easily preventable, what if you are one of the percentage who did everything by the book but still got pregnant?

What if you are one of the women who can't use the pill?

What if you are one of the women whose partners refuse to use condoms?

It may be 2012 and the age of equality, but the truth is that while it takes two to make a baby, it's frequently the woman only who is made to face up to the consequences. The only way you can make this fair on women is by equipping them and society with the tools to make sure the fathers live up to their responsibilities too. Instead, access to the CSA is being cut and now you'll be charged to use it.

This policy is NOT about making people take personal responsibility. It's a clever piece of social manipulation aimed at dividing and conquering.

He was so incredibly fucking condescending on BBC Breakfast this morning

'I speak directly to your viewers who are probably getting ready for work.. (pause) they are going to work hard all day to provide for their families....'

Yes mate. We work really bloody hard which you have not done one day in your privilidged entitled life. We don't have any handouts or tax credits yet you are fucking clobbering us to the point where yes, it would be financially easier for one of us not to work at the moment. Will we do that - no - but you are not giving some people the option. By all means, put an end to the something for nothing culture yet have a realistic alternative for the millions of people you are affecting. Where exactly are the jobs you expect people to go out and find when there are 20+ applicants for any one job advertised?

What really grates is the news over the weekend that there won't be any mansion tax or wealth tax imposed. No, of course not as then Osbourne and Cameron and all of the other privilidged Tories and funders will have to put their hands in their pockets then. That won't do. Far easier to tax the little people further, isn't that right Gideon?

TM08 Mon 08-Oct-12 12:22:42

^"children are the tax payers of the future."

not all children. What about the generations of families who've never worked? ^

Everyone pays tax, whether working or not. Tax is on practically everything we buy.

And it is possible for a child to come from a non-working household and be able to hold down a job themself when they become an adult.

TM08 Mon 08-Oct-12 12:23:12

Whoops. Italics didn't work ^

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:23:14

I don't know what to call them then - they were people who came in to Britain to work -- and found employment through determination and looking and not assuming someone else would pay for them. What do you want me to call them? Suggestions?

MainlyMaynie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:23:28

It scares me that people can't see what this has to do with human rights. It's not about the rights of the parents to have as many kids as they want, it's the right of a child in modern Britain not to live in poverty. What you're supporting is children not having enough money to live adequately. Children being cold and hungry. Children not having shoes that fit or a warm coat in winter. It is very worrying that people think that it is ok to punish children for their parents' inability to find a job in a massive recession.

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:24:20

May I point out again: more than half the population takes more out of the state pot than they put in. What can you say to justify this?

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:25:41

Maynie: don't worry, it's not about that. It's about trying to ensure that children are not born into poverty as you describe.

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:27:23

Yes, some saved because they could; many saved because they decided to go without.

Nancy66 Mon 08-Oct-12 12:27:57

Pensioners vote. That's why governments of all parties look after them.

(as they should)

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 12:28:00

Serious question: what happens to those children who never asked to be born? Do we abort in the womb like China? Or do we steralise people based on their income? Or are forcible adoptions the answer? Or do we expect these children to go hungry and without other essentials like shoes or heating?

The state has a responsibility to any child living in poverty regardless of the parents' ability to use contraception effectively.

And who are these children living the life on Riley on the state? The amount of money paid to families probably doesn't even cover Gideon's weekly cab bill.

Prarieflower Mon 08-Oct-12 12:28:31

Mainly your post is the entire reason why we're in such a mess.Parents are allowed to think they aren't the ones responsible for their children because they know the state will pick up the tab which unfortunately it can't afford anymore as we have an aging population too.

MainlyMaynie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:31:03

Brycie, that's exactly what it's about. The intention may ostensibly be to stop children being born, the impact will be to push real, live children who are born, despite government policy, into greater and greater poverty. It's disgusting.

Paradisefound Mon 08-Oct-12 12:31:45

The welfare state is too expensive, more cut backs are inevitable.

I think the state supporting the first 2 kids only is a good idea. But there would need to be exceptions and the change bought in for new parents only.

I know lots of couples who are putting off or choosing not to have kids ( or more kids ) because they know they can't afford it... They don't believe the taxpayer should bring their kids up for them.

Prarieflower Mon 08-Oct-12 12:31:45

No party should be chucking money away on people who don't need it,sorry.

I don't think it's true some went without. Those without don't have savings,there are plenty of pensioners like this.

There are also plenty of pensioners who did alright Jack over the past few years who simply don't need or deserve the WFA,some aren't even in the bloody country during winter!!!!angry

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:32:39

None of these arguments make sense to me, they really don't. But it's so very sour so I will go, and leave you to it. There is such a lot of misplaced anger but many of you are very upset and I'm just making it worse. I think it's a thread for like-minded people and I should have realised that smile

Dawndonna: you can withdraw any time or come up with another word for people from outside Britain who come to Britain to work here. I'll continue to look out for that.

JuliaScurr Mon 08-Oct-12 12:32:42

What if you get made redundant at 37, have no children but your partner does. This is probably your last chance. So you give up the chance because American banks collapsed 3 years ago? Crazy.

Dahlen Mon 08-Oct-12 12:33:27

A child brought up with a happy, stable home life, with good access to health care, an excellent education and opportunities to develop their potential, is unlikely to grow up workshy. He or she may possibly end up unemployed if there aren't enough jobs available, or because they can't get adequate childcare, or because they have to care for a partner or relative, but that's not the same as being workshy.

So how do you ensure that all children are brought up with happy, stable home lives, with good access to healthcare, an excellent education and opportunities to develop their potential?

Well, you can deprive those who are least likely to have this of even more money... cos that will help won't it. hmm

Or, you can invest in things like schools, sure start, social services, CSA, community centres. You can increase education about healthy relationships, parental responsibility, etc. Except all this is being cut too in favour of the option above.

Like many, I believe that failing to look at history and learn its lessons means that you are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. We only need to look at our own country's history to see that demonising the poor - even those who 'deserve' it - does nothing to improve the situation (although it can help the mean spirited feel better). Whereas investing in people and providing them with the means to help themselves, does.

MainlyMaynie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:34:14

Prairieflower, I'd rather be in the sort of mess created by society choosing to ensure all children are adequately provided for than the sort of mess created by thinking it's acceptable to punish children for their parents' mistakes.

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 12:36:10

May I point out again: more than half the population takes more out of the state pot than they put in. What can you say to justify this?

I say the following:

That the wealth of the top 10% is 100 times more than the bottom 10% (source: m.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/27/unequal-britain-report?cat=society&type=article)

The mark of civilisation is how well we treat the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.

JamNan Mon 08-Oct-12 12:37:09

Stealth boast alert...

Well I've got a snake in my compost bin.

Meglet Mon 08-Oct-12 12:38:16

envy.

I have lots of meaty worms but no snake.

What if you are one of the women who can't use the pill?

Several different very reliable safe methods

What if you are one of the women whose partners refuse to use condoms?

Well personally I wouldn't let him near me but if you agree then you find another source of contraception & abstain until you can be safe.

There has to be a cut off point for state help, I don't agree with how this Govt is going about it, but I do agree limiting families where that is possible is a good idea, particularly where there is limited income. We are all responsible for our own families and bringing another mouth to feed into the world if youy can't afford it is irresponsible.

Oh & it is thought the very small percentage failure rate is usually down to user error/noncompliance not the contraception failing, but it's easier to blame the condom for splitting or pill not working than admit you didn't bother sometimes. ( can't be proven though)

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 12:39:46

Well I can see some rats on this thread! <<wins>>

Dualta Mon 08-Oct-12 12:40:00

Em, who is living a lavish lifestyle on benefits can you tell me? Would you rather give up work and survive on benefits and on the housing lists?

Its blatant - Shaft those who don't vote and wouldn't vote anyway.

Pull the safety net from under the most vulnerable (women and children, those scroungers) - not like they can stop us!

cestlavielife Mon 08-Oct-12 12:40:27

time to re read zoe fairbairns "Benefits"
First published in 1979 and still in print, Benefits is a feminist dystopia in which a patriarchal state uses the social security system to impose repressive lifestyles on women.
www.zoefairbairns.co.uk/novels.htm
nowt changes ...

autumnlights12 Mon 08-Oct-12 12:40:55

when did it become controversial to say that families should aim to have the number of children they can afford? Yes, of course it's wrong for a family already struggling financially to have more and more children. How can it be right? And I assume that a law like this would exclude multiple births. I'm sure it would.

Vagaceratops Mon 08-Oct-12 12:42:02

What if the third child is born disabled?

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:43:02

Celine: the people with the top one per cent of incomes pay between a quarter and a third of all the income tax in the UK.

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:43:57

Patriarchal dystopia? Purlease. Don't have more children than you can afford. How hard is it?

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 12:44:54

Quite right too Brycie when they are disproprtionatly more wealthy than the rest of us.

Of course many of the super rich pay less tax than middle income earners.

Crazyx4 Mon 08-Oct-12 12:45:33

Actually Dualta, there are plenty of people on benefits living a lavish lifestyle (and I know there are many who struggle too). My oldest and dearest friend has just bought herself a new 5g phone (wish I could afford one) but she chooses to do this rather than feed her children properly, they all eat crap! Part of me thinks it is her choice, but part of me is angry that she is always claiming her benefits aren't enough.

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:45:53

No, I am GOING.

Want2bSupermum Mon 08-Oct-12 12:46:49

I wish the government would focus on helping businesses grow rather than reducing benefits. If they focused on this then jobs would follow and there wouldn't be a need for as many people to be on benefits.

Having said that I agree with niceguy.

One of the 'giant evils' that Beveridge was trying to eradicate by setting up the welfare state was idleness - I think he would be turning in his grave if he could see what the welfare state has turned into.

I think you would have to be a little naive to believe that some people do not view a life on benefits as a lifestyle choice.

Dahlen Mon 08-Oct-12 12:50:34

Like many women, I am unable and unwilling to pump my body full of artificial hormones and I rely on condoms. I've never had an unplanned pregnancy, but then I am a highly educated, psychologically robust individual who will not allowed herself to be persuaded into any form of unsafe sex and who knows how to access emergency contraception should a condom fail, etc.

If we're talking about women with 6 children by 20 different fathers - because let's be clear that's the stereotype that's being promoted here - do you honestly think the same will apply?

We have a massive problem with STIs at the moment because so many males are refusing to wear condoms and so many females lack the self confidence and skills to insist upon it. You may feel that maybe women deliberately want to get pregnant, but few want to contract an STI, yet they are getting them.

Women have never had complete power and autonomy over their own bodies. OUr history and culture have never allowed it. And while things have improved enormously and we now enshrine that right in principle, in reality it is still very much a man's world. How many women are still having sex for the wrong reasons (I don't want to lose him, he might have an affair, got to keep the love alive, he gets grumpy if he doesn't have it for a while, etc) rather than because they really just want to? Take a look at the relationships board just for starters.

Where are the social policies aimed at getting absent fathers to pay for their children? I guarantee you that if no man thought he could ever escape financial responsibility for any children he fathered, there would be a drop in accidental pregnancies.

This should be a two way thing aimed at both parents. That's my big bugbear. I have no problem with wanting to get problem families to have less children. I applaud it. But in this incarnation it's simply the demonisation of women, with children suffering financial hardship as a result.

Shagmundfreud Mon 08-Oct-12 12:53:07

The bottom line is that there will be children born who can't be claimed for after this change is bought in.

And families and children will experience hunger and extreme deprivation.

But that's the price of funding tax cuts for middle and high earners so some people will feel it's worth it.

Alurkatsoftplay Mon 08-Oct-12 12:53:18

Dualta, it's not a lavish lifestyle but for many it is a cushy lifestyle.

Here in Essex, there are plenty of low level jobs avaliable but no one will take them. Why would they? Work in a cafe or call centre when now they get everything paid for at the moment plus they are free all day.
You might think its just a feckless few but for me, it's virtually everyone I know, and it is a choice. And it pisses off the people who are struggling to get by in work.

Our children will have nothing because of their choice.

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 12:53:29

Solutions:

Make the wealthy pay their taxes

Stop giving lucrative contracts to private companies who's motivation is profit for private individuals or shareholders not fairness and employing people

Invest in education, social mobility and industry so there are opportunities and jobs

Stop giving government contracts to foreign companies because on face value it is cheaper - if there is a UK company that can fulfil the contract it should stay in this country <<controversial>>

Not solutions:

Taking money from the sick and disabled

Taking money from children.

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 12:55:24

Nobody has been able to answer my question about what happens to those children who are born over the quota. Funny that...

flatpackhamster Mon 08-Oct-12 12:56:03

charleybarley

One of the 'giant evils' that Beveridge was trying to eradicate by setting up the welfare state was idleness - I think he would be turning in his grave if he could see what the welfare state has turned into.

I think you would have to be a little naive to believe that some people do not view a life on benefits as a lifestyle choice.

Completely agree, and no matter how much evidence is shown they still won't accept the truth. Here, for example, is the BBC's attempt to make us feel sorry for large families on benefits.

The family of 8 living in North Wales receives just over £30,000 a year in benefits. This doesn't include the free healthcare for the family or education for the six children. And look at how it's spent - £700 a year on Sky TV, £1500 a year on mobile phone bills, £1,000 a year going to the pub, an unspecified amount on cigarettes.

PiousPrat Mon 08-Oct-12 12:56:17

Well said Dahlen that is what I believe Bevan would be turning in his grave about, not that some people took advantage of a system put in place to protect the venerable. I reckon he was canny enough to know that some people are tossers but you have to legislate for the greater good and to protect those who are unable to protect themselves.

Lilylightfoot Mon 08-Oct-12 12:57:25

What we need is more jobs and a living wage.George sodding Osbourne would rather bring back the workhouse then look for ways to make a fairer socity

RatherBeOnThePiste Mon 08-Oct-12 12:58:48

And nobody can Celine, but the reality is a shocker sad

flatpackhamster Mon 08-Oct-12 12:58:50

CelineMcBean

Nobody has been able to answer my question about what happens to those children who are born over the quota. Funny that...

Their parents don't receive child benefit for them.

I think your problem is that you see the taxpayer as the solution to social problems. As the last 13 years of government ought to have taught you, spending more money doesn't get rid of poverty.

fuzzywigsmum Mon 08-Oct-12 12:58:53

I'm stunned that those of you who back Osborne's policy actually think that it will be an effective mechanism for limiting the number of children that benefit claimants have! The reasons why some poorer women have larger families are so diverse and complex (poverty, poor life chances, low self-esteem, domentic abuse etc etc) that simply cutting the amount of money they recieve is highly unlikely to reduce their birth rate.

But what it will do FOR SURE is push a lot more children into the kinds of lving conditions that no kids should be brought up in, espeically not in wealthier countries like the UK. Sure, their parents might not be making the most repsponsible choices but that dioesn't mean the kids should be punished.

This will mean more children going to school hungry, not able to afford proper clothing, living in flats and houses unfit for habitation and overall growing up with lower life-chances than thier 'feckless' parents.

It makes my blood boil that someone with the privaliged upbringing Osborne's had is able make these kinds of policy decisions with absolutely no comprehension of what it's like to live in poverty in Britain today.

