If you can't afford children you shouldn't have them.

[MrsArchieTheInventor]

"If you can't afford children you shouldn't have them" [and] "child benefit and tax credits should be abolished" with the mantra that if she choses to be childless she should not be forced to pay for the 'breeding' choices of others.

A Facebook friend of mine. I didn't retaliate.

Oh dear WMW, when you're forced into twisting stuff to that extent, I think it means you've lost the debate.

Never mind, next time maybe?

Oh boy, that deconstruction of my argument was so accurate, I mean, it's like you're actually in my mind!

"everyone has a right to be funded by other people, always, for any activity they wish to partake in, irrespective of cost " what like fox hunting you mean? Or looting? Yeah sure, that was my argument!

"that governments should never seek to limit this," - nooo, course not, let's all be anarchists!

"that all teh money should be found - indeed could be found - by going after tax avoiders," closer, but no. That we could find more money to plug the deficit by turning our attention to tax evaders than to benefit cheats.

"and that anyone who disagrees with this premise, in part or sum, is "an ignorant twat" - I think you'll find that was in relation to the one-child policy and possibly one of your clever posts too

Wow, the intelligence shown on this thread is striking!

Rhubarb, it is entirely posible to point something out, without recommending it or wanting it.

You seem to have this polarised mindset in that someone either totally agrees with you, or believes in the total opposite.

You took my China point totally out of context to go off on a froth, conveniently forgetting my conditional "it depends on how desperate the state is".

It is entirely possible to believe that one should not fund other people's children without therefore wanting to tip their babies on rubbish tips.

Why then are people so incensed about benefit cheat when we can clearly see by those figures that benefit cheats are a drop in the ocean?

I didnt realise we were only talking about benefit cheats, I thought it was about benefits in general. None of my posts have been complaining about benefit cheats or benefit claimants, I'm complaining that I think the system is too generous in some areas while being too tight in others, because I don't think a good safety net system should support people to have as many children as they want when they are able bodied and earn nothing. For whatever reason that may be.

Why do people have such strong views on those recieving benefit and why is it implied that thise on benefit don't really need it

I don't have strong views about those recieving benefits. I have strong views about people who have more than one child knowing that they will definitely have to rely onthe state to provide financially for that child. There is a very big difference. I haven't implied that people on benefits don't really need it, and I don't believe that to be true.

That they could just stop having babies and go out and get a job

I appreciate that it is very hard to get a job at the moment, but it is not hard to stop having babies, so people could 'just stop' Genuine accidents are a small minority.

Why aren't our resources focused instead on stopping tax avoiders?

I don't know, I don't run the country. But I agree that resources should be put into stopping tax avoiders, as well as, not instead of, encouraging people to only have children if they have the means to bring them up.

Why aren't we angry that the Tory government have made it easier for companies to be based in the UK but have offshore accounts

I don't know enough about that tbh, but I would have thought we are all angry about government doing too much to help big business and not enough to help the general population.

I wonder if my tax is funding your Child benefit? Or funded you through university? Or is funding your childrens schooling?

WMW YOU said: "The Chinese had a draconian, albeit cheap and effective model"

The bolding is my own. It's there in black and white. The One Child Policy if effective only in that babies have been murdered in order to keep in line with the policy. How the fuck this is "effective" is anyone's guess.

Dear Lord.

I dont think you have to have a large family for it to be generous, using an online calculator it says for a rent of £400 a month a parent not working with one child would get net £14,212.04. Thats without FSM, free scool trips, free prescriptions and about £17,500 gross salary. Add on more children or DLA and its far higher.

Thats where the problem lies, why work when you can chose to have that much paid to you for doing nothing. Lower it or issue vouchers and most people would find work, even if it means setting up their own business or moving area etc.

Nobody should have the right to have others fund their lifestyle choice or expect the government to ensure there choices are funded. Sheer madness. Personal responsibility seems a novelty to many.

Oh dear WMW, when you're forced into twisting stuff to that extent, I think it means you've lost the debate.

I've been consistent, y our and Rhubarb's argument style seems to consist mainly of jumping around like gadflies, pulling all sorts of red herrings up, and going off on froths to try to prevent yourselves being pinned down.

HappyMummy, do the sums. Take all your expenses off that and see what you are left with, particularly if you are paying debts as well.

Presumably if you are on DLA you CAN'T work.

Oh yes, very generous. See everyone rush to give up work and claim.

Still waiting for anyone to answer my question about the jobs available vs unemployed figures.

Maybe, WMW, you could answer it? As you're being such a brilliant debater and Me and Rhubarb are being all rubbish and fishy and insecty.

