If you're an unemployed waster then you should have a vasectomy!!!

[sirlee66]

Ben Bradley, an MP, wrote in a blogpost, 6 years ago, that the country would be soon “drowning in a vast sea of unemployed wasters” if workless families had four or five children while others limited themselves to one or two.
This is what he said:

''It’s horrendous that there are families out there that can make vastly more than the average wage, (or in some cases more than a bloody good wage) just because they have 10 kids. Sorry but how many children you have is a choice; if you can’t afford them, stop having them! Vasectomies are free.

There are hundreds of families in the UK who earn over £60,000 in benefits without lifting a finger because they have so many kids (and for the rest of us that’s a wage of over £90,000 before tax!).

People have to take responsibility for their own lives, and if they are struggling but working hard to help themselves then they should get help. But if they choose to have 10 kids they should take responsibility for that choice and look after them, not expect everyone else to foot the bill!

Families who have never worked a day in their lives having 4 or 5 kids and the rest of us having 1 or 2 means it’s not long before we’re drowning in a vast sea of unemployed wasters that we pay to keep!''

So What to do you think? Do you agree with Ben Bradley or do you think he is being unreasonable?

@sirlee66 Are you too lazy to get off your arse and write your own article? Waster.

Many rich people have drink and drug problems. What is your point?

Actually people in professional/managerial roles are more likely to exceed government guidelines for alcohol consumption. But I suspect that doesn’t suit the agenda for those who think anyone on benefits is beholden to them and their taxes.

Notreallyarsed, I think in 'most cases' people that are claiming benefits because of a disability arent/shouldn't be 'lumped' into the same category but unfortunately you'll get people in every area that will play the system and that's my frustration. I have 2 family members who are on disability benefit and 1 that has severe mental health problems, sometimes struggles to get through the day and gets the PIP payment. 1 of those people on benefits (imo) is completely justified in claiming. There's no way she could work, no matter how much she wanted to, and I think she should be able to get benefits (which she does ) with out problem. The 2nd hasn't worked for over 20 years now. I really can't understand why tbh? She's up and about every day, at the gym a few times a week, 3 foreign holidays last year (and that's the norm), out most weekends, goes to every festival going etc. To me that is wrong! Why should she get a new car every few years? As a working family we can't afford that! How does she go on many holidays a year? We can't afford to do that. I'm sure she could work and is now just 'stuck in a rut' and she's said 'I'd be worse off if I went back to.work!' Working should NEVER make you worse off than being on benefits, I understand why some people don't see the point in working. The 3rd family member who is on PIP works the majority of the year. It 's a boring,menial job (imo) but he hates the thought of not working. He would be someone that I would think is justified to be at home and not working but he doesn't. He gets up, goes to work and gets peanuts. The system is all wrong.

No I wouldn't accosted the pensioner in Tesco, she's worked her whole life for that pension and probably paid in more than she'll get out with her pension.
Yes I would accosted the MP claiming £100 for a meal. Both ends of the scale need to be stopped. That's the only way we're going to be able to properly support the people that genuinely need to claim benefits and give the most vulnerable in society a better start to try and break the chain. Throwing money at people and not actually 'supporting them' does nothing. But we're stopping funding all the support services! Children's centres are going, libraries are shutting, many support groups are struggling to continue. There needs to be a 'bigger picture' and not just a 'well we've given them money we've done our bit'.
I just wish that people who genuinely needed benefits could access them (and relevant support) when they needed it without difficulty and people that are abusing the system (from benefit scroungers up to companies not pating taxes) could be heavily penalised/fined/taken out and flogged (joke). There needs to be something put in place that's stop the 'people that feel entitled ' screwing the system. ...just because they can!

There needs to be something put in place that's stop the 'people that feel entitled ' screwing the system. ...just because they can!

I absolutely agree with this. It was telling someone that she hasn’t got her own money that wound me up.

I know people screw the system, my waste of space of a SIL does it and it fucking enrages me. She claims everything she can get and deliberately doesn’t make any effort to work. She pisses me right off.

But that doesn’t mean I would take it out on genuine claimants, or make someone feel they had to justify how they spend their money. They don’t owe me any kind of explanation. I’ve been on benefits (income support as a lone parent and later carer’s allowance) and being told its not your money or being made to feel you have to justify everything is unbelievably dehumanising.
I may be financially ok now, but I well remember (and won’t ever forget) how hard it was on benefits, and how I felt when people treated me that way. I’m not better than anyone else because I’m not struggling any more, I’m just luckier, that’s all.

And I absolutely agree about funding cuts and services suffering.

Are these fucking parasites going to have their benefit capped at any point soon, or are they just going to keep popping out babies that the rest of us have to pay for?

I'd rather pay for their babies than some doley that'll never contribute.....

Spot on, ReanimatedSGB. We seem to be happy for the likes of the inbred royals or the chinless Rees-Moggs to reproduce. But this costs far more money to the country in subsidising their lifestye in eg tax cuts and that's not even counting the sheer loss of incredible working/underclass talent who are left to scrabble for a living while those chinless wonders get the top jobs and all the money.

CEOs (you may as well define them as white male) are there raking it in for less than 5 years on average www.ft.com/content/ded1823a-370e-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3 . So basically, they come in, shit everywhere and fly off with the money. Where's the talent? The vision? The progress? They aren't there, are they? They're all in the people at the bottom of the heap, which is proved every day by the simple fact that they live on basically nothing.

