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

Divatheshopaholic - why are you both going on benefit? Have you both lost your jobs?

bb99, God knows how you encourage people to make better decisions and it's obviously a really crap decision financially to have children if you're on benefits anyway because the more children you have the poorer you will be, despite the increase in benefits. But many people on benefits would have had children BEFORE they ended up on benefits and in any case we can't go down the road of telling people they can't afford children and frankly I don't see why the poor don't have as much right to have children as the rich.

Interestingly, in America, when they tried to discourage women from having more children by not increasing state benefits in line with the number of kids, it resulted in an increase in the abortion rate - opening up a whole new moral dilemma.

wrong, wrong, wrong.

Families in reciept of benefit actually get LESS the more kids they have. This is the same in Child benefit for example...more for your first and less ther after. It is even the same for an absent parent and their very own flesh and blood! IE: The CSA only expect the absent parent [usually dad] to pay so much for the first and less ther after and even less after that if he starts a new family! So, they do not get paid more at all. And, compared to a lot of European countries we do rather poorly indeed at supporting larger familes with most already living in poverty/being classed as poor.

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.

OMG, will it really happen?
Dh and i both were going go on benefit and have big family. Wouldnt be great to be full time mum and dad.

If you believe that educational standards have been raised after 13 years of a Labour government then you are delusional.

Attainment has increased but that does not relate to standards.

And cinnamontoast - I'm not concerned by the family size, it offends me that I have to support any other family, regardless of whether that is one or ten children, that the State has to fully support as I made a conscious effort to only have the number of children that I can finiacially support.

Why should I work and pay taxes for other people who procreate irresponsibly?

If everyone only had children that they can afford without requiring benefits from the government than this country would be a much better place.

The exception to this is when people lose their jobs through no fault of their own. Of course State aid should be available in these circumstances - that's what welfare was invented for. My comments are aimed at the many families who have never had the income to support their offspring but opt to have children regardless.

ha,
GOOD.

Harpsichord, can I refer you to a poster on a previous thread who suggested the unemployed should start their own small businesses?

Don't worry, she got a good kicking.

c as a curiosity (and I am getting kicked off the computer now ) how could you encourage people to make better decisions (ie either try to return to work), or have fewer children if they genuinely cannot afford them - whatever their income stream?

It seems people have been left to it and had few consequencces for their actions (eg more kids on benefits does equal more money, albeit not a massive amount of income, generally) and have continued to make alternative decision - which is their right - goodness knows, we've all made crap poor decisions or got caught out from time to time. But when or how does this stop in the current economic climate - If it isn't turned around we could be in real problems in years to come, so what do you do?

does anyone think they might reopen the Foundlings Hospital?

what wrenches my guts is these threats about the 'jobless' and how they are to be encouraged to 'get back into work'

the public spending cuts will put (it's estimated) 300,000 people out of work...
WHAT 'work' are they supposed to do??

LabouR, not Labout (which sounds like a Tory slogan)

bb99, yes educational standards have been raised under Labout but it's too soon to know what the impact of that will be - some one who was five when Labour got in would be only 18 now, and it's not as if they waved a magic wand in any case. Plus, having ACCESS to education isn't much good if your family background predisposes you to think it's a waste of time.

Agree totally that you don't have to have an exam certificate to be able to make responsible decisions about your life but the fact is lots of people don't make very good decisions (I include myself in that) and one of the functions of the welfare state is to provide a safety net. Personally I'd prefer it to be a non-judgemental one.

Tbh, the whole thing about large families on benefits has been blown up out of all proportion. Only 3 per cent of families in the UK have more than 3 children, down from 8 per cent in 1961, so the press/Tories have as usual whipped up a frenzy of disapproval about something that's the exception, not the rule.

Apologies - it wasn't the OP that I had issues with. It was another post which stated that it was foreigners that tend to have larger families.

I haven't had the time to read the whole thread so I'm not sure if views similar to my own have already been published - so apologies if similar views have been posted.

I had my DS at the age of 28. I was in full-time work in a relatively low-paid job (19,000 pa) and my husband was training to be a teacher. We managed, just! We would have loved to have had a 2nd child but finances dictated that this would have been impossible as we didn't earn much but too much to be eligible for benefits. We are now trying for another child as we are finally in a position where we could support another in addition to our own dd, however this is not proving to be as straightforward as we had hoped.

So, you tell me why I should support the families of people who have never worked in their lives and who can procreate at will. What the coalition government is saying is that you shouldn't have children that you can't afford and that the State that will not support you if you choose to do so.

