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

Shocking:

" When income taxes were 90%, sheltering wealth was to be expected. But Britain?s central and local taxes are now among the lowest in the developed world. London?s super-rich give almost nothing back, through taxes, charity, public works or anything. That any government should permit them ?a hiding place from fair taxation? Peston regards as obscene."

Will this change? I don't fucking think so

exactly CommanderCool. The super rich are laughing at the public. They are setting the public at each others' throats, picking on families on 10, so that we don't focus attention on what the super rich have done, are doing and intend to do. We already bailed the bankers out and paid with our jobs, but they are already saying we may need to do a second bailout. We'll gladly go along with it, because we are too busy attacking Mrs. Jones, her 10 children and their 60 inch plasma TV.

They intend to limit our families because they really do believe we are "feckless scroungers", and they want to get as many of us believing it too, so that we help in our own decline.

The media must look for months to find these families with 10 children and their 60 inch plasma TVs. They are few and far between, and the cost of supporting them is minimal, and probably less than what we forked out on MPs' expenses for porn movies, bath plugs, home flipping, and kitchen refits.

They are picking a scapegoat and they parade these families to us in the media so that we can jeer at them. But they know very well it has got nothing to do with the small amount of money that really goes to supporting these families.

Yes it's amazing how accepting we are of attacks on the poor while allowing the rich to take 'the piss because they somehow deserve not to have to pay tax like the rest of us.

who runs Britain?

It is an attack on the poor, which is why the word "undeserving" is bandied about.

Chil1234, it's the underlying message of "sustainability" and why Porritt says we should be restricted to having 2 children. These scrounger messages are not really about the money, because the money is peanuts to the money they spend on Trident and much else. It is to do with giving the public a message that they should reduce their family sizes, because they are a cost and a burden on hard-working tax payers. It is population control and that is why it is "carbon footprint", which is a measure of what resources the population is using and why it must be restricted, according to Porritt and the other messengers of doom.

No-one's mentioning carbon footprint in this particular debate. It's more about the financial aspect of 'family planning' (to use a slightly old fashioned term). Some people decide the extra expense of more children is worth going without in some other aspect of life. Others prefer a smaller family because they still want to be able to afford a few luxuries. No-one's under any obligation to either increase or decrease the population, I don't think.

How many children has Cameron got?

We live in a free country (for now), you can have as many children as you like. We're not China yet (although Porritt would probably support some of their policies). Very few people have lots of children anymore, which is why we have this declining birthrate, and why they tell us that we need more immigrants.

It's not the problem that they are making it out to be. This personal responsibility, this "nanny statism", this lecturing and hectoring of the public is to make us less free. They are measuring our "carbon footprint", just like the eugenicists measured our IQs. Soon they will decide that some people have too large a "carbon footprint". What do you think they will then start doing?

Just to butt in.

I think that individuals, whether on or off benefits, whether HRT or not do need to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for the choices they make RE: their families'.

Individuals do need to consider how many children they are going to have and how many they can afford to have (a lot of people do this as a matter of course).

Nobody has the 'right' to have any number of children they WANT, only upto 1 child, because as a society we are (in most areas I think) prepared to sponsor a limited number of fertility treatments to enable a couple to have ONE child only (ie - if you are fortunate enought to have 1 child from the small amount of help available, you don't get any other paid for help to have another child)

QED: as a society we have already determined that there is a financial responsibility element to having kids - we'll sponsor you for X rounds of FT in order to have a possible 1 child, but then you're on your own and have to find your own money to do the job...

So...just because you are lucky enough to be v. fertile, does that give you the right to have any number of children if you are unable to financially support them?

OK, the welfare state DOES need to be flexible to take into account changing circumstances, but I think we need to be discussing personal responsibility. Just a thought.

Well I didn't do that, when I had my children I thought that their father might support them (along with me)

I'm certainly paying for having had my children.... in many ways. I'm having to be carer/parent. It's their father who's not paying for them, in anyway whatsoever.

David Cameron would love my x if he met probably. Same smug attitude, and they both hold single mtohers in contempt.

Shirelyknot Respect! for remaining celibate in these promiscuous times, and you're a Christian even better, and you love animals, having a little budgie called Jim, had 7 children (you probably fostered), you become more saintly with ever letter I type. One thing that does puzzle however is why someone as obviously lovely as you would call someone she does not know a moron?
But anyway I digress.
Hunts' statement that people should not have children they cannot afford to keep, is cleary a shot across the bows, and a warning that in future people will not be allowed to have as many children as they like and expect the state to keep them. However I believe children must be looked after, and that includes pregnant mothers. I agree with Claig in that children come very far down a pecking order for any government and they are the next generation, I don't agree with many areas of government public policy on children and in particular the criminalisation of young people, but thats another story. Electra is also right welfare covers many different circumstances and they should be considered. Now I'm serious with you, 'sister' Shirleyknot. (you're probably preetier than me)

"Most people take stock of their income when considering how many children to have."

yes most people do. So what's the big deal? It is only a small minority that have more kids. It doesn't cost us that much, and their kids will contribute to halt the declining birth rate. They are doing us a service. Labour have often told us that we need more immigration so that the pensions of our old can be paid for, since we have a declining birth rate. What's wrong with increasing our own birth rate? Who has got it in for our people?