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 12:59:21

When there WERE more jobs people didn't take them. Dawndonna could you PLEASE withdraw your comment or come up with an alternative suggestion then I can stop reading

Alurkatsoftplay Mon 08-Oct-12 13:01:17

How is it fair that DH and I do shitty jobs and limit our family to support those who don't work and have loads of children? I don't get it.

RatherBeOnThePiste Mon 08-Oct-12 13:02:30

The children born over the bloody quota are just being written off, not real people are they? sad

Anyone else feeling overwhelmed by despair with all this? So many godawful, damaging ideas from the Tories sad

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 13:04:54

How come people like Alurkat seem to manage the difficulties of contraception while it's apparently so very tough for those for whom a baby will not have the same financial implications?

autumnlights12 Mon 08-Oct-12 13:07:01

the Labour Party were clever at pumping billions into benefits, but it hasn't really helped the cause of the problem; a bit like putting a plaster on a gushing artery

flatpackhamster Mon 08-Oct-12 13:10:33

RatherBeOnThePiste

The children born over the bloody quota are just being written off, not real people are they?

Since when did one family's inability to act like rational adults need to be paid for by everyone? You're not making these over-quota kids' life any better by shovelling money in to the dysfunctional families, are you?

Anyone else feeling overwhelmed by despair with all this? So many godawful, damaging ideas from the Tories

Oh, and remember the good old days under Labour? Beer was a penny a pint, smiling urchins sang and danced in the street, the sun shone every day, there wasn't any want or poverty and John Lennon played at the Islington socialist bookshop.

Nosleeptillgodknowswhen Mon 08-Oct-12 13:10:33

What fuzzywigsmum said...(and said so much better than i could have done).

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 13:11:54

Of course spending money gets rid of poverty. That's obvious if you can understand what the word poverty means. Child benefit doesn't even cover my heating bill nevermind pay for food, mortgage/rent, clothes, toiletries, transport, childcare etc etc If you think this is about child benefit you are a moron.

Btw I had an unplanned pregnancy due to a contraceptive failure. I was married, earning good money (higher rate tax payer) and educated. It happens.

flatpackhamster Mon 08-Oct-12 13:15:41

CelineMcBean

Of course spending money gets rid of poverty. That's obvious if you can understand what the word poverty means.

Unfortunately it doesn't. Despite a doubling of welfare payments under Labour poverty (using the government's definition) stayed largely the same.

Child benefit doesn't even cover my heating bill nevermind pay for food, mortgage/rent, clothes, toiletries, transport, childcare etc etc If you think this is about child benefit you are a moron.

And why should child benefit pay for those things? It's your child. It doesn't belong to me or to the county council or to Westminster.

Btw I had an unplanned pregnancy due to a contraceptive failure. I was married, earning good money (higher rate tax payer) and educated. It happens.

It does. And in this modern world you have choices. You can keep the child and raise it and pay for it, or you can have it adopted or you can choose to terminate the pregnancy.

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 13:18:35

How can anyone justify punishing children for the poor decisions their parents make?

If we agree there are people who are too feckless, ignorant, lazy <<insert slur of choice>> to be responsible for how many children they have, what do you think should happen to those children?

A) leave them to rot. They are not my or society's problem
B) take them away from their parents and put them in care
C) pay for them any way because it is not their fault they have been born into this situation
D) steralise anyone who has more than X children and has been on benefits for X months or longer.
E) give them to wealthy childless couples at birth

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 13:18:42

Btw my curtains are closed in order to save on the heating. Even people who do this can have a different view. It happens.

Brycie Mon 08-Oct-12 13:19:47

Celine: as I say - many people will magically discover what a condom is for when they have to pay for the baby which they may conceive.

ledkr Mon 08-Oct-12 13:22:25

The children born outside the quota will just be brought up on the existing income as are many many children born into low income families all the time. Dont see the difference myself.
Right or wrong it wont stop people having children.

Fishwife1949 Mon 08-Oct-12 13:22:26

Agreed seems the only people these days who can have as many children as they like are those who are avoid paying there tax and those you are being paid by the tax payer in benefits

My self i would love to have 7 kids but oh boss wont up his pay everytime i get pregant UNLIKE THE STATE

And the bank wont give us a bigger home just because we decied to have more children UNLIKE THE COUNCIL

CelineMcBean but not 4,5 or 6 times there are some who have had more than one child whilest on benafits THAT IS NOT ON ND MUST be stopped those who are happy with the sataus quo can send there cheques in to the DWP after the changes in order for these familes to have yet more children

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 13:28:05

The only bit of your post that makes any sense Flatpack is that I had choices. Yes, yes I did. I wasn't in an abusive rationship so I could choose. I could access and pay for a termination or have it on the NHS. I had earned income from my job so I could choose to support myself if my husband fucked off. Lots and lots of choices. Not everybody does though and I'm not daft enough to think otherwise.

You have missed the point with child benefit. It is not child benefit that gives an acceptable standard of living to those on benefits. It is the extra housing benefit, council tax benefit, income support etc etc. It is NOT about child benefit. Which btw, I am not eligible to claim from January so the assumption that I expect someone else to pay for my child is wrong.

I do however expect to pay towards people who are unable to support themselves through no fault of their own: children, sick, disabled, job seekers who are actively job seeking. It is a mark of respect for fellow human beings and a moral duty.

vj32 Mon 08-Oct-12 13:30:04

What will happen to these children?
More children born to people who already only have just enough money to survive equals all children in family not being fed or clothed properly, and eventually taken into care because their parents cannot care for them.

More children will end up in LA care, which in the long term will make it much more expensive if the government do this. But like everything they are only interested in short term gain - to look like they are doing something, rather than solving difficult problems.

twoGoldfingerstoGideon Mon 08-Oct-12 13:32:27

With reference to what Brycie calls 'incomers' snapping up jobs while long-term unemployed remain workless, perhaps s/he might like to consider this:
I have an 'incomer' (what a fucking horrible description, incidentally) living in my house. He found a job within nine days of arriving in the UK. Isn't that brilliant compared to all the so-called workshy scroungers who languish on the dole for years while my taxes support them? Well, no, actually. It isn't. The job has no contract - the employer will just text him when they need him - so he has no idea what he will earn from one end of the week to the next. This would make it virtually impossible for him to ever rent his own place/pay his own bills. He is being paid LESS than National Minimum Wage (around £2.75/hour). If his employer said 'You have to go and work two hundred miles from here next week' he'd be free to go, as he has no children at school/other local links. Oh yes, and my 'incomer' isn't contributing anything by way of income tax either, due to the low pay, very casual nature of his work and his employer's reluctance to offer him any sort of contract.
In short, some employers prefer this sort of employee. It's cheap and places no obligation on them (no contract = no maternity/paternity leave, no paid holidays, no sick pay...)
'Incomers' therefore have something different to offer (a willingness to be exploited in some cases) than your bog-standard unemployed person, but people like Brycie never seem to take this into account.

ArthurShappey Mon 08-Oct-12 13:34:38

I think niceguy2 has made a very sensible suggestion.

WellyShark Mon 08-Oct-12 13:35:00

avivabeaver I agree with you. It's all very well limiting benefits to 2 children, but anyone can lose their job, have a serious accident or become ill. We should be proud that our country is civilised enough to support vulnerable people.

I do understand the annoyance at working, but not being able to afford another child. I've been there. It doesn't seem fair but I just had to pull up my big girl's panties and deal with it.

I think far too much is made of these "feckless few", it's the price pay for providing a safety to those in need and I think it's worth it.

zen1 Mon 08-Oct-12 13:36:32

It makes my blood boil that someone with the privilaged upbringing Osborne's had is able make these kinds of policy decisions with absolutely no comprehension of what it's like to live in poverty in Britain today.

Completely agree.

The only people who are going to suffer if this kind of crap gets passed are the children themselves. Why are people too shortsighted to see that?

Dawndonna Mon 08-Oct-12 13:36:38

thousands of jobs were being taken by (harder-working?) incomers every year.
No apology.
My arguments are solid and perfectly coherent.

Fishwife1949 Mon 08-Oct-12 13:38:33

twoGoldfingerstoGideon i agree incomer is awful but not being funny but there is a reason why working is mc donalds is called a mc job by young people because they think they are too good for it

Took my cousin 6 months to find a english black,white,asian cleaner every ine that applied was foreign she even went to the local 6th form to advertise to see of anyone would like the job she was told that no 17 would clean and she would be luckly if she hot one reply

DyeInTheEar Mon 08-Oct-12 13:38:56

There is an advert for a charity where a MC looking woman sends money to a young woman in a developing country to help with her education. Education, it's argued in the ad, is the key thing in delaying her starting a family and reducing the number of children she will go on and have. It's not different here.

But educators are facing an impossible task of encouraging young girls to go for jobs / A levels instead of a baby, flat and benefits.

We've got to make education and jobs more attractive than being on benefits. But with that there's got to be an approach that there is not a limitless fund available. I think it's naive to think you're actually helping people by offering up benefits. It can be argued that limitless benefits (for having more and more children) are making vulnerable women even more vulnerable.

John Bird - founder of big issues says it better....here

Fishwife1949 Mon 08-Oct-12 13:40:54

Zen1 quite right the only people that should be able to make staments is the millionaire ed milliband hahahaha

Must be quite nice being a champain socialists

I think niceguy2's suggestion is very sensible indeed.

The problem in this country is that a lot of people want to live lifestyles that they simply cannot afford - too much consumer borrowing was a significant contributor to the banking crisis.

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 13:44:11

Because the reality is too awful to think about zen1. You'll notice none of these people who think it's a great idea have picked an option or suggested another solution to what to do with these children over quota.

Nor has anyone been able to explain how saving money on providing essentials to children will avoid incurring additional costs on social work and NHS teams. Because it will cause more problems and costs.

Fishwife1949 Mon 08-Oct-12 13:46:49

CelineMcBean i choose G dont friging have children you cant suport

There i have picked one

Orwellian Mon 08-Oct-12 13:46:57

Why should people who work and don't claim benefits have to think very hard about having more children that they can afford but those on benefits be paid more for each extra child they have? In what crazy universe is this fair let alone a good economic policy? Maybe everyone in work should just go on benefits and have 34809483 kids and then the magical tree pixie in the sky can pay for all the benefits because nobody wants to work!?

vj32 Mon 08-Oct-12 13:48:37

Most young girls have a baby to fulfill an emotional need not to get a flat FFS. If they were clever enough to calculate the amount of benefits they would get, work out how to get a flat etc it would be much easier for them to get a job.

But they tend to be girls who aren't very clever, have always been told they are crap and incapable and think being a mother is the only thing they can do. Not because they actually think they will get an instant council flat. Which they won't anyway. They will be put into a shared house with other girls in their 'situation' until they can bid on a council flat, same as everyone else. And they will be treated like absolute shit and told by everyone from government down they are again a failure. Do you think lots of girls really WANT that life??

zen1 Mon 08-Oct-12 13:51:02

hmm I think you'll find George Osbourne was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and Ed Milliband wasn't. (Not that I am New Labour supporter).

Yes Celine, I had noticed that everyone championing Osbourne's ideas has not put forward any suggestions as to how the "extra" children will be "managed". If the Tories really want to raise extra cash, how about they look to sorting out the tax affairs of the companies in this country?

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 13:51:09

Oh, ok then Fishwife because that's gonna happen...

Maybe you should have chosen the option of a magic wand? Or a money tree? About as likely to happen.

Also you'll note I prefaced my question carefully so your answer is even more ridiculous. These children will be born any way. What do you do then?

SinisterBuggyMonth Mon 08-Oct-12 13:51:43

YANBU

He's a fucking twat

Taking money from the mouths of children

Meanwhile people who've acquirred ridiculous amounts of wealth via property, especially when housing is in such short supply for many ordinary people.

Make the rules for your friends eh?

Prarieflower Mon 08-Oct-12 13:52:29

Vj sorry don't agree with your last post at all,think you're being utterly naive to be frank.

Fishwife1949 Mon 08-Oct-12 13:54:28

Vj32 so it will kill to birds with one stone do we really want youg girls who in your words arnt very clever having children Any way

In the uk at this time some familes are in the 4th i repeat 4thgenration of worklessness

This has to stop

and these familes have to stop That fact ther children wont have shoes to blackmail the public in to giving more money out

zen1 Mon 08-Oct-12 13:55:20

Still, what with Hunt's comments a couple of days ago and now Osbourne, the Tory time machine will have us firmly entrenched in the 1870s before too long.

Fishwife1949 Mon 08-Oct-12 13:55:53

The only person who is taking money out of chikdrens mouths is there parents

If i have 10 children i cant feed are you really saying its osbournes fault "really"

fuzzywigsmum Mon 08-Oct-12 13:57:42

fishwife you would love to have 7 kids? Really? Really really?

Alurka ^How is it fair that DH and I do shitty jobs and limit our family to support those who don't work and have loads of children? I don't get it.
^

Thing is, we're all taliking here as if the choice we make about how many kids we have is purely based on our finances. Sure, money will contribute to my decision not to have more than 2 children but also I'll do that because I don't want to interupt my career; because I think it's a drain on the environment; because I delayed having children to my mid-30s; because DP agrees with me and wouldn't bully me to have more; because I don't want my house FULL of noisy, demanding small-people etc etc.

And the reason I'm in the position to decide these things is because I myself was born into a middle class home, I'm well-educated, I'm healthy, I've never suffered abuse etc etc. So I'm much more able to make those choices.

Alurka maybe money is the main reason why you won't have more kids - that sucks - but thankfully for your children you're able to make that rational choice and ensure them a decent quality of life. Some children born into poorer households aren't that lucky.

The reason it's fair for some of our taxes to support larger families is that as a civilised society we have a moral obligation to ensure that no one lives in desparate poverty, especially the most vulnerable in society like children. The policies of this government (which they justify with these trite "Why should...?" arguments) will push children back into living conditions which whould have been consigned to the history books. It's a disgrace and it saddens me that "ordinary working people" are falling for these millionaires' bullshit. Coz believe me, they care as much about you and me as they do the supposed feckless poor.

SomethingOnce Mon 08-Oct-12 13:59:59

Anyone else feeling overwhelmed by despair with all this? So many godawful, damaging ideas from the Tories

Oh yes, RatherBe, that's exactly how I'm feeling. Despairing and very sad.

Fishwife1949 Mon 08-Oct-12 14:00:03

Yes my oh is from a large irish family we would love to have at least 5 children

But unlike those who are getting everything taken care of by the giverment i cant afford it

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 14:02:01

Eugenics. Seriously? Seriously?!

Fishwife1949 Mon 08-Oct-12 14:02:58

Yes my oh is from a large irish family we would love to have at least 5 children

But unlike those who are getting everything taken care of by the giverment i cant afford it

slug Mon 08-Oct-12 14:03:40

Is anybody else seeing the parallels with the one child policy in China?

Of course, thanks to Jeremy 'call me cunt' Hunt, any woman who does accidentally get pregnant and does not realise it in time, or can't access increasingly restricted NHS services will be forced to carry the child to term and then watch it starve. As always, the ones with money will be fine, the rest can take their punishment for daring to have sex.

It's funny how all these professed Christians (Hunt, Osbourne et al) seem not to have read the bit of the bible that says "Do unto others what you would have them do unto me"

SinisterBuggyMonth Mon 08-Oct-12 14:06:20

I would be interested to know exactly what proportion of families on benefits have more than 2 children, because I am sure I've heard its actually quite low. If so this is really a smokescreen put up by the Tories to further throw spite on the working classes and manufacture the publics consent to the cutting of the welfare bill, rather than chasing their chums in big business for unpaid tax bills.

