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?

Wellington, being able to afford something is a very fluid thing especially nowadays. Two jobs, healthy couple, average incomes, some support around them. They can easily go from being ok to needing state support. Job security, housing security etc are all things of the past. Many struggle to save any decent amount of money and what they have won't go far. If housing was more affordable, and wages matched the general cost of living then perhaps more people would be in a much more secure position.

If they had children knowing they couldn’t support them without state handouts, then yes they absolutely did decide everyone else should pay for them.

I’m not saying just the “very comfortably off” should have children - just those who have enough to put a roof over their head, food on the table and a half-decent quality of life - without help from the state. If you can’t do that, then in my view you shouldn’t have children.

Harsh. I am a bit saddened that someone that is blessed with more than one child begrudges another couple the joy of having a child simply due to their current finances. Note "current."

I would love a third child but I won’t have one because it would not be the responsible thing to do for that child or my existing children. I would love to reduce my hours and see my children more and I would love to save more for my disabled child who will probably need to be supported for the rest of his life. But instead, I am supporting families like the one to which you refer. How is that fair?

I'm struggling with this because you're saying "hey, don't have more kids than you can afford..." to the poor, yet you're complaining that you don't have enough money to have another kid. Shouldn't you be all "well, we don't have the money, so that's okay - if the poor can go without, then so can we...." ?? Something just rubs the wrong way that you're saying they can't have them, whilst bemoaning that you can't have a third.

I too,as bertiesgal says, am happy to pay into the common pot (and did for many years while working often more than 1 job) to benefit other children. I think when you start acting all "my precious" gollum-like over who has what and who gets what, you've lost a bit of your humanity.

Another thing to note is that sometimes the very child they struggled to afford will be the thing that pushes some to improve their education, their job/job prospects, and in doing so,their financial position.

I would think that very few people think "hey, yeah, I'm going to be on benefits forever... " as I think most feel that it's just temporary until they get on their feet again. As I said, often the need to provide for their child is what pushes them forward.

BrownLiverSpot Yes I think that’s a good point.

I think people need to make a decision to the best of their ability as to whether they can afford to have a child and are likely to be able to continue to support it. If the answer is yes, I fully support the state stepping in to help if something goes awry. Children need to be given the best education and healthcare, etc., regardless of family income.

It’s people who go into it knowing full well they’re unlikely ever to be able to support their child on their own who upset me.

Also worth adding that the mum in the family is working her arse off. She is absoloutely paying into the pot.

Dad has a really rotten condition and can't work-no employee would take him on when his condition is so debilitating-fingers crossed they find a DMARD that works for him.

Wellington, I can't figure out whether I should pity your simplistic approach or envy it. Life must be much easier without any nuance.

"It’s people who go into it knowing full well they’re unlikely ever to be able to support their child on their own who upset me."

Isn't the definition of human our ability to hope?

When we had DD, we were in negative equity in a 2 bed flat with a batshit crazy neighbour. DH had been made redundant and I was a trainee.

Seven years later we're in a 5 bed house. I'm fully qualified, DH has his own business and we have 3 more children .

Had we been cautious and stuck to the worst case scenario we'd still be stuck in jobs we hated, in a flat we hated without ever meeting our 3 other wonderful (bloody noisy) children.

Austerity takes away hope, please let's not destroy all hope especially fot those on low incomes or those suffering from unpredictable chronic diseases

I'll stop now....

I’m sorry bertiesgal but I find your approach a little simplistic. There isn’t a bottomless pot of money. For everyone who is taking out of the pot, there is someone working extra hard to put in.

I think we are probably diametrically opposed politically speaking and I agree we should agree to disagree.

bertiesgal FWIW, I fully agree with you.

I'm thirding bertiesgal

I agree to disagree.

I didn't say that there was an endless pot of money but the richest 1% have 20x more wealth than the poorest 20% in this country.

There may not be an endless pot but there's certainly plenty of money-just a shame it's not more fairly distributed.

Wellington you continue to focus on the "wasters" though, they're clearly the real problem!

not everyone is entitled to child benefit/child tax credits/social housing

All of us are eligible for social housing. True, circumstances mean in some areas you may never get to the top of the list, but you can go on the list at any time and wait.

But our model of Welfare, which we chose, way back, creates bust and boom and 'Winners' and 'Losers'. So then it becomes a matter of how much we let the 'Losers', lose. If the ruling powers were honest and said it meant that you lost out on a family life, then the UK would descend into anarchy.

We don't have full employment. The lower wages don't cover living costs without benefit top-ups. So we should be grateful that people will live peacefully in our Society, at the bottom of the heap, tbh.

They don't in other countries, life is much more violent and uncertain for the 'Winners' (speaking as the DD of a South African born Parent and Grandparents outside of the EU).

Some political writers are claiming that "Eugenics by indifference" is happening. That there is a drive "to reduce the surplus population". I personally liked the Dickens quote in one piece.

The Austerity measures are causing unnecessary deaths, this is fact. We've yet to see if it also causes a drop in Births. Anyone Working Class has the right to ask the question, if we are struggling to support the population, why wasn't the door for economic migrants closed, so we could force people to work, rather than have more people competing for jobs. This subject matter doesn't sit in isolation of the wider picture.

Ginger and Bishop you both have impeccable taste .

'Mon the revolution...

Child benefit has been capped, so probably quite a few of those families have been split up and are in care instead.

Eh?

