Jeremy Hunt: "Don't expect us to pay for your children"

Just so the facts are there for anyone debating...
Size of family by ethnicity[[http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=458
]]
Size of family by religion www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=961
Am only 1/3rd of the way through the thread though so will finish reading now

"tell me what town or planet you live on where CHRISTIANS are have millions of kids."

The state of Utah. (I know that isn't in the UK, and I don't live there, but just saying - it's on this planet). I think Mormons are increasingly seen as mainstream in the US.

Also, Ireland, apparently. (Although interestingly, Italy, not so much).

I know large families aren't really promoted by the C of E, but, then as far as I am aware, the Episcopal church isn't really where it's at in terms of growth.

Are you for real complimentary?

BB99 I also enjoyed reading your post and agree with the points you made.

BB99
Thankyou for your input, I enjoyed reading it
and it was well put. I'm a stay at home mum, and many/most of my friends work and have children, and they envy me. It certainly is a'proper job'

Good evening.

Continuing.

Personally I don't think it's unrealistic to have some sort of cap on benefits ie. making work pay (more than benefits).

When I came off benefits and got back to work, many moons ago, I don't think I would have bothered had I made myself worse off. People who are benefit claimants are not stupid, some infact are remarkeably clever - they can do the maths...and can understand time pressure imperatives.

We have an awful (IMVHO) lot of carrot in this country - ATM - lots of access to free health care, welfare that surpases other developed countries in the West (read USA), free education that is open to all, regardless of economic background or ability, state pensions, freedom of expression, legally protected rights including equality legislation, some social housing and home ownership schemes, in some cases (though not as much as during the 1970's and 1980's) a degree of social mobility.

Oh and police who do not carry guns and NO CIVIL WAR.

Sounds v. v. lovely to me - lots and lots of carrots and reasons to be involved in society.

I am not saying it is perfect, things never are, but on balance, the UK is a fantastic place to live, even if you have a squillion kids and lose your job.

However, there is currently very little stick in so far as encouraging the FEW individuals who DO exist who are unwilling to be responsible for themselves and ARE fully able to be responsible for themselves.

It is fairly common in other European countries to lose benefits if you aren't making any effort to help yourself. It is not as common to just accept that some children will be raised from the cradle to the grave, on benefits. IMO it's just not a healthy way to live - for either the adults or the children (especially as by defenition, if you are a child being raised on benefits you are much more likely to be classed as economically deprived and poor).

In the Netherlands if you are unlucky enough for your life plans to go astray - and life is never predictable - then when your youngest child is school aged you are EXPECTED to get back to work. If you are unable to get back to work, or are unable to rejoin your previous career / job due to injury, then you are supported to retrain into another career. If you don't, you get less money from the state - it's simple.

(annecdotal evidence - my Dutch friend was permanently injured by her XP and left to raise 2 small children. The neck injury prevented her from returning to work as a Nursery School Teacher - a career she loved and missed - but when her youngest was school aged she had to retrain to work in a different field and is now totally independant of the State and v. v. happy)

People still have the choice not to get back to work, or to have as many children as they want, or in some cases start work, but there are consequences to their actions. The people who claim benefits are treated like adults.

With the best will in the world, some people are too unmotivated to want to work and some people are too unmotivated to want to take responsibility for their own actions - we all do it at times...non of us are perfect regardless of our income or achievements in life. The less well off and benefit claimants among us are no different...

Personally I would like to see welfare reform that enables and actively encourages people to get back their independence from the state as I honestly believe it is a more posative way of life to be independant of benefits - if at all possible.

Society does view people who do not earn their own money as second class citizens whether or not they are supported by the state or their partner - of course this does not apply if you are super rich and have a private income . I'm currently a SAHM and lots of people don't view this as a proper job!

If anything we should be having more children to support all the old people.
Why should we stop having children when the rest of the world just carries on and WE have to pay for them?

Complimentary - You cite foreign fiddlers as being 'worse' than those from the UK. However, my view is the opposite - UK fiddlers are worse than foreigners as there is nothing patriotic in 'ripping off' the hard working UK taxpayer! The golden rule is simple - if you can't afford to have and raise kids - don't have'em! Simples!

Cinnamon -.

"No, it's an argument for more support for children and families who need it, not less"

I guess it depends what you mean by 'support' though.

Under Labour families in the bottom 10% income group had a significant increase in income. And yet education outcomes and social mobility have not shown a commensurate improvement.

Generational benefit reliance also appears to have increased. I don't think there is enough evidence to show a causal relationship - but it's a worrying thought -.no?