Dawndonna Mon 08-Oct-12 14:06:24

Yep. It's called Eugenics. Marie Stopes tried it here a while back.

autumnlights12 Mon 08-Oct-12 14:08:10

whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Oh yes, I forgot. Fuck that. Let's just blame George Osbourne for taking away the money we're entitled to.
Entitled.
That's the issue. Only a few (disabled and unable to work) are really entitled. The rest often just think they are.
They should thank fuck they live in the UK cos in other countries benefits are a safety net, not a life choice.

Surely, fuzzywigsmum, being able to afford to look after them should be the primary concern before deciding to become a parent, that is if you are a responsible parent of course.

You may of course decide not to have more children, even if you could afford to support them, because of the reasons that you give, for example interrupting a career but that is a different point.

Orwellian Mon 08-Oct-12 14:15:55

Easier to blame the baby eating Tories than understand simple economics. And surely most people think carefully before having lots of children and understand that there is a risk of not being continually employed for 20+ years?

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 14:16:52

I'm not sure how a child conceived about quota is able to take personal responsibility for providing for itself? I can see the consequences of not having a child provided for.

Maybe these babies should be getting jobs from birth? Pay their own way. Take responsibility. What possible career is there? Being an extra on Holby City (do they stil have the maternity ward??)? Draft excluder (at least until they start crawling)? Lap warmer for elderly pensioner? Celebrity accessory (swap the dog in a handbag for a pleb-baby)?

Then once they get a bit more mobile we could start sending them up chimneys, shining shoes and stitching mail bags.

LesleyPumpshaft Mon 08-Oct-12 14:17:24

surely most people think carefully before having lots of children and understand that there is a risk of not being continually employed for 20+ years?

You would think so. It's unfair to penalise the children though.

DyeInTheEar Mon 08-Oct-12 14:17:45

One child policy in China - similarities to this? Right where women who are pg with their 2nd child are carted off to hospital and forced to have a horrendous late abortion or have the child removed? Honestly - only on MN.

Have as many as children as you want - you just won't receive child benefit for say, the 5th.

I'm not a Tory - but seriously this "Tories are total bastards / facists / same as communist dictators" belittles any sensible debate.

The benefits system was always meant to be a safety net. It's not that any more and it has to change. Bleeding heart liberals / cold hearted policies : neither will work.

We need to find a way where benefits are a safety net but not one which traps families in a lifetime of dependency. And it has to be a joint enterprise - limit benefits, but encourage job training, education - social mobility. etc.

<goes off to dream of utopia>

Dawndonna Mon 08-Oct-12 14:17:46

These poicies affect those who are entitled, autumn

LesleyPumpshaft Mon 08-Oct-12 14:18:44

Send them down't mine. Oh yeah, the last Conservative government closed them all and manufacturing has pretty much moved to China.

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 14:21:56

Do you know, I blame these children for their lack of initiative and work ethic. After all they should have thought of this before the asked to be born.

Prarieflower Mon 08-Oct-12 14:22:10

Celine plenty of kids with parents not on benefits aren't provided for as they should be.Should the state be giving money to these kids too?

At the end of the day when you have a child it is your responsibility,far too many people think when they give birth they're in a 3 way partnership with the state and look to the state first instead of themselves when it comes to responsibility.

If you make it harder to do that maybe this mindset will diminish and future generations will benefit .

niceguy2 Mon 08-Oct-12 14:23:46

Is anybody else seeing the parallels with the one child policy in China?

No, actually I'm not. In fact it's nothing like.

The government are not saying you can only have 1 child. You can still have as many children as you like. Noone is going to kick your door down and drag you off for a forced abortion if you have more than 1 child. Have ten for all we care. Just don't expect someone else to pay for it.

As for the "Oh what about the child who is born but no longer gets benefits." Erm...well the rest of the money they are given must stretch that bit further. That's the reality most of us face.

If my OH did get pregnant tomorrow, there's no additional benefits waiting for me. There's no magic payrise I can expect to help with the bills. I can't ask my bank for a larger house. We'd have to manage on my salary alone (whilst she's off) and probably reduced household income if/when she goes back on less hours. That would mean less money on food, entertainment, whatever.

grovel Mon 08-Oct-12 14:26:24

niceguy, being rational on this thread is a waste of time.

ArthurShappey Mon 08-Oct-12 14:28:09

Gosh slug... Seriously?! What Osbourne is poising is nothing like china's one child policy, it's ridiculous to even suggest it?

niceguy2 is making a very sensible argument IMO and I'm 100% in agreement with him.

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 14:28:44

Prairie I absolutely understand that. I pay for my children. I'm not claiming benefits (except child benefit until Jan). And no of course people like me shouldn't expect a state hand out when we can afford to raise children and not live in poverty. We should expect to support those who cannot support themselves: the sick, disabled and children sick of writing same thing I am fortunate my start in life has enabled me to do that. If I had had the start in life that these above quota children will have I would be extremely unlikely to be able to do that.

The point is there are people who will have children regardless and then we punish the children. It is morally WRONG to punish innocent children. It is abhorrant.

ArthurShappey Mon 08-Oct-12 14:28:47

Poising? confused...Suggesting!

zen1 Mon 08-Oct-12 14:29:44

Whether or not people take into consideration whether they can or can't afford to have a child, if that child is born then it still has to be fed. So what happens if the parents are unable to provide for it?

Also what happens if you feel you can never financially support a child? Does that mean that poor people should not have children? FFS

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 14:30:52

So your oh would not claim SMP or Maternity Allowance niceguy? Those state paid payments/benefits?

fuzzywigsmum Mon 08-Oct-12 14:31:28

Charley see my earlier post about some women not so equipped to make rational choices about family size.

Fishwife Do you think people who have lots of kids on benefits really can "afford" to in a way that you can't? I'd say you probably have much higher expecatations in terms of a decent standard of living for your kids similar to Alurka.

Sinister Completely agree. This is a smokescreen, so that when the government says "Welfare cuts" we think, "oh yeah, that's stopping free money going to scroungers who have 12 kids", istead of "oh yeah, that's taking away lifeline benefits from disabled people, young unemployed people, poor 16 and 17 year olds trying to study, long term jobless because the economy's fucked etc etc".

Sorry, going to duck out now as I have to work!

juneau Mon 08-Oct-12 14:32:01

grovel snort

I love how there is absolutely no reasoned debate on these threads and anyone who says anything reasonable is immediately misunderstood and misquoted.

Personally, I think niceguy2 should be an MP.

Yes, zen1, if you can't afford to look after them, then you shouldn't have them. Better that, than a child be born into a life of poverty just to satisfy some emotional need of the would-be parent.

Viviennemary Mon 08-Oct-12 14:34:16

I don't think it's bad in theory. But the best way is to phase it in. Therefore people will know in advance that those restrictions are coming in. But it doesn't help people who have twins or even triplets. But I agree it will hurt a lot of genuine people to get at the few who will not take any responsibility.

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 14:35:27

I find it a bit sad that some people think someone disagreeing with their point of view is being irrational or unreasonable. What arrogance!

Totally agree juneau

Prarieflower Mon 08-Oct-12 14:36:39

Celine but plenty of children in families not on benefits are being "punished" by parents who choose to waste their money on going down the pub,gadgets,smoking instead of providing for them properly.

Where does you theory about not holding people to account end?Are we supposed to be giving money to these kids too because their parents choose to put their wants for immediate gratification first?

Nancy66 Mon 08-Oct-12 14:37:45

totally agree with niceguy.

I really can't see how the suggestion that people should think a bit more carefully as to whether they can afford children is such a terrible thing.

expatinscotland Mon 08-Oct-12 14:40:25

'Dawndonna: you can withdraw any time or come up with another word for people from outside Britain who come to Britain to work here. I'll continue to look out for that.'

They are called immigrants, Brycie. If they are from EU nations, they're entitled to claim benefits, too. And they do.

juneau Mon 08-Oct-12 14:41:19

I really can't see how the suggestion that people should think a bit more carefully as to whether they can afford children is such a terrible thing.

That's because, Nancy, you're clearly not a bleeding-heart liberal. Personal responsibility? That's outrageous! No one should be responsible for how many children they have! You should be able to have as many as you like and the state should pick up the bill, because it's your human right and you're entitled!

ohanotherone Mon 08-Oct-12 14:41:24

I work in social services. I have visited people who really do not know they are born on benefits and they still whine that the government are giving them enough. Read Flatpack's amns benefits shopping list below. That family spends £32 a week on mobile phones and also has Sky TV and can also buy cigarettes and alcohol. The reality for many working parents is that those things aren't affordable. After paying for childcare I get less than that man does on Jobseekers allowance.

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 14:43:43

My theory about not holding people to account? I think that is your interpretation, not my theory.

Just because some people who are not on benefits choose to neglect their children by depriving them to spend money on smoking etc (as you allege) it would not excuse the state withdrawing support from children who were born above quota through no fault of their own. I don't see how neglecting children can ever be justified but where it is state sanctioned - as this policy would be - that is obviously very, very wrong.

slug Mon 08-Oct-12 14:45:06

Ever been to China niceguy? It's blatantly obvious, in Beijing at least, that the wealthy and influential have more than one child and the poor do not. Not that the poor claim benefits mind, it's just that you can easily circumvent the legislation if you have power and influence. Those that do have a second child, are penalised financially by the State. Same thing happened in Singapore where poor women were encouraged to get steralised after their second child. Not the men you understand, heaven forbid that we mess with the sacred male bollocks.

I also wonder what happens to the women who, physical reasons aside, can't use contraception for religious reasons? That's a whole other kettle of fish.

The reasons why some poorer women have larger families are so diverse and complex (poverty, poor life chances, low self-esteem, domentic abuse etc etc) that simply cutting the amount of money they recieve is highly unlikely to reduce their birth rate.

fuzzywigsmum, I fail to see how any of the above reasons, means that someone should think it is a good idea to have more children, I would have thought that having none would have been more sensible in these instances.

The vicious circle has to be stopped somewhere for the sake of the children that will be otherwise be born to these women, who for their own selfish reasons somehow think that having children is the panacea to all their problems.

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 14:46:15

what happens to those children born where the parents have not taken personal responsibility?

Can someone please answer this? Saying the existing benefits will have to stretch is not good enough. I want to understand the consequences.

Bellbird Mon 08-Oct-12 14:47:07

Stephanie Flanders (BBC economics correspondent) presented a fascinating series on the economics of capitalism and how it has gone wrong. She said that Karl Marx, of all people, had some points that were really pertinent: The gap between rich and poor is the main issue we have here in the UK. The capitalists in the top jobs have been creaming too much profit for themselves leaving the middle and lower income 'workers' unable to spend their earnings on the products and services offered by the companies the capitalist's own.

The gap between rich and poor has to be sorted or we will not have an economy! We will see more shop closures and small businesses struggling to survive. In short, benefit cuts will not help this country at the moment however 'unfair' it may seem that some poorer people are getting 'money for nothing'.

Tailtwister Mon 08-Oct-12 14:48:02

I think it's a good idea in theory, but will it really stop people who are in this mindset from having more children? I'm not so sure. What I am sure of is that the people who will suffer in the end are the children. They aren't responsible for the decisions their parents made before their conception or after.

What happens when One leaves my ex left me with 4dc . I get £5 a week matinance as he is not working yet he has remarried him and his wife ( not working either ) but only have the one child so there be alright jack while I'm up shit creek without a paddle

Yet I'm the one carrying the single parent scrounger label

Lilylightfoot Mon 08-Oct-12 14:49:37

If we are all in this together - they are not your kids my kids - they are our kids - so we all look out for all of them - becuse thats better for OU Rsocity

SomethingOnce Mon 08-Oct-12 14:50:46

To me, the number of people 'scrounging benefits' (to use that cold and heartless description) is a reflection of society's failure to intervene effectively in children's lives - to help them realise their potential to contribute - when their parents are unable.

Each 'scrounger' was once a baby born into a particular set of circumstances that set them up for a poor outcome. Really, who conciously and deliberately sets out to underachieve, to become a member of the 'underclass' when there's a clear alternative?

And all that 'Well, I pulled myself up by my bootstraps', on-your-bike crap doesn't change a fucking thing.

But I'm a bleeding-heart liberal.

perceptionreality Mon 08-Oct-12 14:54:26

What I don't like is the Tory assumption that all families who claim benefits are doing so as a lifestyle choice and have never worked and never intend to work. What about those of us who have a child so disabled we can't work or at least can't work the number of hours that we would want to? What about families who could afford 4 or 5 children but then fell on hard times?

It is clear every time I hear that man speak that he has a particular distain for those he considers beneath him and intends to punish them.

Oh and I am sure that those who have never worked are suddenly going to be able to find a job are they? hmm when it's hard enough if you are qualified.

Also none of them has been able to answer the question - 'but what will happen to the children of these families? It's not their fault'. Which basically means well they're going to suffer but we don't care.

niceguy2 Mon 08-Oct-12 15:00:09

Slug I'm not sure what your point is? From your description it seems to reinforce my point that what Osbourne has proposed is vastly different to China's policy.

And to answer your question, yes. Yes I have been. Not sure of the relevance of the question but there you go.

So your oh would not claim SMP or Maternity Allowance niceguy? Those state paid payments/benefits?

@Celine. Whilst I wasn't specifically thinking of SMP or maternity allowance but more tax credits, housing benefit & child benefits. In actual fact, I think the same principle could apply. Let's for arguments sake say the limit was four kids. And that we've got four kids. Let's say she got pregnant. Is it really unfair for her to not receive any SMP? Bear in mind she's already had four lots from her previous pregnancies? The government coffers are not unlimited.

Viviennemary Mon 08-Oct-12 15:06:18

I wish I had an idea of how much money we are actually talking about. As some people seem to manage on benefits and others absolutely struggle to afford the basics.

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 15:09:01

Interesting. Do you know I actually think those people who are eligible for SMP and MA are more likely to think about the consequences and possibly decide not to have another baby (although i have issues with taking away any specific maternity benefit but that's a debate for another thread). Many people would not be eligible for the additional benefits you mention either. I know I wouldn't be and lots of others wouldn't.

However, I don't think the people this policy is supposed to be targeting will stop having babies. And then what? What happens to those babies? They grow up deprived and the cycle continues.

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 15:09:20

Sorry that last post was to niceguy.

Viviennemary Mon 08-Oct-12 15:20:43

But what happens to the children of families who do work in poorly paid jobs. And then by accident they have another baby which could be twins. I think they should start with cuts in tax rates for lower paid people. Why should somebody get in benefits more than a person who has worked and then paid tax.

niceguy2 Mon 08-Oct-12 15:25:47

Vivienne. I don't think in reality it's much. There are thankfully not many families who have ten children just to sponge off the state. Those few who do will probably already get mopped up by the benefits cap which has already been proposed.

What it does do though is bring the same hard choices to those on benefits that working couples must face. I don't see anything unfair about that. After all, we all live in the same world don't we?

