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?

Ever been to China niceguy? It's blatantly obvious, in Beijing at least, that the wealthy and influential have more than one child and the poor do not. Not that the poor claim benefits mind, it's just that you can easily circumvent the legislation if you have power and influence. Those that do have a second child, are penalised financially by the State. Same thing happened in Singapore where poor women were encouraged to get steralised after their second child. Not the men you understand, heaven forbid that we mess with the sacred male bollocks.

I also wonder what happens to the women who, physical reasons aside, can't use contraception for religious reasons? That's a whole other kettle of fish.

what happens to those children born where the parents have not taken personal responsibility?

Can someone please answer this? Saying the existing benefits will have to stretch is not good enough. I want to understand the consequences.

Stephanie Flanders (BBC economics correspondent) presented a fascinating series on the economics of capitalism and how it has gone wrong. She said that Karl Marx, of all people, had some points that were really pertinent: The gap between rich and poor is the main issue we have here in the UK. The capitalists in the top jobs have been creaming too much profit for themselves leaving the middle and lower income 'workers' unable to spend their earnings on the products and services offered by the companies the capitalist's own.

The gap between rich and poor has to be sorted or we will not have an economy! We will see more shop closures and small businesses struggling to survive. In short, benefit cuts will not help this country at the moment however 'unfair' it may seem that some poorer people are getting 'money for nothing'.

I think it's a good idea in theory, but will it really stop people who are in this mindset from having more children? I'm not so sure. What I am sure of is that the people who will suffer in the end are the children. They aren't responsible for the decisions their parents made before their conception or after.

What happens when One leaves my ex left me with 4dc . I get £5 a week matinance as he is not working yet he has remarried him and his wife ( not working either ) but only have the one child so there be alright jack while I'm up shit creek without a paddle

Yet I'm the one carrying the single parent scrounger label

If we are all in this together - they are not your kids my kids - they are our kids - so we all look out for all of them - becuse thats better for OU Rsocity

To me, the number of people 'scrounging benefits' (to use that cold and heartless description) is a reflection of society's failure to intervene effectively in children's lives - to help them realise their potential to contribute - when their parents are unable.

Each 'scrounger' was once a baby born into a particular set of circumstances that set them up for a poor outcome. Really, who conciously and deliberately sets out to underachieve, to become a member of the 'underclass' when there's a clear alternative?

And all that 'Well, I pulled myself up by my bootstraps', on-your-bike crap doesn't change a fucking thing.

But I'm a bleeding-heart liberal.

What I don't like is the Tory assumption that all families who claim benefits are doing so as a lifestyle choice and have never worked and never intend to work. What about those of us who have a child so disabled we can't work or at least can't work the number of hours that we would want to? What about families who could afford 4 or 5 children but then fell on hard times?

It is clear every time I hear that man speak that he has a particular distain for those he considers beneath him and intends to punish them.

Oh and I am sure that those who have never worked are suddenly going to be able to find a job are they? when it's hard enough if you are qualified.

Also none of them has been able to answer the question - 'but what will happen to the children of these families? It's not their fault'. Which basically means well they're going to suffer but we don't care.

Slug I'm not sure what your point is? From your description it seems to reinforce my point that what Osbourne has proposed is vastly different to China's policy.

And to answer your question, yes. Yes I have been. Not sure of the relevance of the question but there you go.

So your oh would not claim SMP or Maternity Allowance niceguy? Those state paid payments/benefits?

@Celine. Whilst I wasn't specifically thinking of SMP or maternity allowance but more tax credits, housing benefit & child benefits. In actual fact, I think the same principle could apply. Let's for arguments sake say the limit was four kids. And that we've got four kids. Let's say she got pregnant. Is it really unfair for her to not receive any SMP? Bear in mind she's already had four lots from her previous pregnancies? The government coffers are not unlimited.

I wish I had an idea of how much money we are actually talking about. As some people seem to manage on benefits and others absolutely struggle to afford the basics.

Interesting. Do you know I actually think those people who are eligible for SMP and MA are more likely to think about the consequences and possibly decide not to have another baby (although i have issues with taking away any specific maternity benefit but that's a debate for another thread). Many people would not be eligible for the additional benefits you mention either. I know I wouldn't be and lots of others wouldn't.