I can't see what is wrong in that sentiment. Hopefully it will deter people having children with the belief that the State will be a safety net for them.

Having said that, I am disturbed by the undelying racism from the OP.

Holla cinnamontoast

haven't caught up on the whole thread, but we're just coming out of the Labour Govt years - so haven't the standards for education been raised? (referring to your 70% improvement)

Totally agree that education is only worth the investment, but don't you agree that a significant majority of, even less well off people, have access to the education and FREE CONTRACEPTIVES and advice (bar religious and family pressures) to enable them to make informed choices about the size of their families.

As the offspring of a rather poorly educated family I am finding the whole 'the less well off / well educated people are totally unable to make decisions for themselves' thing a bit frustrating.

People, even those who don't achieve 5 A-C's are not stupid - they're just not good at passing exams. So, I completely believe that ANY individual can look at their personal circumstances and make choices about how many children they will or will not have.

All about personal responsibility ie. if I have an income of £26K per year whether or NOT that is through benefits, I have the choice to have another child / not have another child. Therefore it is up to me to decide just how much of the money I have available I will spend on children.

There are problems when people wind up on benefits after having a large family that they expected to be able to care for themselves, but ALL people have to choose betwee

a) More money and less kids

B) More kids and less money

It's a basic fact of life - why should people on benefits be treated any differently from non-benefit claimants by removing the expectation that they are capeable of reaching their own conclusions or making their own decisions?

For God's sake, (not so) Complimentary, give ISNT a break. She said 'strict religious communities of branches of christianity and judaism', which clearly didn't refer to Christianity as a whole. Now perhaps we can move on.

ISNT. You wote the words trillions,as if Christians were having very large families which they are not. Small Christian groups may be having large familes, but as your link points out this Christian sect is only 16,000 strong in this country. I wish you were as good at figures as you are at swearing! Of course I realise their are Christian sects in this country, but not in the numbers you suggest!

If you ever come around here I could take you to some of their churches.

They wouldn't let you in, of course. And you couldn't see in, because their churches don't have any windows. But still, they are there, alright. Not sure if that would convince you though, you seem terribly sure that they are imaginary

Why the fuck I should have to google for you, i don't know.

brethren

more

compimentary you can't read.

Are you trying to say that you took me literally, that you genuinely thought that I meant there were families here who were having more children than the entire population of the planet?

An interesting interpretation, but if that was what you thought, why did you ask

"This 'exclusive Brethren' how many members does it have? They live in Plymouth, you're having a laugh, no Christian groups in Plymouth have 'trillions' of members having children do they?"

I never said that they had trillions of members and I never said that I live in Plymouth. Please, you must try reading what is written.

Why are you having such trouble processing the possibility that there might be Christian sects living very traditional lives here in the UK? Just because they don't live in your area? It seems strange.

I don't understand why you keep accusing me of lying either, it's out of line.

"ISNT* You are the one who used the words.
I quote from your text;
'That in my area, there are strict religious communities of branches of Christianity and Judaism and they are the ones who are having trillions of children'. Look ISNT it's not very fair to get shirty with me, your the one who typed the above words. Perhaps it was tongue in cheek, I don't care. I've made plenty of tongue in cheek remarks myself. I will always answer in a polite way, but you must expect to be challenged when you insult me and call me a 'plank'.
I looked at Lovethechaos. link and found it interesting, but this country does not have huge numbers of Christians procreating.

So you flat out do not believe that there are very deeply Christian communities in the UK who have large families?

You really have very little imagination.

Another Link. It isn't just the Duggars. This quiverfull movement is taking off amongst Christians. Soon there probably will be trillions of them, all believing that the earth is only 6000 years old. Duh.

Lovethechaos.I looked at both links. I am aware of Christians having large families in the USA, but as far as I'm aware this movement is not large in this country, although it may be spreading. It is certainly worth investigating and I find it interesting. I am also aware that certain sects of judaism, have large families and this is promoted in the Torah.

"On and on the religion / lots of kids thing I mentioned earlier that in my area there are strict religious communities of branches of christianity and judaism and they are the ones who are having trillions of children."

"We live in a part of the country which has a large population of Exclusive Brethren. They are a breakaway group of a sect called the Plymouth Brethren, who I think you are more likely to have heard of."

Try reading complimentary.

I have not said there are trillions of these families. I said they are a large Christian group who are having large families. And they are - having large families.

Nor have I said that I live in Plymouth.

Why are you hell-bent on accusing me of lying? Is it really beyond your ken to imagine that there are religious groups like this in the UK?