MrsSalvoMontalbano Mon 08-Oct-12 15:38:21

Every day in numerous transacations I meet people in proper, full-time, reasonably well paid jobs who were not born in this country, but moved to where the jobs are. And they are very welcome, and do a great job. And they continue to arrive, and continue to snap up jobs becasue they are hardworking and pleasant people. And they manage to have the numner of children they can support (even tho' many of them are catholic grin) So why is it so difficult for those three or more generations languishing on benefits to do those jobs? Becasue they dont have to - the state will pay for them to sit at home, and the more kids they hav, the higher the handout they get.

Why are the poor and disadvantaged automatically responsible for the issues created by the wealthy? If I am struggling to run a small business I am automatically labelled a scrounger.
The persistence of this bile which describes those who are unfortunate enough to be out of work as scroungers only serves to compound even greater problems. Where are the jobs, and why does nobody ever mention this? Are there enough jobs available to the unemployed?

Why is it assumed that a benefit claimant is lying?

More importantly, who the hell falls for this shit?

One word: scapegoats.

Quite easy to blame the poor isn't it? How can they fight back? Eradicating benefits to those in need will not eradicate the problem.

But if the poor would just quit being so damn lazy....

bialystockandbloom Mon 08-Oct-12 15:44:02

From an earlier post: The family of 8 living in North Wales receives just over £30,000 a year in benefits. This doesn't include the free healthcare for the family or education for the six children. And look at how it's spent - £700 a year on Sky TV, £1500 a year on mobile phone bills, £1,000 a year going to the pub, an unspecified amount on cigarettes.

Oh my goodness, a family who live on benefits sometimes (whisper) go to the pub shock and perhaps (though we don't know as it's unspecified, it might be one fag a year) even smoke. The fact that they use a phone and watch TV leaves me speechless. Tut tut.

bialystockandbloom Mon 08-Oct-12 15:45:25

Toastedteacakes but we all know that anyone "on benefits" is a lazy, workshy scrounging bastard who probably has tattoos, several illiterate children, and is almost certainly a criminal.

WildWorld2004 Mon 08-Oct-12 15:47:35

I agree to a certain extent. Why should people on long term unemployment benefits keep having kids.

I dont think there should be a limit on the number of children people get benefits for. What they should do is only give money for the kids that are here when a claim is made.

And who the fuck is 'languishing' on benefits?

What a ridiculous notion.

Nobody enjoys being on benefits. It is demoralizing, hopeless, frightening. Nobody would do this via choice unless they were already sunk.

creamteas Mon 08-Oct-12 15:48:38

One of the reasons that the benefit bill is so high is because of housing costs.

If they were serious about the money, they would cease the profiteering of private landlords and reintroduce rent control. If the minimum wage was raised as well, this would cut in work benefits significantly. But both of these measures target the rich so that is not going to happen.

But instead of these simple measures, they are targeting the the most vulnerable yet again.

Cuts to benefits are likely to result in higher costs within social services (more kids in care) and the NHS (malnourishment). It will not save the taxpayer anything in the long run.

Take the example of a single person's benefits: around £180 or less a fortnight. What a fucking freeshow! They are having a ball! And all that sucked dry by paying a rent shortfall, sky rocketing fuel bills, utility bills, living expenses, public transport, etc.
So much to languish in here. I might have to do it myself sometime, I've been needing to take a holiday...

If they were serious about the money, they would cease the profiteering of private landlords and reintroduce rent control. If the minimum wage was raised as well, this would cut in work benefits significantly. But both of these measures target the rich so that is not going to happen.....

....under the current government.

A system which deprives the disadvantaged to make life easier for the already privileged.

Flicktheswitch Mon 08-Oct-12 15:57:29

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Prarieflower Mon 08-Oct-12 15:59:10

But bia most people I know not on benefits don't have Sky,expensive phones(£10 Tesco PASYG here) or spend that much money in the pub(£5 bottle of wine on a Friday seems the norm).I bloody resent my taxes going on these things that I don't have for somebody who doesn't work.It's not fair.

usualsuspect3 Mon 08-Oct-12 15:59:15

You can't get benefits at 16.

usualsuspect3 Mon 08-Oct-12 16:02:25

He wouldn't get a 2 bedroomed flat either, I love how some posters spout bollocks on these threads without a clue what they are on about.

Prarieflower Mon 08-Oct-12 16:02:50

.....and how do any of those things benefit their children?confused

bialystockandbloom Mon 08-Oct-12 16:03:17

When are they gonna bring back the workhouse, that's what I say.

Alurkatsoftplay Mon 08-Oct-12 16:05:05

Nobody enjoys being on benefits? You are joking, aren't you?

Half of my town/family are on benefits (by choice) and they have a much better time than those in work.

usualsuspect3 Mon 08-Oct-12 16:05:38

It's against the law to hold a tenancy until you are 18.

Come on Flicktheswitch, answer me?

usualsuspect3 Mon 08-Oct-12 16:07:23

Have we been invaded? I bloody hope so.

Quite scary to think people on MN hold such awful views.

Bellbird Mon 08-Oct-12 16:07:26

A lot of people here are in total agreement with the observations made by Stephanie Flander's programme about capitalism. Basically, the economy is in crisis until everyone has disposable income after all the necessary things have been paid for.

The situation for lower and middle income families is becoming more and more dire where there is nothing left over after paying for the basics. Therefore, it is no surprise that the tourism industry in the Uk is suffering along with high street shops and many other businesses that rely on all of us having spare cash.

Politicians need to stop worrying about their core voters. They need to address the balance of wealth. It needs a completely objective approach and should not be aimed at 'easy targets' or the worst off.

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 16:07:42

I would like to see some actual figures rather than anecdote and rhetoric.

How many people who are fit for work and claiming benefits for more than 2 years (say) are there in the UK?

Of those how many have more than 2 children? 3 children? 4 children or more?

How much in actual pounds would be saved by capping the amount of benefits paid that directly relate to the number of children a person has?

What is the maximum amount a family of 3 (2 adults, single parent) can claim in benefits in Newcastle, Bridgend, Tower Hamlets, Fife and Derry for example?

Then let's have a sensible debate based in facts not "I can't afford Sky it's not faiiiiiiir!" sweeping statements.

Prarieflower Mon 08-Oct-12 16:08:44

That's slightly hysterical bia.

How exactly is the state not funding Sky,unnecessary phone tariffs and expensive pub bills akin to bringing back the work house?

It's such a cop out.Utterly hate the way the answer to anybody who even remotely suggests touching benefits is hysterically accused of wanting work houses and being Daily Mail readers.

Just looks a bit silly tbh.

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 16:09:18

Bellbird I quite agree about the distribution of wealth.

expatinscotland Mon 08-Oct-12 16:09:54

'But bia most people I know not on benefits don't have Sky,expensive phones(£10 Tesco PASYG here) or spend that much money in the pub(£5 bottle of wine on a Friday seems the norm).I bloody resent my taxes going on these things that I don't have for somebody who doesn't work.It's not fair. '

I resent my taxes going to pay fat megabucks pensions and multiple homes to over-prilvedged, clueless, independently wealthy prats stupid people voted for and who think nothing of screwing over millions of us by allowing energy companies to gouge us, big business to take away our jobs and job security and bleed us for every spare penny we've got.

usualsuspect3 Mon 08-Oct-12 16:10:14

Well I think it looks a bit silly to say a 16 year old can get a 2 bedroomed flat, don't you?

Lets not let facts get in the way after all.

bialystockandbloom Mon 08-Oct-12 16:11:09

Who said the benefits were for the children? confused

In any case: £1000 a year at the pub works out, say for two adults having two drinks each at £3 a drink, as 80 visits a year. Less than two times a week. That a conservative estimate. If one of them had 3 drinks in one night, it's 66 times a year, so just over once a week. And we have no idea how many adults there were in that household - there could have been 2, 3, 4 or 5.

TV used by everyone in the house no doubt. Mobile phones prob used by everyone over 12.

"Free healthcare and education". What, a GP and school? People on benefits shouldn't be allowed access to these? hmm

It's all in the presentation, don't you see?

Nancy66 Mon 08-Oct-12 16:12:14

When the country is dishing out more in benefits than it collects in taxes, something has to be done.

I just wish the tax dodgers at one end of the problem were pursued with the same dogged determination as the benefits claimants at the other end of it.

CelineMcBean Mon 08-Oct-12 16:12:31

I resent my taxes going to private landlords. They are the ones benefiting from housing benefit, not the person living in the rented home and not the tax payer paying for it.

More social housing would help. As would tighter rent controls and making the energy companies not for profit.

There are so many things that are better than taking money away from the poor.

Alurkatsoftplay Mon 08-Oct-12 16:13:40

I resent them too, Expat, I've got plenty of resentment to share around!

ksrwr Mon 08-Oct-12 16:14:12

if any child suffers as a result of his policies, its a bad policy. end of.
it breaks my heart to think of an innocent child having to struggle along without food and clothing they need just becuase MPs need to save money. its just so unfair.

bialystockandbloom Mon 08-Oct-12 16:14:44

A family of 8 living on £30k a year to include rent, food, bills, clothes, and all the other necessities. I don't think I'd fancy that much.

Divide and conquer:

Circulate propaganda in an effort to turn the employed poor against the unemployed poor. When neither are having a good time of it, in reality.

A marvelous ruse to poison minds, which seems to be working.

grovel Mon 08-Oct-12 16:16:00

You can get Housing Allowance at 16.

Prarieflower Mon 08-Oct-12 16:16:57

PMSL Nobody needs SKY to have access to a tv,it's an extortionate luxury.

If you don't have a job you shouldn't be squandering other people's hard earned cash on mobile tariffs-you can get a £10 Tesco PASYG phone like we(and thousands of others do).

We and most other middle income families I know can't afford to go to the pub once a week let alone twice,it's a luxury.If you like alcohol get yourselves a bottle of Sainsbo basics wine a week at £3.50 to share like we and many others do.

Sky,mobile tariffs and pub trips are all luxuries,don't benefit kids and are a waste of tax payers money. However if you don't fund such luxuries you don't care do you.

expatinscotland Mon 08-Oct-12 16:18:45

'You can get Housing Allowance at 16.'

For a room in a shared house now if you are single.

usualsuspect3 Mon 08-Oct-12 16:21:06

You can't get jobseekers until you are 18 though

expatinscotland Mon 08-Oct-12 16:21:08

'Sky,mobile tariffs and pub trips are all luxuries,don't benefit kids and are a waste of tax payers money. However if you don't fund such luxuries you don't care do you. '

Oh, we're funding HUGE luxuries for MPs and their cronies, we're even paying their relatives fat whack for so-called 'jobs' they create to fleece us.

They have a bar, too, with subsidised drinks. Guess how pays for it?

He wants to cut the welfare bill why doesn't he start with all their perks first?

bialystockandbloom Mon 08-Oct-12 16:22:42

Not hysterical prairieflower when you're trying to counter "arguments" based on a view that anyone who claims benefits is by default a scrounger.

therealmrsk Mon 08-Oct-12 16:25:04

totally agree with NiceGuy2 at the beginning of this thread. Of course there are always going to be exceptional circumstances. The current benefit system is not fit for purpose, that's my opinion, although it seems among many of my friends who are claiming, I'm not allowed to have one cos I work for a living! angry I still love them but to hear how they can 'work the system' makes my blood boil.

theroseofwait Mon 08-Oct-12 16:26:03

This particular idea is not 'knobbish.' I am sick to the back teeth of lazy workshy women claiming they have a right to this, that and the other.

Either make some sensible life choices (work hard at school, get a decent job, marry a similar bloke (now there's a cute antiquated idea,) and only have the amount of children you can afford - or keep your underwear on. There, easy-peasy.

I would actually go further and get rid of free school meals and uniform grants. Most children have these things called parents whose job it is to feed and clothe them. Just like I feed and clothe my children and basically get on with it without any help from the government at all after next year.

So bloody flame me.

flatpackhamster Mon 08-Oct-12 16:26:44

bialystockandbloom

In any case: £1000 a year at the pub works out, say for two adults having two drinks each at £3 a drink, as 80 visits a year. Less than two times a week. That a conservative estimate. If one of them had 3 drinks in one night, it's 66 times a year, so just over once a week. And we have no idea how many adults there were in that household - there could have been 2, 3, 4 or 5.

Hang on a minute. This is taxpayers' money! Being spent to go to the pub??

TV used by everyone in the house no doubt. Mobile phones prob used by everyone over 12.

So? Why should the taxpayer PAY for these luxuries?

"Free healthcare and education". What, a GP and school? People on benefits shouldn't be allowed access to these?

Way to miss the point.

It's all in the presentation, don't you see?

Yes, and you are presenting it as though everyone can simply help themselves to an unlimited pot of cash. The pot is not unlimited. Your sense of entitlement is astonishing.

flatpackhamster Mon 08-Oct-12 16:27:44

expatinscotland

Oh, we're funding HUGE luxuries for MPs and their cronies, we're even paying their relatives fat whack for so-called 'jobs' they create to fleece us.

They have a bar, too, with subsidised drinks. Guess how pays for it?

He wants to cut the welfare bill why doesn't he start with all their perks first?

I completely agree that MPs should cut their perks, particularly their pension and subsidised food and drink. But that doesn't mean benefits shouldn't be cut.

usualsuspect3 Mon 08-Oct-12 16:29:02

Oh god ,time to hide the thread when sense of entitlement is trotted out.

bialystockandbloom Mon 08-Oct-12 16:30:46

priairie I'll ask again, why is it assumed the benefits were for children?

Sky,mobile tariffs and pub trips are all luxuries,don't benefit kids and are a waste of tax payers money.

Tell you what makes me "PMSL" - the faux-moral outrage of people who not only resent helping those less fortunate than themselves, but think it's got anything to do with them what the benefits are spent on. Who the hell are you to make a judgement about whether or not these people choose to have Sky or go to the pub? Hence my workhouse comment. SHould these people be sitting at home in their hairshirts?

However if you don't fund such luxuries you don't care do you.

Is the "you" aimed at me? confused

Prarieflower Mon 08-Oct-12 16:31:16

Totally agree Flatpack

Want2bSupermum Mon 08-Oct-12 16:31:52

As I have said before there seems to be a race to the bottom. It is sad that this is the attitude but if they are going to go there then I would like to see politicians take a cut. Why do so many of them need a 2nd home? Can't they take the train? From the North West it is now 2hrs each way to London. Why not take the train down at 6am and return at 8pm? If they book their ticket in advance it costs GBP80 return which is far cheaper than keeping a 2nd home. The other question I have is why do we need so many MP's?

I would also like to see expenses being paid for MP's and Lords based on income and assets. I was shocked to learn that they were claiming so many expenses. Most of them are already multimillionaires and have 2 or 3+ homes.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 16:32:03

I agree with Niceguy too.

People need to take more personal responsibility for themselves and their children.

well said flatpack

edam Mon 08-Oct-12 16:34:09

I'm always puzzled by the way some people really begrudge the poor having anything at all. If you want to be bitter, jealous and resentful, surely it would make more sense to be jealous of the rich, who have nice stuff?

(I guess some of the bitter people may imagine the rich aren't living it up at their expense. They'd be wrong. But then, bitter resentful people who bang on about people on benefits having their free goats don't usually bother to check any facts.)

Want2bSupermum Mon 08-Oct-12 16:34:09

flatpack seems we x-posted.... It grinds my gears to hear MP's talk about cutting benefits when they cost the taxpayer so much themselves. They have continued to grant themselves pay increases too.