However, I don't think the people this policy is supposed to be targeting will stop having babies. And then what? What happens to those babies? They grow up deprived and the cycle continues.

Sorry that last post was to niceguy.

But what happens to the children of families who do work in poorly paid jobs. And then by accident they have another baby which could be twins. I think they should start with cuts in tax rates for lower paid people. Why should somebody get in benefits more than a person who has worked and then paid tax.

Vivienne. I don't think in reality it's much. There are thankfully not many families who have ten children just to sponge off the state. Those few who do will probably already get mopped up by the benefits cap which has already been proposed.

What it does do though is bring the same hard choices to those on benefits that working couples must face. I don't see anything unfair about that. After all, we all live in the same world don't we?

Every day in numerous transacations I meet people in proper, full-time, reasonably well paid jobs who were not born in this country, but moved to where the jobs are. And they are very welcome, and do a great job. And they continue to arrive, and continue to snap up jobs becasue they are hardworking and pleasant people. And they manage to have the numner of children they can support (even tho' many of them are catholic ) So why is it so difficult for those three or more generations languishing on benefits to do those jobs? Becasue they dont have to - the state will pay for them to sit at home, and the more kids they hav, the higher the handout they get.

Why are the poor and disadvantaged automatically responsible for the issues created by the wealthy? If I am struggling to run a small business I am automatically labelled a scrounger.
The persistence of this bile which describes those who are unfortunate enough to be out of work as scroungers only serves to compound even greater problems. Where are the jobs, and why does nobody ever mention this? Are there enough jobs available to the unemployed?

Why is it assumed that a benefit claimant is lying?

More importantly, who the hell falls for this shit?

One word: scapegoats.

Quite easy to blame the poor isn't it? How can they fight back? Eradicating benefits to those in need will not eradicate the problem.

But if the poor would just quit being so damn lazy....

From an earlier post: The family of 8 living in North Wales receives just over £30,000 a year in benefits. This doesn't include the free healthcare for the family or education for the six children. And look at how it's spent - £700 a year on Sky TV, £1500 a year on mobile phone bills, £1,000 a year going to the pub, an unspecified amount on cigarettes.

Oh my goodness, a family who live on benefits sometimes (whisper) go to the pub and perhaps (though we don't know as it's unspecified, it might be one fag a year) even smoke. The fact that they use a phone and watch TV leaves me speechless. Tut tut.

Toastedteacakes but we all know that anyone "on benefits" is a lazy, workshy scrounging bastard who probably has tattoos, several illiterate children, and is almost certainly a criminal.

I agree to a certain extent. Why should people on long term unemployment benefits keep having kids.

I dont think there should be a limit on the number of children people get benefits for. What they should do is only give money for the kids that are here when a claim is made.

And who the fuck is 'languishing' on benefits?

What a ridiculous notion.

Nobody enjoys being on benefits. It is demoralizing, hopeless, frightening. Nobody would do this via choice unless they were already sunk.

One of the reasons that the benefit bill is so high is because of housing costs.

If they were serious about the money, they would cease the profiteering of private landlords and reintroduce rent control. If the minimum wage was raised as well, this would cut in work benefits significantly. But both of these measures target the rich so that is not going to happen.

But instead of these simple measures, they are targeting the the most vulnerable yet again.

Cuts to benefits are likely to result in higher costs within social services (more kids in care) and the NHS (malnourishment). It will not save the taxpayer anything in the long run.

Take the example of a single person's benefits: around £180 or less a fortnight. What a fucking freeshow! They are having a ball! And all that sucked dry by paying a rent shortfall, sky rocketing fuel bills, utility bills, living expenses, public transport, etc.
So much to languish in here. I might have to do it myself sometime, I've been needing to take a holiday...

If they were serious about the money, they would cease the profiteering of private landlords and reintroduce rent control. If the minimum wage was raised as well, this would cut in work benefits significantly. But both of these measures target the rich so that is not going to happen.....

....under the current government.

A system which deprives the disadvantaged to make life easier for the already privileged.