to be fed up of George sodding Osbourne and his Knobbish Ideas

[avivabeaver]

The economy is proving harder to fix than he first thought

Solution- suggest cutting £10bn from the benefits budget and "limit the number of children people can claim for". So- are you supposed to choose your 2 favourite and just feed them then? Or what?

Of course Edam. Those are the people for whom the welfare state is supposed to be there for. Not the people that conceived while on benefits, or who have one parent working for NMW but then decide to have four children.

I agree that things do change and you bossboggle are exactly who we should be helping. However, I was once asked, on a similar thread, what I would do if I woke up one day and my dh had become ill and lost his well paid job.

Well, the answer to that is nothing really. We're insured up to the hilt and I earn as much if not more than he does. Life would go on pretty much as normal.

Oh bugger, there you go, more sensible decisions. We are all responsible for ourselves, you can't get away from that basic fact.

Disgusting why?

Does the truth hurt?

Btw, I can't stand the Daily Mail. I realise what a load of shite it was when I was about 12. Incorrect assumptions can be made both ways. Oh, and troll hunting is against the rules.

I find it disturbing that the government can effectively say what size family is the ideal.

I find it even more disturbing his announcement that in exchange for giving up some employee rights they can get shares in the company they work for and not have to pay capital gains tax on their shares. Er hello...give up employee rights?? Seriously people the man is a loon and wants to slowly errode any of our rights wether it be reproduction or work related. A very dangerous man.

When it comes down to a choice between paying for the occasional drink for a person on benefits, or paying for the drainage in a tennis court for a millionaire yes I'm looking at you Gidieon I'll stand a round in the pub anytime.

So children, pensioners, disabled people, carers, and all those people who through no fault of their own cannot get a job should have no right to be represented or cared for?

No, pensioners, disabled people and carers are the people that welfare is for. Children are the responsibility of their parents, unless they find themselves temporarily out of work, in which case, again, that is what welfare is for.

See, it's the deserving vs undeserving poor again.

Well, erm yes Outraged. Children are the responsibility of their parents. So when their parents' benefits like CWB, Housing Benefit, ESA, DLA etc get cut, where does that leave the children?

And that's bad why?

Is it really so terrible to admit that some people don't deserve as much money as they get for free?

Why? Why is it so terrible to acknowledge that there are some people who are worthy of benefits and there are some people who need a kick up the bum more than they need free money.

Outraged - what happens to the children when their parents, cannot or will not be responsible for them? Is this just a fate of their birth and they should just suffer it? Telling people to be responsible is all well and good, are you going to give them the education, support and opportunities to do so first?

And obviously the welfare cuts are across the board, not just CWB.

There is no need to bring disability payments into this. They are a completely separate matter.

I don't believe benefits that provide for children should be cut for children that already exist. But like I said earlier, something could be done to drastically reduce the number of children that are conceived while parents are on benefits. They will have to get a job, or think about whether they can afford to keep their pregnancy.

But Outraged, how do you know who is "worthy" and who isn't? And on what criteria is it judged that one family is "worthy" and one isn't?

a. Jeremy Hunt (is a...) calls for abortion limit to be dropped to 12 weeks in his role of Health Minister
b. Adoption Agencies launching new drive as too few children still getting a new family
c. Cuts to benefits for children meaning more people likely to need a termination (see above) or adoption (see above) or indeed have a child removed due to severe poverty / homelessness / all the mental and physical health needs that arise from poverty.

Poverty costs: it costs in terms of healthcare, education, social services, long term earnings. It's short term thinking that wants the cuts made here. Cut the heating allowance for pensioners living in hot countries or bus passes for people on high incomes and I might have more respect.

Also- Universal Credit comes in next year so presumably this will be those on ALL benefits including tax credits? I don't want any more children, won't affect me, but will many people who ARE hard working. or a Carer. Etc

Green the sort of children you're talking about will sadly never benefit from however much their parents get from the state as said parents will always spend the bare minimum on their dc's and the rest on them.If said parents actually cared about their dc they wouldn't be consistently having more kids in the first place.

Education, support and opportunities don't come by giving parents free money.

Disability allowance is not a separate matter. GO spoke of £10bn cuts to "welfare" overall.

Bloom, you can look at persons age, you can look at whether they have a medical diagnosis or are receiving treatment, you can look at whether they were paying income tax when their children were conceived.

It's not rocket science.

'There is no need to bring disability payments into this. They are a completely separate matter.'

No, they're not. They're already being heavily targetted.

'They will have to get a job, or think about whether they can afford to keep their pregnancy.

If only it were so easy!

They will try and fail to get a job, in a world where 8000 go for 350 jobs in Tesco, trying and managing are different things entirely.

That is a fundamental truth in our society right now.

So we will as a nation penalise not those who have made lifestyle choices but those who are doing their utmost best to be part of society, to be a contributor.

And instead of giving them choices, we will give them impossibilities under and moral system- terminate (fine if you are fine with it, many are not) or bring a child into real poverty. That's awful.

Yes, they are a separate matter. I can hold different opinions on disability benefits to the opinions I hold on healthy people receiving income support. It's easy.

The thread was started by talking about limiting benefits to a certain number of children, not by limiting benefits to disabled people.

I very much disagree with what is being done to disability payments. I don't disagree with limiting the amount of money that is paid for children of parents that are capable of work.

ksrwr - There are already many children suffering due to parent's not putting them first.

I don't know what living on benefits is like as myself or my parents have never claimed but I do know what living in real poverty is like. I also know a lot of people who do live on benefits and would love someone to explain how it is they can afford sky, mobiles, latest fashions, drive 4x4's or brand new cars, holidays, have the choice of staying at home and in some cases even rent out their council property or carry out building work to it - how is this possible? Where does the money come from? There are also a few who really do struggle and I wonder how on earth it is they aren't being helped more but guess that some people just know how to play the system more than others.

I'm all for helping people in need as growing up in poverty is not fun and I'm happy to pay towards those people who really do need help either because they have fallen on hard times or are ill as this can happen to anyone. But I've had to work really hard for what I do have which in some cases involved making huge sacrifices. I can honestly say that I can't keep paying higher and higher taxes to support people who are playing the system or are just failing to take responsibility and are expecting people like me to pay towards their lifestyle. The Government really need to sort this massive problem out as well as making the rich pay the tax they should.

This 'policy' is divisive bollocks. It has nothing to do with addressing why people have children they can't afford, everything to do with ideological cuts to the state and is frankly terrifying in it's implications.

To return to the central question - what about the children who won't be 'paid for' any more? How far are we, as a society, prepared to let them go without because we disapprove of the choices their parents made?

Where do we draw the line? Personally, its nowhere near where Gideon is drawing it, and I hate the 'I'm alright Jack' bitchfests that are coming out of the woodwork while everyone draws up their best judgypants to criticise the very worst off in society and kick them even further down.

The man is acting like an imbecile. A self-important, self-satisfied, utterly devoid of compassion or understanding imbecile.

Yes, it is quite harsh Peachy, but it would also be awful if the entire country ended up like Greece.