They should focus on improving the prospects for all of the people they represent instead of focusing on ways to create divisions.

usualsuspect3 Mon 08-Oct-12 16:35:09

Well said edam.

grovel Mon 08-Oct-12 16:36:15

bialystockandbloom, I agree that it's not my business how benefits are spent.

It is absolutely my business to have a view as to what benefits should be. We live in a democracy. Benefits are paid out of taxpayers' money and should be spent with our consent.

PrincessSymbian Mon 08-Oct-12 16:37:58

It's because their poor you know, terrible moral failing being poor. Why don't they just all Bally well stop it!

usualsuspect3 Mon 08-Oct-12 16:38:37

I'm bitter and jealous of the tax dodgers etc not people on benefits, but then I'm not so stupid as to believe what the media or politicians would have me believe.

expatinscotland Mon 08-Oct-12 16:38:53

'Why do so many of them need a 2nd home? Can't they take the train? From the North West it is now 2hrs each way to London. Why not take the train down at 6am and return at 8pm? If they book their ticket in advance it costs GBP80 return which is far cheaper than keeping a 2nd home. The other question I have is why do we need so many MP's?

I would also like to see expenses being paid for MP's and Lords based on income and assets. I was shocked to learn that they were claiming so many expenses. Most of them are already multimillionaires and have 2 or 3+ homes.'

And it has to be one they buy, too.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 16:39:30

The difference between the poor and the rich that you seem to be mentioning Edam, is that one group works and the other doesn't.

I don't think anyone begrudges working tax credits, because they are for people who are working. Its the child tax credits and income support that people don't like, the benefits that are giving out without people having to lift a finger.

I begrudge the healthy but out of work because they are doing nothing, I don't begrudge the rich who do work, because, err, they work!

Prarieflower Mon 08-Oct-12 16:39:35

Nope it's aimed at people supposedly on a low income squandering vast amounts of tax payers money on Sky,mobile tariffs and pubs.It's like have a teenager at home running up the phone bill-if they aint paying they don't care!

I also would like to question the phrase "less fortunate than themselves".Hmmmm now lets see living a relaxing life with a lie in every day,no early commute,no travel bills,no childcare bills,no slave to the mortgage company,a roof over your head,money for food,help with water bills,free health care,free education and money for luxuries such as Sky,phone tariffs,pubs and judging by a thread not so long ago holidays.

Many working people I know can't afford any of the luxuries I've just listed-"less fortunate" I think not,life of Riley more like.

JamNan Mon 08-Oct-12 16:39:52

Listen to creamteas who speaks a lot of sense.

Buy-to-let landlords have distorted the private rental market. I wonder if those landlords with BTL mortgages give a shit have any concerns if their tenants claim Housing Benefit to enable them to pay their inflated rental price?

Probably not, because... us taxpayers contribute to paying the mortgages of profiteering landlords via Housing Benefit. Win win innit?

Bellbird Mon 08-Oct-12 16:40:13

CelineMcBean, I concur absolutely. There is definitely a 'queuing' problem (Mathematical term) with property as it reaches a bottleneck with wealthy landlords and older people living out their retirement in larger houses (near schools), because there is no incentive to sell, nor are there any suitable properties being built for an aging population.

Where I live, the students are also living in houses suitable for families and student accomodation is not being built where it is needed. Lots of derelict town buildings could be knocked down to make flats for the students freeing up the family sized homes in the best areas for schools etc. Yet builders keep buying up fields for 'affordable family homes' on the outskirts where there are no schools, no shops and no infrastructure.

expatinscotland Mon 08-Oct-12 16:40:15

'I'm bitter and jealous of the tax dodgers etc not people on benefits, but then I'm not so stupid as to believe what the media or politicians would have me believe. '

Exactly!

Not to mention, we're starting to have a serious problem with the increasing cost of state pension (which just increased).

bialystockandbloom Mon 08-Oct-12 16:40:47

Oh jeez.

No. The pot is not unlimited. But you are spectacularly missing the point. What this govt are doing is exploiting 'austerity' to make cuts to social services which they are ideologically opposed to. They are going further than Thatcher ever dared to in the 80s. They do not want an NHS - they would privatise every part of it if they could. This govt is systematically removing safeguards for the most vulnerable sections of our society (poor, disabled, children) and doing it under the "all in this together" banner.

To fool a large number of people into thinking these cuts to welfare are not driven by ideology they have presented it firstly by a drip-drip mechanism of feeding stories to tabloid/right wing press about 'benefit scroungers', fake disabliity claimants etc (a tiny, tiny, tiny proportion of people in need) etc. Then by overtly presenting people on benefits as the same.

There are plenty of other budgets from which to make savings. What have they done recently? Remove 50% tax rate. Make vague promises while they did so that they'd "consider" a mansion tax (to appease the LibDems). As soon as they think we've forgotten, they abandon all pretence of doing so.

StillThinkingOfANickname Mon 08-Oct-12 16:41:50

I was recently told by my Father that I should be made to stack shelves in Tesco's with my children. (He is hardline Tory btw and wasn't joking.)

edam Mon 08-Oct-12 16:42:26

Outraged - wrong. Plenty of poor people work. That's why there are in-work benefits, such as housing benefits. And plenty of rich people don't. Osborne is cutting benefits for people in low paid work. So all this guff about their caring policies really being about encouraging people to get jobs is just so much hogwash - they are forcing people in low-paid work into even greater poverty.

Alurkatsoftplay Mon 08-Oct-12 16:42:30

Its not begrudging the poor. I don't get why its framed that way.

Its begrudging people who won't work or refuse to contribute long term to society.

Working people who can't afford school dinners and Sky resent people who cheerfully don't work and appear to have it all.

Getting 30000 grand a year for doing nothing might be your idea of hell, Bialy, but for most people it sounds great.

I happily begrudge the inherited rich too. Equal opportunities be-grudger.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 16:43:59

Many, maybe most, buy to let landlords don't accept HB because its part of the mortgage deal. It puzzles me why BTL landlords get the blame for the housing benefit bill. They got off their arses and tried to do something to provide for their retirement. Why would anyone be pissed off at that? I really don't get it.

Housing benefit is paid to people who can't afford to house themselves, not to landlords.

bialystockandbloom Mon 08-Oct-12 16:44:44

'I'm bitter and jealous of the tax dodgers etc not people on benefits, but then I'm not so stupid as to believe what the media or politicians would have me believe. '

Absolutely agree.

usualsuspect3 Mon 08-Oct-12 16:45:26

How many LLs are getting their mortgages paid by housing benefit, Quite a lot I would say.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 16:45:54

I realise that plenty of poor people work, thanks. I don't think the majority of people have a problem with people who work but have to have top ups because of the NMW being shite. Not unless they have too many children that they can't provide for of course.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 16:46:52

How many LLs are getting their mortgages paid by housing benefit, Quite a lot I would say.

Maybe, but that's down to the tenants, not the landlords.

bossboggle Mon 08-Oct-12 16:47:42

Everyone should be very careful about all of this as the saying goes 'There for the grace of God'.....I have three Dc's more or less grown up now but all still at home. One of them disabled. Until earlier this year our household was typical working husband, DC working (part time). Disabled DC doing the best that they can etc nothing to rock the boat but then DH made redundant, DH now on the sick (medical problems since redundancy!! Huh!!). Trust me people, situations can change very very quickly - I know!! DH has worked for the past 30 years never been unemployed - this is all strange territory for us - he has always paid taxes and paid for everything and suddenly we need help....don't begrudge us the help after almost 30 years of paying for everything we have ever had......and be warned people things can change so fast and then your life is not your own!!

JuliaScurr Mon 08-Oct-12 16:49:31

benefit fraud = £1 billion
unpaid tax = £140 billion

edam Mon 08-Oct-12 16:49:45

grin at equal opportunities begrudger.

But really, how do you know that people are refusing to contribute to society? Have you investigated the personal circumstances of everyone on benefits? You are making huge moral judgments based on nothing more than someone being unemployed - as if losing your job makes you a bad person.

My husband was made redundant 10 months ago, as it happened. Yesterday he helped to run the PTA treasure hunt, something that has involved months of planning. He dressed up, walked several kilometres, and made sure about 100 children had a great time. Do you think he's a drain on society? Today he was over at the hospital, seeing his elderly Mother who fell last week. He accompanied her on a visit by the occupational therapist, to see whether she could manage at home. He also applies for loads of jobs, and has had lots of interviews, and has got to the final two on several occasions.

At various points in the last 20 years, we've been very well off indeed and quite brassic and middling. I don't think we've been more virtuous when we've had high incomes or less virtuous when we've been poor.

bossboggle Mon 08-Oct-12 16:50:37

What is an LL? Our mortgage is not being paid by housing benefit - we insured ours so that God forbid if things did go butts up the insurance company would make the payments!! We paid a lot of insurance but it is worth it!! So even though my DH is unemployed and now on the sick - we have private arrangements to pay the mortgage!!

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 16:50:52

Nobody does begrudge help to people in your situation bossbogle. Your family has paid in and has every right to take out when you need to.

The problem is with the healthy people that have never paid in. Or who have paid in next to nothing before leaving work to have multiple children they can't afford.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 16:51:28

Landlord bossbogle.

edam Mon 08-Oct-12 16:51:48

boss - good for you. Sadly not everyone can afford that kind of insurance, or benefit from a policy (companies won't insure the self-employed, for instance).

PrincessSymbian Mon 08-Oct-12 16:52:00

Perhaps those who work and feel hard done by should be taking it up with the people who provide the wages as opposed to the people who manage to get sky on their meager benefit allowance. Though I suppose picking on those weaker than yourself is a lot easier:

edam Mon 08-Oct-12 16:52:36

outraged - you do understand that sometimes people fall on hard times after they have had children? You can be doing fine, but then shit happens.

bossboggle Mon 08-Oct-12 16:52:41

edam totally agree, not all of us are scroungers!!

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 16:52:47

Not all of the unpaid tax is down to rich people. Plenty of it is down to regular middle incomers who pay, or work cash in hand.

And even when it is, at least they earned their money.

expatinscotland Mon 08-Oct-12 16:52:47

Plenty of people drawing state pension know who never put in or who are taking out WAY more than they ever put in by living longer lives.

Shall we make some cuts there, too?

greeneyed Mon 08-Oct-12 16:52:56

This thread is so sad sad Children will suffer - in the case of families workless for generations, like their parents suffered before them. Posters saying make sensible choices, work hard etc don't you get it? We're not all the same. Kids are brought up with completely different value systems, examples, opportunities etc etc. A kid brought up in a house with no books, non working, possibly addict or eratic parents etc etc probably won't know what sensible choices are and so the cycle goes on. Even those who do know what sensible choices are may not have the abilities, life skills or support to make those choices work. We are not all starting from a level playing field. Less money for these families will surely just mean the opportunities are lessened and a child has less chance to break the cycle. It seems to me like divide and rule, let's deflect the economy's problems on to the poor, yes they are to blame the feckless lot. I can't deny that there will be some people who think having a baby is a good idea to get more state income (I expect it's usually ends up a false economy) but I can't believe that this is not just a small minority. We are allowing the Government to use said few as an excuse for not helping many. "people need to take more personal responsibility for themselves and their children" what if they can't, don't know how or won't? What happens to the children then? do they have to beg on the streets?

JamNan Mon 08-Oct-12 16:53:20

Outragedatfeddoes
Please fuck off back to trot back under the rickety rackety bridge and return to the Daily Fail forums where you belong...

Your comment last is disgusting.

'I begrudge the healthy but out of work because they are doing nothing, I don't begrudge the rich who do work, because, err, they work!'

bialystockandbloom Mon 08-Oct-12 16:53:32

The very phrase "the taxpayer" sends massive alarm bells ringing for me. So children, pensioners, disabled people, carers, and all those people who through no fault of their own cannot get a job should have no right to be represented or cared for?

£30k to house, feed, clothe and care for a family of eight? No, I do not envy that and I think that anyone decent who digs a little deeper into those figures would think the same.

bossboggle Mon 08-Oct-12 16:53:43

You're right edam you can be doing fine and then shit happens and there is nothing you can do about it!! We're there right now and living it!!

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 16:54:16

Of course Edam. Those are the people for whom the welfare state is supposed to be there for. Not the people that conceived while on benefits, or who have one parent working for NMW but then decide to have four children.

theroseofwait Mon 08-Oct-12 16:54:52

I agree that things do change and you bossboggle are exactly who we should be helping. However, I was once asked, on a similar thread, what I would do if I woke up one day and my dh had become ill and lost his well paid job.

Well, the answer to that is nothing really. We're insured up to the hilt and I earn as much if not more than he does. Life would go on pretty much as normal.

Oh bugger, there you go, more sensible decisions. We are all responsible for ourselves, you can't get away from that basic fact.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 16:56:15

Disgusting why?

Does the truth hurt?

Btw, I can't stand the Daily Mail. I realise what a load of shite it was when I was about 12. Incorrect assumptions can be made both ways. Oh, and troll hunting is against the rules.

usualsuspect3 Mon 08-Oct-12 16:56:23

Anyone who begrudges children, food, warm clothes and a roof over their heads is sick. No matter what the circumstances of their birth.

signet Mon 08-Oct-12 16:56:28

I find it disturbing that the government can effectively say what size family is the ideal.

I find it even more disturbing his announcement that in exchange for giving up some employee rights they can get shares in the company they work for and not have to pay capital gains tax on their shares. Er hello...give up employee rights?? Seriously people the man is a loon and wants to slowly errode any of our rights wether it be reproduction or work related. A very dangerous man.

slug Mon 08-Oct-12 16:58:28

When it comes down to a choice between paying for the occasional drink for a person on benefits, or paying for the drainage in a tennis court for a millionaire yes I'm looking at you Gidieon I'll stand a round in the pub anytime.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 16:59:40

* So children, pensioners, disabled people, carers, and all those people who through no fault of their own cannot get a job should have no right to be represented or cared for?*

No, pensioners, disabled people and carers are the people that welfare is for. Children are the responsibility of their parents, unless they find themselves temporarily out of work, in which case, again, that is what welfare is for.

bialystockandbloom Mon 08-Oct-12 17:00:26

See, it's the deserving vs undeserving poor again.

bialystockandbloom Mon 08-Oct-12 17:02:22

Well, erm yes Outraged. Children are the responsibility of their parents. So when their parents' benefits like CWB, Housing Benefit, ESA, DLA etc get cut, where does that leave the children?

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 17:02:54

And that's bad why?

Is it really so terrible to admit that some people don't deserve as much money as they get for free?

Why? Why is it so terrible to acknowledge that there are some people who are worthy of benefits and there are some people who need a kick up the bum more than they need free money.

greeneyed Mon 08-Oct-12 17:04:23

Outraged - what happens to the children when their parents, cannot or will not be responsible for them? Is this just a fate of their birth and they should just suffer it? Telling people to be responsible is all well and good, are you going to give them the education, support and opportunities to do so first?

bialystockandbloom Mon 08-Oct-12 17:04:25

And obviously the welfare cuts are across the board, not just CWB.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 17:05:55

There is no need to bring disability payments into this. They are a completely separate matter.