"GARCIA" as it was me who posted the thread about foreigners having more children. I shall make my views clear to you. Some groups of foreigners do have more children than the indeginous British who are in fact on the decline. In fact "another" MNs have said that in Scotland, the Scotttish are so far on the decline that they will need, immigrants to feel the job vacancies. Apart from that I do not want to pay for other peoples children, whether they are 10 children from a Somalia family or 10 British born children. Of course there are always exeptions to any rule, and say if people fall out of work, or divorce etc , then we must support people on hard times. We should also support people who have disabled children and the respite care that these family will need. If people deliberatley have children they cannot support I feel that is a different case, and asperation should be rewarded and not fecklessness. Why should I support the workshy and irresponsible person/persons, when myself and my husband have to work hard to support our children, so that any lazy bugger can stay in bed til 1pm in the afternoom? No, support the really needy and the others should get out of bed and get a job!

I'll judge who I like.

ornamentalcabbage We are in the same situation. It does not entitle me to judge others, though. The humane attitude is to help those less fortunate than us.

Why thank you, ISNT

Good post cinnamontoast

It IS ideological Tethersend, isn't it, and one of the scariest things about all the cuts is how seamlessly they fit with Tory ideology. Shrink the state, cap benefits and immigration, punish anyone who's unfortunate enough not to have been born into affluence or who's fallen on hard times. It's so easy for them they can do it on autopilot and meanwhile the Tory press is dusting down all the old 'scrounger' headlines.

We probably won't have another child now because we want to continue to be able to support the one we already have should our income fall. What's the problem, isn't that just being responsible? Why shouldn't others be the same?

Well don't expect those children to grow up and pay for you.

"does anyone think they might reopen the Foundlings Hospital?"

Joking aside, keeping a child in care costs the state far more than paying their feckless parents to sling them some chicken nuggets once in a while.

The whole argument moves seamlessly from 'we don't have an endless pot of money' to 'parents who smoke, drink, feed their kids shit and don't deserve children'. This move is nothing to do with economics. It's ideological.

The only way you can stop people having more children than they can afford is to sterilise them or remove any surplus children. Fancy it?

No, it's an argument for more support for children and families who need it, not less.

Lego -

"I would suggest you google the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and UNICEF to find out about how the UK does in regards to the welfare of it's children."

This is not an argument for preserving the status quo though - is it?

cast aspirations?

Sorry I don't understand that line. Do you mean aspersions? Or something else?

When you say you do not wish to pay for the children of other people Garcia, does that mean that you are happy if these children are not fed? Because that to me is what you are saying. What then - taking them into care is more expensive than giving their families enough to feed them. Aside from the moral issue of forcibly removing children from loving families. or would you just leave them in hunger?

Would you abolish free school meals for 3rd and subsequent children? That would follow naturally from your position - do you support that policy? Or in fact reading your post again, would you prefer to abolish free school meals entirely? What about other services? Should 3rd and subsequent children be allowed to access them?

cinnamontoast - well thank you for your histronic posts. They made very interesting reading.

I am still concerned that you may not have understood the underlying premise of my posts. I shall clarify - I made a decision not to have any more children as I could not afford to. Therefore, I do not want to pay for the children of people (whether I have to pay £1 or £1,000 towards that child) who believe it is acceptable to have them and request that the State support them.

I do not wish to cast aspirations but I can only assume that you are one of the individuals to whom I refer in the previous paragraph.

And btw - my health policy is the one of the best available: underlying conditions, oncology drugs ftw.

And finally, Garcia, I would refer you to the Tutu quote from the OP except I suspect there's not a hope in hell you'd know what he was on about.

Garcia, you go off and live on a little island and enjoy your self sufficiency ( though don't expect to rely on private healthcare if you have serious health problems). Personally I prefer to be part of society, one in which we all contribute according to our means.

Frankly I'm getting pretty sick of the peevish way some MNers say 'I don't pay my taxes to support [insert benefits scroungers/single parents/whatever the latest DM hate figure is]' as if their taxes go straight into the pocket of whatever poor sap has most recently managed to outrage them. How much of 'your' money do you think goes to other people's kids? It just doesn't work like that. I might just as well say I don't pay my taxes to support defence spending/traffic wardens/public libraries - can't think when I last went in one of those. Every street you walk down has been paved and lit with public money, every park and public place paid for out of the national spending pot, so there's no point claiming that you're somehow above taking advantage of what the state provides.

The state pays families a basic subsistence level - barely that in many cases. The idea that people have large families and just sit back and rake in the money is ludicrous.

Cinnamontoast - you haven't responded to my question. Why should I be responsible for supporting parents who have children regardless of whether they have the means to support them?

I have worked incredibly hard so that I can get to a level where I can support a 2nd child. I also pay enough taxes to ensure that I will never be a burden on the welfare state regardless of how much I smoke and drink (I have private healthcare too through my work so your argument is void).

I have a problem in paying taxes to support irresponsible people who choose to have as many children as they wish knowing that the State will support them. As mentioned in an earlier post - I chose NOT to have a 2nd child because at the time I couldn't afford to do so. You cannot deny that if everyone took that same choice that the country wouldn't be better (and richer)place.

But Garcia10, maybe you have smoked or drank irresponsibly, or made poor dietary choices. You might as well say, why should my taxes pay for your healthcare?