And don't even get me started on the hand-wringing about poor people getting into debt. People on whacking great salaries are the biggest debtors but no one tells them to live within their means, do they? When you get people on £100k+ whining they're barely comfortable and looking down on people who get £75 a week it really turns my stomach.

I imagine that's sarcastic, PiffleandWiffle. Because surely no one could be that unutterably vile. Seeing as that 'doley' is pushed to the bottom by the likes of those posh dimwits.

But this costs far more money to the country in subsidising their lifestye in eg tax cuts

Tax cuts don't subsidise anybody. It's their money, they're just keeping it.

Tax cuts don't subsidise anybody. It's their money, they're just keeping it.

This would make sense in a vacuum. If you use a public pavement you have signed the contract.

Because surely no one could be that unutterably vile.

Very little sarcasm here I'm afraid - I was reacting to the tired old "Sponging Royals" meme.

I love how one set are constantly criticised on here despite actually bringing cash/tourists in while the other set can do no wrong despite contributing little.....

Eltonjohnssyrup While benefiting from the country's infrastructure. Roads to transport their goods. The NHS to keep their workers healthy. Buses to make sure their shelf-stackers can get in and keep those profits up. Tax credits so their cleaners don't starve or carers can look after their elderly relatives in their fancy homes. Etc etc etc. They don't live in glorious isolation and in fact 1 rich posho benefits far more from the infrastructure than any normal person on average wage because all those people shore up their bank balance. If they want to benefit from this country they need to pony up the dough.So no, it's not their money. It's evading their reponsibility.

PiffleandWiffle What do they bring in? The truth is, if the royals weren't there we'd make far more money by opening up the residences to tourists. They contribute nothing and we'd be better off without them. The 'doley' on the other hand is almost always only there for a very short time. They tend to be people in low-paid but essential jobs. So next time you need a shop assistant to get something off a shelf for you or maybe access to public toilets that are being cleaned, be sure to tell the member of staff what you think of them.

I don't quite understand why you think that one person should pay more to use a road than another?

Same with the NHS - more affluent people are unlikely to use it as they have Private Insurance, which actually takes some pressure off.

Neoliberalism

There is no doubt that the current economic system has lifted billions out of lives of abject poverty. And when all pistons are firing indeed many are lifted by the tide.

What we are seeing today is that first of all we do not control it to the degree that we can eliminate boom and bust. It is the nature of the system - like seasons.

But also while this sort of growth seems to provide an across-the-board benefit to developing economies, with economies like ours and the US, economies that have peaked from a perhaps artificial high, we see this widening gap developing between those for who the system works and those for who it doesn't.

The truth is, if the royals weren't there we'd make far more money by opening up the residences to tourists.

Absolute Bollocks. The residences would end up being used "for the common good" by people like you & housing legions of the needy.

So no, it's not their money. It's evading their reponsibility.

It is their money. And it's well established that higher taxes on the wealthy bring in lower revenues because they are mobile. France tried it not that long ago and it failed utterly.

Why do people always bring up the royals? They bring a lot into the economy and use their time doing charity work and making the UK ‘look good’ at events etc.
I don’t agree with the monarchy as such but it’s a Completely different situation to someone who’s never contributed or intends to and makes the decision to have a number of children on benefits.
It’s like people say ‘how can you complain about people on benefits when Starbucks didn’t pay their tax bill’ we can focus on one issue without minimilising another, it’s not top trumps as to what’s worse and if people really can’t see an issue with people that deliberately make a decision to raise a number of kids with no means to support them themselves then usually you’ve either led a very sheltered life, are one of these people or are just a bit deluded. IMO.

an issue with people that deliberately make a decision to raise a number of kids with no means to support them themselves

Because we know that the time for large families has passed and that these sorts of situations are indeed problematic, but also know that in the context of larger economic and social circumstance sterilising poor people is probably not the way to correct any of the deep-rooted conditions. Because someone who says "sterilise the poor" sounds like someone who is either dim or has no grasp of larger concepts.

PiffleandWiffle Because they benefit from that road more than anyone else. They benefit from their business vehicles using it.They benefit from their workers' vehicles using it. But they pay the same.

The royals don't benefit our country. The wedding in 2011 dented the economy by 0.4% of GDP i.e. £billions. The few hundred £millions that may or may not have been spent by extra tourists doesn't make a dent in this. The royal estates would be far more beneficial if they were open to the public - we see this in eg France. Blackpool has its fair share of what you sneer at as 'doleys' or, rather, seasonal workers, but it is the 2nd biggest tourist attraction in Europe and is worth £1.7 billion GVA.

Or perhaps they base their thought processes on some crappy old religious morality.

The underlying problem here is eugenics. What Ben Bradley was saying is that some people are inherently undesirable (wasters, etc) and/or less worthy than others and therefore it is right to suppress the population growth of those people. It dehumanises them so it can do things to them against their will.

It's the same argument the Canadians used to forcibly sterilise people with a low IQ while the Germans were...well, we all know what the Germans were doing.

It doesn't matter what political party he is from - eugenics is unacceptable, especially with the coming of AI that will outperform most of us.

The worthiness of every single person must be protected.

Eltonjohnssyrup No - it is money that should be used for a fair contribution to society, given the extraordinary benefits they receive from it. Or should we start to freeze them out if they don't want to take part? Not work for them maybe? Instead lend our labour to a genuinely talented person rather than entrench unearned, unmerited privilege.

Or some age-old class poison.