I don't believe benefits that provide for children should be cut for children that already exist. But like I said earlier, something could be done to drastically reduce the number of children that are conceived while parents are on benefits. They will have to get a job, or think about whether they can afford to keep their pregnancy.

bialystockandbloom Mon 08-Oct-12 17:05:56

But Outraged, how do you know who is "worthy" and who isn't? And on what criteria is it judged that one family is "worthy" and one isn't?

Peachy Mon 08-Oct-12 17:06:23

a. Jeremy Hunt (is a...) calls for abortion limit to be dropped to 12 weeks in his role of Health Minister
b. Adoption Agencies launching new drive as too few children still getting a new family
c. Cuts to benefits for children meaning more people likely to need a termination (see above) or adoption (see above) or indeed have a child removed due to severe poverty / homelessness / all the mental and physical health needs that arise from poverty.

Poverty costs: it costs in terms of healthcare, education, social services, long term earnings. It's short term thinking that wants the cuts made here. Cut the heating allowance for pensioners living in hot countries or bus passes for people on high incomes and I might have more respect.

Also- Universal Credit comes in next year so presumably this will be those on ALL benefits including tax credits? I don't want any more children, won't affect me, but will many people who ARE hard working. or a Carer. Etc

Prarieflower Mon 08-Oct-12 17:06:31

Green the sort of children you're talking about will sadly never benefit from however much their parents get from the state as said parents will always spend the bare minimum on their dc's and the rest on them.If said parents actually cared about their dc they wouldn't be consistently having more kids in the first place.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 17:06:53

Education, support and opportunities don't come by giving parents free money.

bialystockandbloom Mon 08-Oct-12 17:08:37

Disability allowance is not a separate matter. GO spoke of £10bn cuts to "welfare" overall.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 17:08:52

Bloom, you can look at persons age, you can look at whether they have a medical diagnosis or are receiving treatment, you can look at whether they were paying income tax when their children were conceived.

It's not rocket science.

expatinscotland Mon 08-Oct-12 17:09:13

'There is no need to bring disability payments into this. They are a completely separate matter.'

No, they're not. They're already being heavily targetted.

Peachy Mon 08-Oct-12 17:11:17

'They will have to get a job, or think about whether they can afford to keep their pregnancy.

If only it were so easy!

They will try and fail to get a job, in a world where 8000 go for 350 jobs in Tesco, trying and managing are different things entirely.

That is a fundamental truth in our society right now.

So we will as a nation penalise not those who have made lifestyle choices but those who are doing their utmost best to be part of society, to be a contributor.

And instead of giving them choices, we will give them impossibilities under and moral system- terminate (fine if you are fine with it, many are not) or bring a child into real poverty. That's awful.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 17:11:57

Yes, they are a separate matter. I can hold different opinions on disability benefits to the opinions I hold on healthy people receiving income support. It's easy.

The thread was started by talking about limiting benefits to a certain number of children, not by limiting benefits to disabled people.

I very much disagree with what is being done to disability payments. I don't disagree with limiting the amount of money that is paid for children of parents that are capable of work.

mumwithtwokids Mon 08-Oct-12 17:12:16

ksrwr - There are already many children suffering due to parent's not putting them first.

I don't know what living on benefits is like as myself or my parents have never claimed but I do know what living in real poverty is like. I also know a lot of people who do live on benefits and would love someone to explain how it is they can afford sky, mobiles, latest fashions, drive 4x4's or brand new cars, holidays, have the choice of staying at home and in some cases even rent out their council property or carry out building work to it - how is this possible? Where does the money come from? There are also a few who really do struggle and I wonder how on earth it is they aren't being helped more but guess that some people just know how to play the system more than others.

I'm all for helping people in need as growing up in poverty is not fun and I'm happy to pay towards those people who really do need help either because they have fallen on hard times or are ill as this can happen to anyone. But I've had to work really hard for what I do have which in some cases involved making huge sacrifices. I can honestly say that I can't keep paying higher and higher taxes to support people who are playing the system or are just failing to take responsibility and are expecting people like me to pay towards their lifestyle. The Government really need to sort this massive problem out as well as making the rich pay the tax they should.

NightLark Mon 08-Oct-12 17:12:55

This 'policy' is divisive bollocks. It has nothing to do with addressing why people have children they can't afford, everything to do with ideological cuts to the state and is frankly terrifying in it's implications.

To return to the central question - what about the children who won't be 'paid for' any more? How far are we, as a society, prepared to let them go without because we disapprove of the choices their parents made?

Where do we draw the line? Personally, its nowhere near where Gideon is drawing it, and I hate the 'I'm alright Jack' bitchfests that are coming out of the woodwork while everyone draws up their best judgypants to criticise the very worst off in society and kick them even further down.

The man is acting like an imbecile. A self-important, self-satisfied, utterly devoid of compassion or understanding imbecile.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 17:13:03

Yes, it is quite harsh Peachy, but it would also be awful if the entire country ended up like Greece.

Peachy Mon 08-Oct-12 17:15:28

'Anyone who begrudges children, food, warm clothes and a roof over their heads is sick. No matter what the circumstances of their birth.' yes, that.

What if someone does the sums and it turns out they are expecting twins or something?

What we need is to grow the economy not pull the floor out from those already vulnerable. Disabled, children, carers- all getting hit from all sides.

EVERY time Gideon starts on about the economy being in a mess, DH's business stops taking much for a week; people are scared by his talk. Because that's sensible right? Stifle small businesses. Panic people into not buying. Shove more people onto benefits, skilled people often but also those who will struggle with CVs and references after self employment.

It's not a policy, it's a demolition plan.

greeneyed Mon 08-Oct-12 17:15:30

Well they sure don't come from taking it away. Prairie I think that's a truly horrible thing to say. Really how can you assume that someone having difficulty taking full responsibility for their own children actually doesn't care about them??????? I mean really how many mums and dads are there out there who don't care about their kids ffs!!!!! People may live chaotic lives and not make "sensible" or informed choices, let's not say that means they don't care about their kids.

i would love to have another baby (we already have dt's) but there is no way we could even afford for the reduction in our monthly income that maternity pay would result in. A friend of ours decided to have another child despite her and her dp are both out of work and on benefits. As she put it, it doesn't pay to work. They have a significantly better standard of living than us. So as much as I hate to agree with a tory policy, but i don't have a problem with cutting £10bn from the benefits budget and "limit the number of children people can claim for". If it means more people venture into the world of work and make an economic contribution.

bialystockandbloom Mon 08-Oct-12 17:16:18

No they don't, they come through investment in things like schools and services. Eg pre-school services like SureStart. Which, oh yes, the govt has all but abolished.

bialystockandbloom Mon 08-Oct-12 17:17:25

Education, support and opportunities don't come by giving parents free money.

My last post was in response to ^ ^ btw

bialystockandbloom Mon 08-Oct-12 17:18:37

"everyone draws up their best judgypants to criticise the very worst off in society and kick them even further down."

Yes, that, exactly.

Prarieflower Mon 08-Oct-12 17:19:38

Greeneyed because I've taught such children and witnessed the lack of care from their parents first hand.It happens,trust me.

slug Mon 08-Oct-12 17:19:53

<<bangs head>> Free money???

And what, pray tell, is the alternative? Children dying of starvation (it has happened in London already) or the side affects of poverty, communicable diseases etc on the rampaging, clogging up the hospitals? Poverty costs the state money. A well fed, well housed population is cheaper in the long run than a population that cannot afford warm clothes in the winter or good food.

Ever seen scurvey? Nasty disease. How about asthma, diabetes and diarrhea? All diseases of poverty that kill the young and vulnerable in developed countries. TB is already on the rise in some parts of inner cities. Overcrowding and poor housing conditions contribute to it's spread and it's damn expensive to treat.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 17:20:42

Sure start is still going in deprived areas. It got cut in the areas where it was found to only be benefitting those who don't really need it. And free pre school education is being expanded.

Again, not free money to parents.

Peachy, it would be difficult if a family found they were pregnant with twins, but no more so than it would be for a working family who won't be given extra money either,

Peachy Mon 08-Oct-12 17:20:46

Actually no, I don't believe there is much worse than that level of amorality.

There is no level of poverty that would make me willing to tell a pregnant woman she should abort for the sake of the country: that's what this is.

I could never stoop so low, ever. All my children were conceived and born within an employed family; I have never had failed contraception; my husband has stood by us throughout untold shite.

That makes me lucky, not better than.

And to tell people this from people whose lives are comfortable- as all or MPs naturally are- disgusting. Absolute disgrace.

We are skipping meals at the moment to keep afloat as DH's student loan application has been mishandled by the council: I still managed to find a packet of pasta for the food bank yesterday. Compared to many we are lucky. That this shower of a Government can consider bringing this in given their well fed lives- yuck. My father grew up in serious poverty, poaching and stealing to eat, working age 5. It's cases like him that we re the inspiration behind the welfare state: it is the safety and care of children, and the vulnerable, that is the welfare state.

I am genuinely revolted.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 17:21:40

The alternative is people thinking twice about having children they can't pay for in the first place.

Peachy Mon 08-Oct-12 17:23:38

Outraged- working famillies WILL be affected.

from next year we have Universal Credit: Universal, geddit? As in one benefit for all.

Anyone getting tax credits now will be on it as much as someone getting JSA now.

So they will just as hard working as anyone else. We NEED the lower paid people in our society. Stuff my degree- nothing I do is as valuable now as when I left school and worked in an OAPs home.

I did read a suggestion it will be based on housing claims: 80% of housing claimants are not unemployed. That's a bloody small percentage left who are.

greeneyed Mon 08-Oct-12 17:24:13

Okay bowing out now before I blow a gasket and I need to make a sensible choice about maybe doing a bit of work before I make the dinner for my boy (fortunate not to be born into poverty, there by the grace of god goes him) the comment about deciding whether to continue the pregnancy is frankly just scary!! Yes my choice is terminate or bring a baby into the world I can't feed, fucking hell really? Women back in the dark ages again.

usualsuspect3 Mon 08-Oct-12 17:24:33

Me too peachy. I'm even more revolted that posters on MN agree with these policies.

JamNan Mon 08-Oct-12 17:26:52

What happens if a family is made up of four kids and a loving Mum and Dad both in work. The Dad gets a serious debilitating illness, or suffers a terrible accident (you know, just falls of his bike and dies in the middle of the road)? Result for family - less income and heartbreaking trauma.

Shouldn't we try to help them?

threesocksmorgan Mon 08-Oct-12 17:27:18

"It's not a policy, it's a demolition plan"
well said peachy
please notice that the bus passes/ fuel payments for pensioners. was kept untouched.

Dawndonna Mon 08-Oct-12 17:28:05

Outraged
Take a look at the UEA study I posted on page two of this discussion.
I'm afraid Disability benefits are no longer a seperate discussion.

Peachy Mon 08-Oct-12 17:28:26

There are a lot of babies born to people whose capacity to think twice is limited. To teenagers who don't have a clue. To people who underestimate the costs. To people whose chances of anything changing, ever, are pretty limited but still feel that very real drive to have a family- low paid, hard working people without the skills to progress further in their careers.

A lot of babies born from failed contraception- 99% of conceptions may be preventable through reversable contraception, that means 1% are not: in real terms, in 2011, that 8071 real pregnancies. And that's just where contraception is used properly, and not where it fails due to sickness etc.

Nah, as long as they hand out universal benefits like fuel payments to their key voters (OAPs) in better off and warmer areas and climates, I am taking this as nothing but a shot at ideology.

Peachy Mon 08-Oct-12 17:32:24

JamNam- that's similar to us.

DH was a Transport manager; I was doing my degree with a place arranged at teacher training college when ds4 was born.

Within a year DH had been made redundant, and set up his own, much lower paid (so far, we remain hopeful) business: the lack of flexibility meant I ended up staying as a carer as we had two disabled children, we now have 3 as ds4 is in the diagnostic process. Childcare is non existent.

We get by- just- but every week it becomes more and more 'just'. Yet we could not have tried harder.

I hope to go back to work soon, DH has managed to stay chugging along but our income is down 2/3.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 17:32:25

JamNan, of course a family in that situation should be helped. I'm not in favour of scrapping benefits all together ffs!

Peachy, yes, I do 'geddit' thanks.

After reading the recent abortion threads, most women seem to be pro choice. Personally, I'm not, but with choice comes responsibility. People can't have everything their own way when they need others to fund their lives.

Prarieflower Mon 08-Oct-12 17:32:59

Sorry Peachy if you can't afford another child you use 2 or 3 methods of contraception or abstain.smile

I'm with you on the OAP thing though and I think the Tories are bonkers.I'm not a Tory voter but seriously do they honestly think they're going to win voters by consistently protecting their own.

No one in this country is truly poor, if your are looking for poverty, then look to Africa and SE Asia.

I think a lot of people need to reconsider what they actually define as poverty.

mumwithtwokids Mon 08-Oct-12 17:34:02

JamNam - Yes we should but I guarantee they wouldn't get any help! I know someone who has been in that position and was made to sell everything they had before the state would even consider helping!

grovel Mon 08-Oct-12 17:34:19

I happen to agree about the winter fuel payments but can actually see the problem. All those "rich" pensioners paid their taxes/NI etc on the understanding that there would be a "one size fits all" set of payments on retirement.
My Mum gets the Winter Fuel Allowance and pays it immediately to Help The Aged - but she'd not understand an argument that after 45 years of paying her dues she was suddenly entitled to less than other pensioners.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 17:34:26

I find it astounding that someone can begrudge OAPs who have worked and paid into the system a winter fuel payment, but think others who have never worked a day in their lives should be given more than enough to live on.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 17:35:41

Dawn, thank you. I will have a look later when I have more time. It's long!

zen1 Mon 08-Oct-12 17:36:42

'The pot is not unlimited. But you are spectacularly missing the point. What this govt are doing is exploiting 'austerity' to make cuts to social services which they are ideologically opposed to. They are going further than Thatcher ever dared to in the 80s. They do not want an NHS - they would privatise every part of it if they could. This govt is systematically removing safeguards for the most vulnerable sections of our society (poor, disabled, children) and doing it under the "all in this together" banner.'

Completely agree with this Bialy. I really can't understand why people can't see through the Tory rhetoric.

threesocksmorgan Mon 08-Oct-12 17:38:13

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos so you think they all need it?
like hell, my mate is just over 60 , he still works and gets it.

Nancy66 Mon 08-Oct-12 17:40:19

Pensioners are the biggest growing section of society. plus they vote.

politicians are not going to piss them off.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 17:41:39

No, I don't think they all need it. But for a country that charges everyone it possibly can in tax, I don't disagree with some small universal benefits.

I don't think people need as much in tax credits as they get either. I'd rather tax from people who are young enough to make a difference than the elderly who are in the last stage of their lives.

oh FUCKINELL
angry

Why do you think the state is there for people with disabilities, carers etc?

They're not. We're being thrown this shit just like everyone else.

I'm currently panicking on how we're going to survive on £100 a week less.

Prarieflower Mon 08-Oct-12 17:42:02

Outraged many pensioners don't need it,it's a complete waste of money.We'll be lucky to have pensions let alone a WFA.

If pensioners want us youngsters to keep their NHS and pensions(which in years to come will look very generous compared to what we'll get) going they're going to have to realise squandering money on WFA for many that aren't even here in the winter or who are well to fabulously well off isn't prudent and certainly won't win voters.