I didn't think Hunt's statement was unreasonable and I agree with tasmin. Most people take stock of their income when considering how many children to have. If there is a limit to income from the state it's no different to being on a salary.

I'm sure part of the decision is that the more children you opt to have, the bigger the downside if you were suddenly unable to work.... it's a calculated risk.

There are always anomalies - sheer 'bad luck' for one - and I think a good system would take into account exceptional circumstances and emergency cases. Otherwise, a level playing field is a good place to start.

I really CBA to get wound up in yet another thread about it.

BUT I love that Tutu quote.

we've only got this situation, because successive governments have destroyed our manufacturing industry in their adherence to globalisation. They let the market decide and threw our jobs to the wind.

The British people aren't scroungers, they never have been. They created the Industrial Revolution taht was the engine of the world. They have been starved of jobs, that's why they are not working. Start creating local jobs in local factories and they will all be back doing what they have always done throughout history, contributuing to our society.

really you believe that these children of non working benefit culture parents will be out contributing to the economy????

Wake up, they'll be doing what they know, which is to stay home and get money off the state because you can, not their fault, but thats how it goes. We are now going into a 2nd generation of this.

Claig I agree we do need children and I am not saying the govt should provide no support but I think there should be a limit.
Is it right that people should produce children indiscrimately and expect the government to support everyone. People have to be aware that having 4+ children is their choice but not their right and that if they go down that route then maybe they will not be as finacially well off as if they had only had 2. Of course I am not suggesting povety and hunger basic human needs should always be met but this is the way of the world there is only so much money to go around and if you want something eg another chld you have to go and earn it.

"'I think we will work our way towards a position that says having more than two children is irresponsible.'
Sounds fascist to me....."

electra, you are exactly right, it is fascist. The green agenda is propagated by the elites - Jonathan Porritt, Lord Melchett, Zac Goldsmith et al.

Many of the elite, as ever, think that ordinary people are "feckless scroungers", just like the nobles thought of the serfs in olden days.

The current green party is a result of the People's Party which was co-founded by an ex-conservative and Teddy Goldsmith.

Look into the origins of the green movement in Great Britain, and you will see that the early British pioneers in the 1930s were admirers of Hitler. Hitler was a green, he was a vegetarian and anti-smoker. He was all for "nature".

mosschops30, how many of these people are really choosing to stay at home? There is a shortage of work, and too many people chasing too few jobs, which is why people have to work ever longer hours for ever less pay. If we nationalised a few industries, stopped shipping our jobs abroad, then there would be more work for everyone. They are creating a divide and conquer society, where they set one part of teh populationup against the other. That way nobody looks at the policy that has created the lack of work in the first place - globalisation and global finance.

We are all responsible for everyone else, that's why we have a National Health Service. When you are old and need care, you will be grateful that these young people will be there to look after you. That's why we in turn have to support them now, so that they can support us in the future.

What if a family have 4 children, do not need any support from the state to raise them but then the person earning the most money leaves the family.

What then? Surely welfare covers a huge range of circumstances.

'I think we will work our way towards a position that says having more than two children is irresponsible.'

Sounds fascist to me.....

Oh, right, not drunk, just an absolutely staggeringly massive moron.

I'll answer your questions.

(I'm going to ignore the bit about being preetier than me, because...what?)

Q - Have I ever had a man?
A - No. I have never had sexual intercourse or looked at a man even. I am a nun.

Q Have you ever had a baby?
A - Yes, I have had lots of babies, 7 actually and 5 dogs and also I once had a budge called Jim.

Q - Is that why you keep asking me about babies in ladies tummies?
A - Yes, I missed the day we did "where babies come from " at school, and I've waited 25 years for you to come along and explain it to me.

I am a massive racist it is true.

Can you answer my question now that you've been so hugely witty and intellegent now please. I'll ask you again.

Q - What are you proposing will happen to a person on benefits who gets pregnant?

Just to go back to the earlier comments - comparing the approach to UK child poverty, with the approach to reducing poverty in the developing world.

When it comes to overseas aid - it's commonly agreed that just giving out food and money does little to improve the medium and long term prospects for those in poverty. Their best hope to be enabled to look after themselves.

I'm pretty angry that after 3 terms (and shed loads of money) the last government didn't do more to enable those in poverty in the UK, to become autonomous and economically active.

Blanche. Irish families in this country do not have large families, most of the Irish have returned to Ireland. The Irish had large families many years ago in Ireland, my father was one of ten! So I do have some knowledge in this respect.

Im not 'all in it together' speak for yourself.

I am working a 12 hour night shift tonight so that I can take my children to school during the week, so i can pay my bills, and make our lives better.

Not so that I can help pay towards people who are choosing to stay at home. Why should I be responsible for everyone elses children, Im just doing the best I can for mine, why cant everyone