Child benefit is £82 a month for the first child and £55 for every child after that. You'd have to have 92 children to earn £60k a year in child benefit.

And which children have been placed into foster care due to the removal of child benefit?!

We don't have full employment

Insightful post Bird.

The thing is, I'm reading now that our Government is going to get tough with things like Carillon, BHS - firm language. But these things need thinking about ahead of time.

These things - housing, wages, exotic deadly flu epidemics, they require positive action.

Westminster is a vacuum now, except for punishing the poor, the sick, the aged, children, the disabled. They find their purpose then. Energised.

Is this accidental? Or are these indicators of a terrible ideology?

Wellington and others why is it wrong for people who have children to claim Tax Credits. We are both WORKING it's not our fault the companies we work for don't pay enough to keep us off Tax Credits is it. We are Tag Team parenting as being on Zero hours can't afford child care. So when one of us doesn't get work chances are the other will. Also what precautions are you taking that guarantees you won't have any more children as even sterilisation is not 100% effective. People need to understand contraception CAN FAIL, my sister had a coil fitted and still got pregnant. I just wish the 'l'd love a third baby but' club would think about this seriously instead of getting on their high horse. What will you do if it happens to you? My advice as someone who has been there is have a grown up conversation with your partner about it and have a plan that you both agree on , BUT be open to the possibility that if it happens to you that you may feel very different at the time. Plan for the unexpected it doesn't hurt.

My dh had a vasectomy and it definitely worked. I fell pregnant easily so I think it is a sensible option.

I would have liked another dc when I got older and it was too late but I have 3.

I think you do have to be responsible and sensible about family planning.

Bertiesgal Why should my wealth be “more fairly distributed”?! It’s mine! I earned it! I pay six figures a year in income tax alone. When you take into account VAT, Council tax, NI, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, SDLT, etc., they say that higher rate taxpayers have to pay over 75% of their money in tax. How much more do you want me to pay?

You fail to mention that that top 1% pay about half of all tax revenue in this country.

How much harder do you want me to work (because I work 60 hours plus per week) in an incredibly stressful job?

And don’t say I’m lucky to be earning what I’m earning because (aside from the fact I am healthy) luck had absolutely nothing to do with it.

This kind of sense of entitlement represents so much that is wrong with this country! It’s not your money to distribute as you wish!

The rich are not the villains in this piece - without them, you can wave goodbye to your welfare state. And whereas I am nowhere near earning enough that I would think of moving abroad, the really rich DO. They will and do move to escape tax when it gets too high.

I went to a lecture at the LSE a while back where they calculated that the optimum top rate of income tax is 37% - increase it higher than that (and it’s now 45%) and tax receipts actually go down.

I’m fed up of socialists making out I am a bad human being because I don’t want to give even more of my money away in tax. I’m not. I just want to be able to support my family (which as I say includes a disabled child) before I have to support the family of someone who knows full well they cannot and will probably never be able toprovide for that child.

I agree birds about the employment issues.

I’m fed up of socialists making out I am a bad human being because I don’t want to give even more of my money away in tax. I’m not. I just want to be able to support my family (which as I say includes a disabled child) before I have to support the family of someone who knows full well they cannot and will probably never be able toprovide for that child.

That's a pretty telling rant, IMO.

Nobody is saying you should give more. They're saying (or at least I am) that perhaps it would be better if you stopped trying to micromanage where the money goes. I cannot believe that someone that pays "six figures a year in income tax alone" begrudges someone that earns a pittance at a FT job,often working unsocial hours, the chance to have a family. It really brings to mind the phrase about the measure of society is how they care for their poor and vulnerable.

You've also made choices that, as you mention, limits the amount of time you spend with your children. You chose your job, presumably your house, your car, etc. These are all things that influence the amount of income you need and how many hours you work. You could, I suppose, have made other choices that allowed you to not work as many hours so you could pay bills and still have time with your children. So you see, the choices you make are your own. You don't get to make them for everyone else.

I note that a few people here are saying they wanted to have a third, but didn't, and follow up with "people need to use family planning." But some of these people are not looking to have 2 or 3 - they're just looking to have one child! So you're okay with completely denying them the option to be a parent simply because they didn't have a lot of the advantages or choices you may have had that allowed you to be a high earner? Because make no mistake, most high earners have had choices available to them that most poor families have not.

It's really sad to see such a lack of compassion for others.

@bertiesgal I'll run 'em over with me wheelchair 😉

GingerIvy But I’m being punished for my choices aren’t I? I could sit back and not work and rely on the state and get to actually see my children but that would be irresponsible so I don’t. By the time I’ve paid for a full time nanny, PAYE for that nanny, that nanny’s pension, a mortgage on a modest house in London (which is the only place I can do my job), there isn’t much left over.

You seem to think there is plenty to go around - there isn’t. That money that goes to the family who had children knowing they can’t provide for them is money that could have gone to the NHS, education, the disabled.

I’m not “denying” anyone the option to have children. I’m not making their decisions “for them”. Having a child is not a right. It is a privilege. They are responsible for it, not me.

I had bugger all “advantages” - which is maybe why I see things a bit more realistically. I saw how miserable it is growing up in poverty and I saw that actually there really are people who do can’t be bothered to work and just game the system.

What you seem to be saying is that everyone should be able to have children (without limit it seems), paid for by the state. This is just SO against everything I stand for, which is responsibility to self and to your dependents.