The country can't afford to keep Cameron's voters happy in order to help him do better at the next election.

grovel Mon 08-Oct-12 17:44:02

Prairie, we couldn't afford for Gordon Brown to do exactly that either.

PrincessSymbian Mon 08-Oct-12 17:45:12

But, Glitter, your poor, why don't you just stop being poor? Surely it's a choice? Can't you just go and pick sone money off the Money trees or however you poor people find money? <toungue firmly in cheek>

So, pensioners in Portugal going without their WFP or parents of disabled children making the heat/eat decision?

Which is more important?

Oh fuckitt PS I forgot I made the CHOICE to have disabled children wink

threesocksmorgan Mon 08-Oct-12 17:46:45

Glitterknickaz so right
so let them keep that and take the money from the disabled who are already struggling to exist.

mumwithtwokids Mon 08-Oct-12 17:47:07

Prairie - This country can't afford to do many things it still does.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 17:47:14

Prairie, I don't disagree with you. But I don't see why pensioners should have to change their way of thinking, when according to MN, people who can't afford children shouldn't have to.

So many places cuts could be made.
House of commons' subsidised bar, bringing MP expenses down to bare minimum...

threesocksmorgan Mon 08-Oct-12 17:49:52

oh yes but easier to target the disabled, they have no voice.

PrincessSymbian Mon 08-Oct-12 17:51:11

From memory, Glitter, your children are on the autistic spectrum and the diagnosis of autism has been going up in recent years. I would love to see how levels of rising autism correlates with levels of increased chemical use.

PrincessSymbian Mon 08-Oct-12 17:52:20

Quite frankly, capitalism sucks!

expatinscotland Mon 08-Oct-12 17:52:44

'I find it astounding that someone can begrudge OAPs who have worked and paid into the system a winter fuel payment, but think others who have never worked a day in their lives should be given more than enough to live on.'

All of them? I know many who never had a paying job in their lives and whatever their dead husband paid in, it's peanuts compared to what they're taking out.

I see no reason why they should be exempted from their share of cuts same as all the rest of us.

Thing is PS if it was that simple they'd have nailed it by now - the cause is far more complex unfortunately.

But yeah autism is one of their disabilities. There are others.

SomethingOnce Mon 08-Oct-12 17:57:28

‘How can we justify the incomes of those out of work rising faster than the incomes of those in work?’ George asked.

No need, George, because it's nonsense, isn't it?

A paltry sum on top of very little looks, as a percentage increase, like a good deal; a few grand on top of 30k doesn't compare so favourably.

Unless you look at the actual sums of money involved.

SadPanda Mon 08-Oct-12 17:58:47

From memory, Glitter, your children are on the autistic spectrum and the diagnosis of autism has been going up in recent years. I would love to see how levels of rising autism correlates with levels of increased chemical use.

Rising levels of autism is a fallacy. Diagnosis levels are on the increase but prevalence studies conducted in the UK since autism was first identifie are consistent. The same number of people have it today as 60 years ago, they're just more likely to be diagnosed now.

BenandBolly Mon 08-Oct-12 17:59:46

TM08 "i've been hearing lots of 'solutions' from my well-off friends this morning. "Force people to get a contraception injection before they get any benefits", "make them do drug tests each week".

I have never heard such ideas from well off folk but have often heard this from poorer folk who are actually claiming tax credits themselves hmm

Princess - so what is the alternative?

Socialism and communism have hardly been great successes have they - you just end up with a population with no incentive to improve itself.

The government has to do something about the free rider problem in the UK; we can't go on just printing money.

flatpackhamster Mon 08-Oct-12 18:02:42

PrincessSymbian
Quite frankly, capitalism sucks!

There writes someone who has never lived under the alternatives.

SadPanda Mon 08-Oct-12 18:03:20

Socialism and communism have hardly been great successes have they - you just end up with a population with no incentive to improve itself.

Sweden appears to being doing alright for itself and is riding out this global recession better than most other countries apparantly.

flatpackhamster Mon 08-Oct-12 18:04:26

greeneyed

Okay bowing out now before I blow a gasket and I need to make a sensible choice about maybe doing a bit of work before I make the dinner for my boy (fortunate not to be born into poverty, there by the grace of god goes him) the comment about deciding whether to continue the pregnancy is frankly just scary!! Yes my choice is terminate or bring a baby into the world I can't feed, fucking hell really? Women back in the dark ages again.

But your alternative appears to be 'I'm going to have lots of babies because I know someone else will pay for their upbringing'.

Is that really empowerment? State dependency is a noble leap forward, but acting responsibility to raise the number of children you can afford is the 'dark ages'?

HappyMummyOfOne Mon 08-Oct-12 18:10:24

I think its still generous at two, that means those who have no intentions of working to provide for the children they chose to have can still take from the system. It would have been better to cap to two children based on past contributions but no child related benefits if choosing to conceive with no household income regardless of first child or more. People need to take responibility for their own actions.

It is very easy to prevent pregnancy, contraceptions is widely available and multiple methods can be used together plus morning after actions. If no benefits were paid the number of "accidental" pregnancies would significantly drop knowing others wont pay for their lifestyle choice.

Working paents have to be sensible and work out if they can afford a child, why should others be handed extra money on a plate.

hmmm, Sweden doing well because it is socialist, not sure about that......you should try reading this

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/sweden-is-no-socialist-paradise

In brief, sweden is doing well because of the groundwork done in its capitalist days and because of the Lutheran work ethic of its population.

last post in response to sadpanda

SomethingOnce Mon 08-Oct-12 18:16:48

Education, support and opportunities don't come by giving parents free money.

But surely, OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos, child poverty will undermine the effectiveness of any measures to provide these?

creamteas Mon 08-Oct-12 18:18:34

I can't believe so may people fall for the 'Taxpayers' vs 'claimants' divide.

Everyone pays taxes They might not pay income tax but they certainly have to pay VAT on fuel and adult clothes.

bialystockandbloom Mon 08-Oct-12 18:18:39

"others who have never worked a day in their lives should be given more than enough to live on."

There you go, David Cameron, George Osborne, and Sun/Mail editors - your job is done. Just need to keep on plugging this message.

SadPanda Mon 08-Oct-12 18:19:47

Lutheran work ethic

Haha, you've clearly never lived in Sweden grin I'm honestly not being argumentative at all but I lived there for 15 years so find that really funny. Anyone who's spent time there will tell you that at best their attitude to work is 'meh'. They wouldn't know hard work if it came up and bit them on the arse.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 08-Oct-12 18:19:47

But there wouldn't be child poverty if people didn't have too many children when they can barely afford the first one or two.

Like I said, I'm not advocating getting rid of all benefits, I just want rid of benefits that are too generous and actively encourage people to absolve themselves of financial responsibility.

thedogsrolex Mon 08-Oct-12 18:23:03

wrote a big long post and then mn logged me out...can someone clarify, when we say benefit...what benefit/s are we talking about?

HappyMummyOfOne Mon 08-Oct-12 18:23:31

"Everyone pays taxes They might not pay income tax but they certainly have to pay VAT on fuel and adult clothes"

Technically if they arent working then they are not paying any tax at all as anything they spend they had from the state in the first instance.

I would say if on benefits then fuel vat wouldnt be applicable but the system is very generous and most people on them run a car.

zen1 Mon 08-Oct-12 18:24:44

charleybarley a right wing think tank (Adam Smith Institute) is hardly going to be saying anything else really.

usualsuspect3 Mon 08-Oct-12 18:25:22

Most people on benefits run a car? confused

hahahahaha.

expatinscotland Mon 08-Oct-12 18:26:04

'Like I said, I'm not advocating getting rid of all benefits, I just want rid of benefits that are too generous and actively encourage people to absolve themselves of financial responsibility. '

Then why not target first and foremost, non-resident parents, most are male, who do not pay to support children they create and often take up with a new person and procreate some more?

Possibly, it depends on what sector you were in. I worked with quite a few Swedes in London (big 4 practice) and they were anything but lazy, and the same goes for the Stockholm office.

greeneyed Mon 08-Oct-12 18:29:05

Really flatpack really, how many people do you think actually think that (I'm not denying there are some). This government is happy for us to beleve that is the profile of a benefits claimant, actually usually it's not is it. You all make "taking responsibily" sound so easy, and agains the question remains unanswered as to what happens to the families who can't or won't? We're polarising this issue to two extremes when there is so much in-between. People who don't know how, don't have the family peers etc to show them how etc etc to take responsibily then as a civilised society we have to take care of them and their children. If we take the money away there are lots of people who won't or can't just make sensible choices all of a sudden because they have to, they'll just slide further under and their children and children's children.

SadPanda Mon 08-Oct-12 18:29:49

Also that blog is factually incorrect. It says companies like IKEA predate socialism and arose due to capitalism, but that's not true. Sweden became a socialist country in 1932. Ikea was founded in 1943.

sieglinde Mon 08-Oct-12 18:31:04

The welfare system is totally impractical and needs complete restructuring. We can't possibly go on as we are, with over 50% of households depending on taxes from the other half.

It's not the genuinely poor who are benefiting.

What about abolishing all top-up benefits to all people in work, BUT doing it together with a big hike in the minimum wage, and a big cut in income tax?

(Yes, yes, I know. The housing market would fall (good!), and yes, small businesses might struggle - there might have to be a transitional period with government top ups to the employer).

Make government far smaller. Currently we have the crazy sight of one govt lot taking tax money with one hand while another is employed to give it back.

Then nationalise all independent schools and private hospitals, and set up a sliding scale of user-pays at point of delivery for health care and education? So unwaged people would pay nothing, and the waged would pay what was feasible.

Have I alienated everyone? Tory and Labour alike? Bet I have grin

Nancy66 Mon 08-Oct-12 18:31:33

Swedes also pay a hell of a lot more tax and, seemingly, quite willingly too

edam Mon 08-Oct-12 18:31:42

Happy, your comments about tax are really daft. VAT is still VAT never mind whether the person paying it is a millionaire or struggling for every penny. Petrol duty is still petrol duty. Council tax is still council tax.

It's really very simple. People pay taxes when they earn or receive money and are charged tax when they save it or spend it (except on those few occasions when you spend it on something that is free of VAT and duties or stick money into an ISA or other tax-exempt savings). We all pay tax, whether or not we earn enough to pay income tax. Except the filthy rich who manage to avoid quite a lot of it.

thedogsrolex Mon 08-Oct-12 18:33:29

Ok so i'll piss in the wind.

I think niceguy had a point, if someone who had three kids lost their job, then those kids should be supported.

If someone who has never worked keeps popping them out then no.

And I say this as someone who currently claims benefit.

flatpackhamster Mon 08-Oct-12 18:35:02

greeneyed

Really flatpack really, how many people do you think actually think that (I'm not denying there are some). This government is happy for us to beleve that is the profile of a benefits claimant, actually usually it's not is it. You all make "taking responsibily" sound so easy, and agains the question remains unanswered as to what happens to the families who can't or won't? We're polarising this issue to two extremes when there is so much in-between. People who don't know how, don't have the family peers etc to show them how etc etc to take responsibily then as a civilised society we have to take care of them and their children. If we take the money away there are lots of people who won't or can't just make sensible choices all of a sudden because they have to, they'll just slide further under and their children and children's children.

Your argument for maintaining high levels of benefit appears to be 'People might make the wrong decisions'.

I would argue that unless you give them the chance to make mistakes, they aren't really people at all. That's what life involves - decisions, some difficult, and making mistakes. Some people will get hurt in the process. But if failure had no cost then success wouldn't be a reward, would it?

Your nanny-statism simply infantilises people.

Taking responsibility is hard. The easy way is to keep shovelling money at people and pretending that's the solution.

expatinscotland

Then why not target first and foremost, non-resident parents, most are male, who do not pay to support children they create and often take up with a new person and procreate some more?

How many non-resident males claim child benefit?

domesticgodless Mon 08-Oct-12 18:36:02

The DWP's impact assessment predicts that 190,000 children and 80,000 adults will be affected by the benefit cap in April 2013.

www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/benefit-cap-wr2011-ia.pdf

These figures show that the 'average' affected family has less than three children. The vast majority of the families affected live in Greater London, where spiralling rents have meant that housing benefit paid to private landlords has reached very high levels.

The net effect of the benefit cap will not be to reduce the number of children to people on benefits. It will be to force benefit claimants to live in cheaper areas.

Also, arguably Sweden isn't even really socialist anymore, with the election of a moderate government they are even talking about......gasp.....privatisation

domesticgodless Mon 08-Oct-12 18:38:57

You could see it as a sort of social cleansing of the urban poor if you like. The effect won't be to stop 'feckless' families in the North East having 3 or more children; their rent will be low enough to 'allow' them to receive benefits for children and still remain within the stated 'fairness' threshold of the UK average wage for 1 person.

SomethingOnce Mon 08-Oct-12 18:40:19

Outraged Wouldn't it be nicer, though, if there was no child poverty because as a society we welcomed those 'excess' children as we welcome our own, making sure they have food, shelter and healthcare, and access to an education that allows them to become what we might wish their parents to be?

After all, you do need people to keep a country ticking over and we can't expect to keep pinching hard workers from other countries indefinitely.

SadPanda Mon 08-Oct-12 18:42:20

Also, arguably Sweden isn't even really socialist anymore, with the election of a moderate government they are even talking about......gasp.....privatisation

It'll never happen. They'd have to give up SystemB first and the shock would kill off the entire population. grin

thedogsrolex Mon 08-Oct-12 18:43:06

dwp don't take child maintenance into account anymore, which worked well for me as a lone parent. I dont think it's right but there were so many fuckups...in past times if the nrp was paying they'd deduct it from the rp benefit, but then the nrp wouldn't pay so the rp would be left short.

sort the effing csa might be a good option.

HappyMummy - I claim benefits and run a car. I didn't realise that was seen as a terrible thing to do. I have a car because I live in the middle of nowhere, and we have no public transport - there are literally two buses a week that go to my village. If I could get around without a car then of course I would - my insurance/MOT/tax/repairs etc etc use the majority of the money I get in benefits, but I have no real alternative. The only other option would be to move to a town, where I would have less need of a car and therefore be able to use public transport. Which I would do, but that would mean claiming housing benefit, which I don't at the moment, as I am able to live with my parents (which at 26 is not ideal). So I think spending my benefits on running a car is the best case scenario as far as I'm concerned.

People make assumptions that everyone on benefits is out to get everything they can, and that's just not the case. Of course some people are, like some people evade paying their taxes, but it isn't far to make a mess generalisation. I don't smoke, drink, go out etc - my car is the one thing you could call a luxury, but living where I do it is more of an essential. And I don't have children. Genuinely interested what people think I should be doing if running a car is so frowned upon?

Orwellian Mon 08-Oct-12 18:44:30

The government should just announce that in x number of years time, child benefit and child tax credit will be reduced and only pay for up to 3 kids. This would give those in receipt of these benefits enough time to find work or to balance their outgoings, in the same way that all those middle income earners who have lost or are about to lose their child benefit/child tax credits have had to do. Nobody gives a shit about the kids of the working middle who pay a whopping amount of tax and don't necessarily have a lot to live on after tax (especially in London, a £40k or £50k salary is not a lot once housing has been paid for).

