To think the level of state involvement many posters expect is bonkers?

The problem with making people move is that they lose informal support that sometimes means public services have to step in.
As someone earlier on the thread pointed out, parents who struggled often used to have help of extended family who met the gaps. My MIL often fed some of her in-laws kids who were fairly neglected. People who are carers can often manage at home if they have nearby family to help, but may not if that is withdrawn.
My own parents lived at home until they died, but may not have managed to if my sister had not lived nearby.
People call to families to take responsibility, but destroy the ability of families to do exactly this.

I agree with you about the social housing in central London being for key-workers or others who need to be there.
We started off with our family in London but moved two hours away when they left home and since retirement have moved back, to outer London to be near to our children.
Most people can move if they need to, relatives can move about at different ages to be near family, nobody really needs to stay exactly where they started.
If people genuinely need to work in central London and need social housing they should have first call on it. But if more of us move away from the centre there should be less need for key workers there over time.

I meant 'all fine' as in, she had the kids despite not being able to financially support them so they're here now and have to be housed and provided for, primarily by the state.

So it's 'not fine' that she made those decisions but I don't think the kids should be punished for it.

But at least some acknowledgement of how nice her life is thanks to the state would be nice.

But there isn't, no self-awareness at all. Just the entitlement and complaints of public services not being up to scratch in her opinion. When she's just draining 'the system' at every turn and complaining this is the first year in many that she and can afford a holiday abroad with all the kids instead of the 3/4 UK holidays they usually have per year.

The extra income is coming from her YouTube channel where she makes a few hundred a month exploiting her DC and complaining about housing, the NHS and schools.

It absolutely doesn't. But, tbf, I think the success of the sure start centres was creating an artificial community with a focus on childcare that filled the gap of decimated wider families. Obviously that's as helpful to the current generation of parents as meals on wheels is to the elderly. It needs to be there to work.

Tooth brushing, diet and basic care equals medical training?

Well the OP you so revere doesn't want money being spent on treating the children of single mothers in hospital, so let's hope there is some similarity.

I don’t think learning and passing on basics re diet and brushing teeth is the same as medical qualifications; do you?

I don’t think that’s “all fine”
at all. The problem isn’t her complaining, the problem is that she’s had 6 children and is living off the state. I’m all for SAHM, when their partner is funding it, not the taxpayer.

Shall we just get the untrained adult child of a GP to act as your doctor? If the training their parents recieved 25 years ago was so good, they'll have enjoyed the benefits of it.

However in the child with CP needed tube feeding or was asphyxiating etc that would qualify even if very young etc alls having things like fits etc or becoming cyanotic or having things like cellulitis or more infections generally. Also physio and ot exercises etc . The health visitor or child development team should help with this.

The full time workers on a low wage claiming benefits are unlikely to be contributing much, if any, tax.

Many people work part time because they can claim top up benefits.

If private companies paid their workers more I agree, they would pay more tax, but successive governments, started by Labour, introduced an effective subsidy for companies to pay workers lower wages. If any government was brave enough to remove that subsidy, then those companies would have to pay more, or not have workers.

Would you distinguish between worthy and not worthy unearned income? If I worked all my life and put away savings instead of buying cars or holidays, then lived off the interest, why should I pay tax on my income, when somebody earning the same who blew it all on having fun will potentially have less to live on, but will be subsidised by the state (partly from the taxes I'd pay on my saved income)? What if I took those savings and invested them in shares, then lived off the dividends - why should I pay more tax for being careful and planning to not be a financial burden on the state? How about if I built a business, sacrificed time and effort, and then sold that business and lived on the £££ I'd sold it for? The profit would have already been taxed, so why would I pay double tax on any income I took from that pot? That's called the politics of envy, and it's not a good look.

Of course Reeves is keeping the two child cap, it's business as usual when she takes the reins.

I think the days of people thinking having DC will get them a council house are long gone but still, many people do have kids that they can't afford to support and do rely on the state to do so.

And we all know someone or many people who did just that.

I know several. One is a woman who had 3 kids before she was 21. The DP fucked off, she met a new bloke who relocated to move in with her after a few months of knowing each other. He has a DC from a previous relationship he doesn't see.

They went on to have 3 kids together and married. He does work full time but she doesn't as she said the UC money she lost meant she was only better off £200 a month when she worked part time so she'd rather be a SAHM. And they have a 4 bed housing association property.

All fine IMO. BUT she moans constantly about her house not being nice enough, about the NHS, benefit systems and the schools not meeting her wants when the demands she places on those services are extreme.

When she's barely contributed to 'the system' at all, her family costs 'the system' ££££ and all she does is complain about it.

Reeves has already said they’ll retain the two child cap.

Yup, that's evident when we see them arriving (literally) by the boatload - you look and think, "thank goodness, some lovely, gentle, mild-mannered, well-educated, stable men to integrate, work hard and save the country" 😂

You’re comparing two entirely different things. Just to give you an excuse to bash pensioners. Again. 🙄

@Giraffesandbottoms

they pay significantly more tax already. That’s fine. They shouldn’t pay more than they do, because they will leave and then people will really be fucked.

Exactly. Look at the rumours re the multi millionaire Tyson Fury apparently relocating to the Isle of Man. So, do we think he's going there for the weather, the steam trains, the horse trams or maybe it's because the Island is our closest tax haven? Answers on a postcard!

Sorry, but IMO your post is ill-informed. Thousands of people make the choice to have kids when they are not in stable relationships, because they know they won't have to take financial responsibility for them. It's shitty, because those children will likely be brought up in some level of poverty, and will find it hard to break the cycle - it is possible, but hard.

Easy, we're constantly being told that most of the asylum seekers are highly qualified/educated and want to work in the UK, so they can be given jobs to process others. Win win!

But this proves there ARE people who milk
the system - like this absolute arsehole!

you and your daughter aren’t part of that, clearly. But you know someone directly who is.

“Why shouldn't the wealthy pay more tax? unearned income attracts just 20%, yet the investor could be earning v large amounts of money”

they pay significantly more tax already. That’s fine. They shouldn’t pay more than they do, because they will leave and then people will really be fucked.

And where do you find several thousand spare civil servants to actually do that processing? It's not always about the money.

Sorry i didnt realise you hadnt seen it. It is on the thread

Where the hell did I mention your husband sleeping on the sofa? I was talking about myself. Didn't even know you had a disabled husband who slept on the sofa? Did you mention it in another comment? Because I was responding to your comment saying you rent from a housing association not the council. I haven't read every single comment you posted here.
I apologise if I offended you though

Anyone poor would not say such nonsense. If you are poor you know getting a council place is hard and you are more likely to be stuck in temporary accommodation that no one would choose to live in. Okay they are not on the streets, but they will not be in a good situation.

@XenoBitch