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?

I do agree with him, although its our own choice how many kids we have, that will have an impact on, well everything money wise in this country. The amount it costs to deliver all these kids from one family, the amount they get for said kids, although nearly everyone is entitled to child tax, depending on income, and their own money coming in, more than likely benefits. Im not lambasting these people, but when they have 4,5+ kids, and sit on there asses while said kids are in school, doing fuck all, its disgusting. Some people are on benefits because they genuinely need the help, or they or disbaled. These people just take, take, take and never give back to the pot they so greedily tool from. And i feel sorey for their kids, no child is asked to be born, and not into any situation.

Aren't families with large numbers of children quite the rarity now? Complaints about lots of children depending on the state is deliberately distracting I think.

Apparently the average number of children per family has fallen from 2.4 to 1.8.

The focus of this thread has shifted from deciding whether people on
low incomes should have any children at all to limiting the number of children that they have.

So, I guess the question is-how financially comfortable should people be before they have children and how many children should they have?

If it's morally wrong to bring a child into poverty, what do you define as poverty and what can we do as a society do to minimise the number of people living in poverty?

Personal responsibility is all very well but we are the result of more than just our personal choices.

I also think that austerity measures have made things worse for people on low incomes. I can't understand why people are so hard on benefit claimants but support a party that hands bungs to their coalition partners and private companies with impunity.

I wish everyone just agreed with me-so much simpler that way .

Happy to be Queen if the World with your support .

Ivymaud I don’t know what to say. Your insistence that I am lying about where I went to uni and what I earn is, frankly, odd.

For enough Ivymaud.
Whatever you want to think.

I can't understand why people are so hard on benefit claimants but support a party that hands bungs to their coalition partners and private companies with impunity.

I don't think they do. A lot of people don't support that party, but also don't like some people taking the piss (and some do, more than I think people like to admit).

Fair point Gin. I agree that some people take the piss and I see the the advantages of cracking down it.

However, in my experience a lot of people are being punished because of a dodgy few.

Over the last few years poverty has increasingly been sold as a moral failing.

I think that we need a new political party but I'm a bit caught up with the kids and work to start one .

I don't think anyone would defend the piss takers but I still think that (maybe naively) they are in the minority.

I think you are right to some extent Agnes

Benefit fraud is roughly 1%.

They aren’t entirely sure which is deliberately claimed, and which can be a genuine mistake - overpayments can happen by mistakes either end.

However. There are underpayments to consider also.

The amount underpaid to benefit claimants in 2015-16 was £1.7bn, or 1% of total expenditure, the highest recorded rate. Most of it was due to errors by the claimant (£600m) with the other £400m due to mistakes by officials.

So in 2015-16, the government overpaid benefits to the tune of £3.3bn, of which £1bn was recouped later as overpayments were paid back, while claimants were underpaid £1.7bn.

It all means the Treasury was £600m down due to fraud and error in the benefits system.

600 million.

Yes, that’s a lot. In percentage terms...not much.

And the amount of benefits that go unclaimed, but that people are fully entitled to receive stands at around 10 billion.

And now let’s look at the total amount that HMRC estimate is lost through illegal tax evasion and legal tax avoidance.

34 billion.

So I do believe a minority abuse the system. This goes for any system.

And I think that the media do not represent the facts.

Benefit fraud is roughly 1%.
That they know about.

From what I have seen myself quite a few do it.

And the people that really genuinely need it aren't or having trouble getting help.

The whole system is fucked.

Gluteus, that was beautifully put-thank you!

Gluteus, that was beautifully put-thank you!

"But I’m being punished for my choices aren’t I?"

Well the childfree by choice could take the same attitude In fact i think some do.

Ive talked to several homeless people in my area who are not considered a priority..............because they dont have kids.

Thank you Bertie

Just read a fab article in the independent, where I got this from:

In other words, for every £1 swallowed up by benefit fraud, £4 disappears because of people like Gary Barlow. Get angry about people playing the system by all means, but start at the top and work your way down if you expect to be taken seriously.

And ‘that they know about’, well that applies to tax evasion too.

The rich will only work if you give them money and the poor will only do so if you take it away. Seems to be what the Tories genuinely believe. And what people are believing.

Why else would we tolerate spikes in doorways to stop homeless people sleeping there? Or allow the bedroom tax to affect the disabled? Or allow fit for work assessments on people not fit for work?

The divide is ever increasing.

Imagine how people would react to a Gary Barlow level of benefit fraud!

The reactions are so very different. ‘If I had millions, I’d try and hide it too’ is what people say.

But when benefit fraud happens, they are the lowest form of scum.

I find it impossible to approach this political hot potato without my overarching fear that the planet is on a collision course.

That aside, I have no earthly idea how anyone copes with the financial stress from having more than 1 or 2 children. I suspect it's far less a surprise than some would like us to believe that someone might wind up living one the state's dime with a big family. It's a high-risk move from the outset.

MuseumofCurry I completely agree. I really fear for the planet and future generations. This is the first generation where the standard of living has declined. How are average people doing average jobs meant to afford a house or a pension? How will our children get by?

I think the only solution is for everyone to have fewer children - especially those who can’t afford them.

Gluteus The problem is not really benefit fraud - it’s people who are genuinely entitled to benefits who are having children when they can’t afford them.

Do people not realise there is now a benefit cap and there has been for a while? You can't claim for more than 2 children now so what is everyone moaning about?

Is there not child tax credit to be considered? Size of Council house? I don’t really know about it though so stand to be corrected. There’s certainly the added strain on the NHS and schools in any event.

Is there not child tax credit to be considered? Size of Council house? I don’t really know about it though so stand to be corrected. There’s certainly the added strain on the NHS and schools in any event.

Is there not child tax credit to be considered Size of Council house?

What are you asking? I’m not sure what you mean.

Wellington are you aware that we have an ageing population? We need people to care for them.

You'd rather focus on the small number of people struggling to make a living than the tax avoiders and big companies avoiding corporation tax. You are very uniocular in your viewpoint.

It's hard to have a discussion with you because you just choose to ignore any information that doesn't fit with your world view. There have been lots of posts outlining the consequehces of inequality in this country but you continue to focus on the result and not the cause.

I've never met anyone who earns enough to pay six figures in tax though so I appreciate that we're worlds apart and a breed and mumsnet is unlikely to bridge that gap.