to be fed up of George sodding Osbourne and his Knobbish Ideas(1000 Posts)
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?
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.
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.
Stealth boast alert...
Well I've got a snake in my compost bin.
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)
Well I can see some rats on this thread! <<wins>>
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!
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.
nowt changes ...
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.
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.
Patriarchal dystopia? Purlease. Don't have more children than you can afford. How hard is it?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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>>
Taking money from the sick and disabled
Taking money from children.
Nobody has been able to answer my question about what happens to those children who are born over the quota. Funny that...
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.
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.
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
This thread is not accepting new messages.
Please login first.