The worrying thing is that children are now being bought up in households where benefits is the sole income for two generations, and see the state providing as the norm and carry on to do the same.

What I also find frustrating, is that anecdotally, through my job working with families, 97% of those on child protection for neglect are on benefits, usually with three or more children. These are the people who have got all the time in the world to devote to their children's care as they don't have the distraction of work. I am sure if I looked into research when I had time, this would be backed up by evidence.

Thats where the jobs come from, they set up their own business, cos it's that easy.

HMOO - if you're talking about HB, then that money goes to the landlord - not the claimant, so I'm not sure what your point is?

Add in DLA and you subtract a far bigger amount compared to residential care etc.

Crystal, you don't have to be out of work to claim DLA. It's not an out of work benefit and lots of DLA claimants work.

ShirelyKnottage - the policy was effective, wasn't it? It kept the population down. If you kill people, there aren't so many of them, you might think.

Nobody has said that it is right or even justifiable to do this. It clearly isn't. But that doesn't mean that it didn't achieve the objective.

Back to the point, I agree in principle that people shouldn't have children knowing that someone else will have to pay for them, but I can't see any way of enforcing this principle without it being the children who lose out. Some people are irresponsible, that's the way it is, and those of us who are not have to give them the same support as the ones who've genuinely fallen on hard times. It's not as though the kids have brought it on themselves.

Where are the jobs?

Still waiting for anyone to answer my question about the jobs available vs unemployed figures. Maybe, WMW, you could answer it? As you're being such a brilliant debater and Me and Rhubarb are being all rubbish and fishy and insecty.

And Frothy :o

But you know the answer to your question, you just don't like it.

I stand corrected Outraged. Stand by my point though - generous is pushing it.

whatmeworry, I think our discussion is over.

Outraged, thank you for addressing those points.
I don't understand however how you can think that benefits are too generous? Have you ever claimed benefits yourself? We had a great thread on here a few months back when some very patient posters explained just how much they received and where it went. It was very enlightening and I don't think many people were saying that benefits were generous after that discussion.

Of course benefit cheats need to be stopped, but my worry is that all our attention is focused on them and many people are ignorant of just how much benefit cheats cost the state compared to those who avoid paying their taxes.

As for having more than one child when you cannot afford it. Well personally I would not like to dictate such rights onto anybody, no matter how much money they did or didn't have. Certainly these days I believe it is a lot harder for people to get a council house and when you consider the monumental effort in raising a child, I doubt there are many who do so just to claim the pittance they get from the government.

Child benefit rates are currently £20 for one child and £13.40 for additional children. So this in itself does not encourage people to go mad and pop out 20 at a time. Plus if a single mum had one child to get a council flat, why then would she go on to have further kids? That argument makes no sense because families are left in crowded flats now, sleeping in one room in many instances, because of a shortage of council houses. You don't have further children to get more money, not with a Tory government in power.

If you want to encourage less children then you need to also look at the rich who spawn 3, 4 and 5 kids or more as well as the poorest of society. Over-population affects us ALL so we ALL need to take responsibility. Again, by targeting the poor it looks as though you are blaming them alone for the debt crisis and them alone for the over-population of the UK when actually that is far from the truth.

outraged I think the fact that you don't know enough about tax evasion/havent formulated opinions on it, whilst you have about benefit claimants privés the point being made by rhubarb et al...that is the way the government like it and the media spin it

Shirley, HB often goes to the claimant before it gets to the LL.

I honestly don't know what the answer is actually WMW.

Please, PLEASE enlighten me - because everyone is going on about people on benefits and the "lifestyle choice" and blah blah, but no one is answering me when I point out that there are not enough jobs for averyone currently claiming out of work benefits. 2.2 million few jobs actually - and I'd love you to answer me about this point.

So what, outraged? So they get some money which they then give to the landlord?

And?

Rhubarb, I think benefits are too generous only in that there is nothing to dis encourage people who are already on benefits from having more children. It is generous to give people who earn nothing more money just because they made a choice to have more children. But on the other hand I think the system should be a lot more generous for thise who find themselves recently out of work, and especially those who are disabled.

I do claim CB and will continue to get it with the changes, but I haven't claimed anything else, including TCs.

I realise that is turning round under this government and there at people living in overcrowded accommodation, and these days it is very hard to get much out of the government, so things are changing.

You say you wouldn't like to dictate anyone's choice to have children, well, neither would I! But I don't think that saying you will only get government support for one child is dictating anything, I think it's just encouraging personal responsibility. I don't think having children is something that we have such a strong right to that the state should pay for it. Children are a blessing, things like decent healthcare and education are more important than allowing people to have as many children as they want.

The rest of your post I agree completely with.