Viviennemary Mon 08-Oct-12 18:45:22

The main reason for spiralling rents is the huge subsidies given to greedy landlords by housing benefit. The situation in London is totally ludicrous.

flatpackhamster Mon 08-Oct-12 18:46:07

SomethingOnce

Outraged Wouldn't it be nicer, though, if there was no child poverty because as a society we welcomed those 'excess' children as we welcome our own, making sure they have food, shelter and healthcare, and access to an education that allows them to become what we might wish their parents to be?

Since we're wishing for magical lovely things that are utterly impossible in the real world, I'd like to be a passenger on the first FTL colony ship.

expatinscotland Mon 08-Oct-12 18:46:23

'How many non-resident males claim child benefit? '

So what if they don't? Child benefit isn't enough to support a child a person creates.

greeneyed Mon 08-Oct-12 18:47:06

Okay I'll go with giving people chances to make mistakes so long as they have the same chances to make a success but they don't do they..

flatpackhamster Mon 08-Oct-12 18:49:13

expatinscotland

So what if they don't? Child benefit isn't enough to support a child a person creates.

The thread is about child benefit and the removal of that benefit. And you proposed an idea to target the one group of people who're unaffected by the benefit and can't be targeted for its removal.

Yes, they're scumbags to do what they do, but saying 'Whataboutthemeeennnnnnz' doesn't advance the discussion.

domesticgodless Mon 08-Oct-12 18:49:35

I'd also be interested to know how many of those on here coming out in strong support of capping benefits for 'large' families also think that abortion would be limited. I guess quite a few.

How do you square that? You want the scrounger children to be born.... but then it's ok to let them starve because it was the parents' (read mother's) choice to conceive them anyway? (Because we all know that contraceptives never fail, good people never make mistakes, and men never pressure vulnerable women into unprotected sex).

Before people jump on the last comment here's an example of what I mean by vulnerability. A friend adopted a three year old boy. His mother was learning-disabled and had 5 children one after another by a married non-learning-disabled man who used to 'visit' her; to my mind clear sexual exploitation of a vulnerable woman. My friends' son was as far as I know the only one of the family adopted as she was coping just about ok with the others (so the social worker reported).

I expect that many on here would think that this woman should be sterilised 'for her own good' but would they agree that one of her children should not 'count' for benefits purposes? What of the frankly disgusting father? What is he to be forced to do in order to ensure the children's welfare?

To get support from him she will have to PAY the CSA to take action against him. How is a learning disabled woman to be expected to do that?

flatpackhamster Mon 08-Oct-12 18:50:14

greeneyed

Okay I'll go with giving people chances to make mistakes so long as they have the same chances to make a success but they don't do they..

You're not even giving them a chance to try. You're just treating them like children. It's quite patronising - a sort of Victorian 'raising up of the noble savage' idea.

domesticgodless Mon 08-Oct-12 18:50:31

abortion should be limited, pardon my typing

Yet still nobody answers why it is necessary to drag people with disabilities and their carers into the cuts?

expatinscotland Mon 08-Oct-12 18:52:32

'The thread is about child benefit and the removal of that benefit. And you proposed an idea to target the one group of people who're unaffected by the benefit and can't be targeted for its removal.'

No, it isn't. It's about cutting £10bn from the welfare budget as a whole. And it seems to be a very common scenario that a person leaves his/her partner or spouse and their children, then pays nothing towards those childrens' support, leaving the other parent to rely signficantly on the welfare state.

Since this is being targetted, how about targetting people who don't pay to support children they procreate after they leave a relationship as well?

Ikea is never a good example to use anywhere, founded by a supposed Nazi sympathiser, and sells lots of awful junk.

Fishwife1949 Mon 08-Oct-12 18:52:55

How about you get less money for each child you have just like with CB

domesticgodless Mon 08-Oct-12 18:53:36

Glitterknickaz, cos everyone is supposed to know that responsible individuals do not give birth to disabled children?

Strangely, more of those will be born if the Tories get their way and the abortion limit is reduced to 20 weeks. I guess their feckless parents should have done a full risk assessment before they did the dirty deed.

Viviennemary Mon 08-Oct-12 18:54:19

If your boss won't give you a rise if you have more children, is it his or her fault that your children go hungry. Of course not. People have to take responsibility.

Viviennemary Mon 08-Oct-12 18:55:37

Glitter what are the cuts to people and their carers. Maybe somebody would answer if they knew wht they were going to be.

thedogsrolex Mon 08-Oct-12 18:56:10

and noone answers my question either....maybe if there was a better system to actually get fathers to pay for their children....nah never mind.

Fishwife1949 Mon 08-Oct-12 18:56:23

expatinscotland well its a nice thought but LABOUR cocked up the CSA big style the whole thing would need to be shut down every child written off then start again

domesticgodless Mon 08-Oct-12 18:57:55

Vivienne, disability-related benefits are included in the benefit cap. Employment and Support Allowance has replaced Incapacity Benefit and Atos are now busily reclassifying everyone fit for work unless they are basically in a coma. This means that if you have children and become chronically sick or disabled, you are rather more than f***ed. Where have you been these last few months???

bialystockandbloom Mon 08-Oct-12 18:58:30

SadPanda "Rising levels of autism is a fallacy. Diagnosis levels are on the increase but prevalence studies conducted in the UK since autism was first identifie are consistent. The same number of people have it today as 60 years ago, they're just more likely to be diagnosed now."

Off-topic but what are you basing this on? AFAIK the reasons for the rise in diagnoses is still under debate (prevalence/diagnostic criteria/identification).

Fishwife1949 Mon 08-Oct-12 18:58:34

We need hep ladies keeps legs closed

Help feckless fathers pay up

Get people up out of bed and working

And stop the culture of entilement

domesticgodless Mon 08-Oct-12 18:58:36

fishwife why on earth does it matter who cocked it up??? The point is to fix the bloody thing. And this lot sure aren't.

It's based on individual circs but mine mean that I'll lose £50 a week in the switchover to Universal Credit. I'll also be liable for 14% of my rent as I am considered 'overhoused' under new housing benefit rules (despite medical evidence meaning my housing is necessary) so that's another £34 a week, then there's having to pay full council tax due to cuts at local level so another £27 a week.

The latter two are more on a local basis but others will have similar happening.

domesticgodless Mon 08-Oct-12 18:59:15

'ladies keep legs closed'

ffs how about 'men keep your pants on and wear a condom'

why is it the main responsibility of the woman?

Fishwife1949 Mon 08-Oct-12 19:02:05

This is not a debate about sn children this is about women who churn out lots of chikdren with no way of paying

No one minds those who were working when having the chikdren but have fallen on hard times but most mind the type of ladies who insist on having children whilest not working and never had worked

Like i siad i am happy for those who disagree to send money in to the DWP so the familes can carry on adding to their number but i doubut any one will

expatinscotland Mon 08-Oct-12 19:04:13

'This is not a debate about sn children this is about women who churn out lots of chikdren with no way of paying '

They just magically impregnate themselves. Amazing!

Fishwife1949 Mon 08-Oct-12 19:04:29

Because there are women out ther like my exs babys mother silly enough to have babies with guys who already have children they dont support

Most on here could name somone we know whose had a baby with a deadbeat in the full knowldge they had other children they never have taken care off or see

It is all the time we get lumped in with other 'scroungers'
We're affected too, or would you rather I shut up as it's unpalatable?

SomethingOnce Mon 08-Oct-12 19:05:13

flatpack, is it impossible? There seem to be other cultures that don't view children as being the possessions and sole responsibility of their parents. So, while that is not currently our national culture, it's not impossible and is something to which we could choose to aspire.

Viviennemary Mon 08-Oct-12 19:05:51

That is really difficult for you Glitter. I didn't want to not reply. But the country just simply can't go on paying out the level of benefits. Didn't even labour say the same thing. And I think capping benefits on extortionate rents and not increasing benefits every time somebody has another child is a lot better than taking it from people who have a disability or who have children with a disability or special needs.

Wormshuffler Mon 08-Oct-12 19:06:02

Something has got to be done though, I don't agree that children who are here now should be cut off, but then again I don't think that will happen. What I do agree with is limiting it for children who arn't born yet. Here is another example......My SinL has a baby, neither she nor the father work and have no intention of, she is now pregnant again, "an accident" . I know that if she didnt have this safety net she would have tried alot harder to not get pregnant. I'm talking the implant plus condoms. We arn't having any more children so have taken permanent action. DH has had the snip.
We have to break this cycle of teenage mums having babies in order to support themselves and then dragging them up to do the same.

flatpackhamster Mon 08-Oct-12 19:06:25

expatinscotland

No, it isn't. It's about cutting £10bn from the welfare budget as a whole. And it seems to be a very common scenario that a person leaves his/her partner or spouse and their children, then pays nothing towards those childrens' support, leaving the other parent to rely signficantly on the welfare state.

Since this is being targetted, how about targetting people who don't pay to support children they procreate after they leave a relationship as well?

But how could you target them? It's a nice idea, but how could it be done?

Fishwife1949 Mon 08-Oct-12 19:06:32

If you wont sleep with a dead beat you cant get pregant

Of your the first one then yu cant know how it will work out but i dont feel at all sorry when i meet women who have had a child for somone who has 5,or 6 chikdren whom they never see or pay for

domesticgodless Mon 08-Oct-12 19:06:44

unfortunately Fishwife, your government do not make your fine distinctions.

They don't give a toss what the family's circumstances are... sn child, disabled parent, etc etc. They don't care if it's a benefit-defrauding 23 year old mother working on the side and churning out children year on year, or a man whose wife left him with three kids so he had to give up work, or a family where one parent of 4 children got motor neurone disease and the other had to give up work to care for him/her.

They'll starve out the lot of em. Watch it happen from April, especially in London.

flatpackhamster Mon 08-Oct-12 19:07:29

SomethingOnce

flatpack, is it impossible? There seem to be other cultures that don't view children as being the possessions and sole responsibility of their parents. So, while that is not currently our national culture, it's not impossible and is something to which we could choose to aspire.

Which cultures?

domesticgodless Mon 08-Oct-12 19:07:49

Vivienne, sigh, they ARE taking it from the disabled and families with disabled children!!

Start reading the papers (not the Daily Mail please for the love of god) :D

Thing is though if they DON'T pay out disability benefits then the costs to put those individuals into residential care are approximately £3 to £6 k a week.

Fishwife1949 Mon 08-Oct-12 19:09:14

Any way people need to go shopping now good firce debate

Glad to see it didnt go into the usual name calling

Love you all

domesticgodless Mon 08-Oct-12 19:09:48

how does capping benefits on extortionate rents help anything? Why not control said extortionate rents?

Ohhhhh no can't have that can we. It would interfere with the sacred right to profit obscenely from property investment.

So the landlords can all carry on charging silly money and the poor will be driven out of London, Edinburgh etc and can all go and live in the North East where there is very cheap rent. Oh, and no jobs. Funny that.

expatinscotland Mon 08-Oct-12 19:10:08

'But how could you target them? It's a nice idea, but how could it be done?'

It's an idea that's in practice now in many US states.

domesticgodless Mon 08-Oct-12 19:10:26

cheers fishwife yes you're right, this debate is not nasty and thanks to all for that.

domesticgodless Mon 08-Oct-12 19:13:44

yes Glitter- it's not actually about costcutting, it is headlining in the sacred name of personal responsibility. The new semi-religious creed.

The state will pay more for welfare reform policy in terms of incarceration, children put in care and indeed residential care for those whose families will n no longer be able to look after them.

They dont' care about that. Nor does it seem to matter that they pay double the previous benefit cost to private institutions such as Atos to kick people off benefits only to have 40-70% go back on them again after a costly appeal which must then be repeated months later.

Viviennemary Mon 08-Oct-12 19:14:13

But this situation shouldn't have been allowed to arise in the first place. People having more children and no intention of getting a job because they would be worse off and have to work and pay travel expenses as well. Benefits should be for the needy who need help. I didn't approve of them shutting down these centres where people with special needs had jobs. I thought that was very wrong. I don't see why they couldn't have kept them going. It wouldn't have cost that much in the grand scheme of things.

SadPanda Mon 08-Oct-12 19:17:31

SadPanda "Rising levels of autism is a fallacy. Diagnosis levels are on the increase but prevalence studies conducted in the UK since autism was first identifie are consistent. The same number of people have it today as 60 years ago, they're just more likely to be diagnosed now."

Off-topic but what are you basing this on? AFAIK the reasons for the rise in diagnoses is still under debate (prevalence/diagnostic criteria/identification).

The 3 prevalence studies which have been carried out in the UK: Lotter (1966), Wing and Gould (1979) and Ehlers and Gillberg (1993).

Orwellian Mon 08-Oct-12 19:18:21

I going to demand that my boss increases my salary each month to pay for the baby I'm planning to have. It's my right after all!

domesticgodless Mon 08-Oct-12 19:18:21

Most benefits are paid to people in working poverty. The minimum wage and part time jobs which are increasingly all that is available to large sections of the population combine with spiralling costs to produce a truly nightmarish situation for the country as a whole. Turning 'hardworking households' against 'feckless claimants' is just Tory divide and rule. Save your moral judgements for the employers who hoard 13 trillion in untaxable offshore assets while deliberately employing workers on zero hour contracts at minimum wage.

blaming 'feckless breeders who should not have had kids int he first place' is a. pointless and does nothing to solve the country's problems b. a misdirection from the true evils of ludicrous urban housing cost, job shortages and underemployment. It'll only get worse and shouting about a few families who had too many kids (only 3% of families in the whole country have more than 3 children, ffs) is a total misdirection of your energies.

domesticgodless Mon 08-Oct-12 19:19:17

Orwellian I suspect you earn a bit more than the minimum wage which is what most 'benefit' (eg Child Tax Credit) claimants are earning.

domesticgodless Mon 08-Oct-12 19:20:53

oh and btw you do get Child Benefit for each extra child you have don't you?

Tbh it's a straw man anyway. Hacking away benefits for additional children will save about 1% of vodafone's written-off tax bill per annum. But I guess that's OK?

greeneyed Mon 08-Oct-12 19:25:39

Flatpack okay I see where you're going with the benefits trap yes I agree lots of people would look for work when the alternative is being destitute (assuming they are able to) but where are the jobs for them to go to? If we tried your experiment of taking away the life raft yes some would swim but lots would sink. Er this is peoples lives we are talking about. Take away the benefits if the opportunitoes are ther for education and work not at a time when opportunity is diminished. We cannot just cut people addrift. If you are suggesting that girls will stop making choices to have more babies if benefits are cut, is there any evidence for this? Really I'm genuinely interested in this as a theory, what happens in countries with no welfare provision. Do the poor have less babies? Perhaps their reproductive systems close down when there aren't enough pennies coming in, no contraception, they're too incapcitated to care, they are being abused etc etc

sunflowerseeds Mon 08-Oct-12 19:27:09

I know many families living on benefits. There's been a surge in new babies since the youngest child's age when you're supposed to look for work has come down. If you've got 3 or 4 kids you might as well have another and put off work for a few more years.Your benefits rise accordingly.
It's true that working people limit their families because they can't afford another.

NightLark Mon 08-Oct-12 19:37:56

So you deal with the 'problem' of people having more children than the state would like by tring to dissuade future breeders. And you do this by withholding money from current families. So you decide that this 5 year old is going to be hungry, that 12 year old is going to be cold, those kids over there are going to live in substandard housing and feel their families every worry each time they grow out of their shoes. So that the world can see what a BAD WOMAN