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?

Ivymaud no worries, it can get confusing when posts are being quoted all over the place, I’ve got mixed up before. No harm done

Notreallyarsed

that anyone can get the equivalent of £90k a year on benefits
You disagree with this based on what evidence?

The benefit cap, do keep up.

There is no need to be so rude Notreallyarsed. Especially when it is you who is failing to keep up. The comment was made 6 years ago when there was no cap. So, factually correct at the time. You are wrong.

It may surprise you Flower but I don’t derive enjoyment from getting all het up about what my taxes pay for...
I haven't a clue what this paragraph of yours is all about, it has nothing to do with my posts.

I also don’t have to prove anything, it’s an opinion ffs.
Well, if you say you disagree with his figures, it's the obvious question to ask you why, and what figures do you have then? It would be rather loopy to say you disagree with his whole post and then not have any reason to back up why you disagree with it, wouldn't it?

Why are you so angry???
I'm not angry at all. I merely asked you what parts of his post do you actually disagree with. The only person who is coming across as angry and getting flustered at not being able to provide any coherent response, is you.

Some people truly take C5 and Daily Heil propos as truth.

The Leftie PC snowflake brigade will be outraged at someone having the audacity to speak the truth.

They will have no interest in making the distinction between the people who are in geniune need of the benefit system, and the many layabout, lazy, scroungers that are taking advantage of it. People that need a good kick up the arse. They will try to see this as an attack on all people that are on benefits, which it isn't.

Dumb Lefties...... What can you do with them?

Thanks to the benefit cap, this is no longer the case, unless someone in the household has a disabling health condition.

Thanks to the benefit cap, even families as small as a single parent with 2 children are having to choose between paying their rent or heating and eating.

The benefit cap is the single biggest cause of rent arrears among the clients I work with.

"If you pop out 5 kids in your 2 bedroom Council House, you’ll be given an ‘upgrade’ to at least a 4 bed"

Because of the Bedroom tax, the HA won't let you under occupy. In many regions we did have a surplus of three bed HA houses, which is what 5 kids would make you eligible for. Our HA (Liverpool) have sold their stock off. They've been bought by buy-to-let LL's for 35K, who are renting them back to the people who had to leave because of under-occupying, for a lot more rent.

Why the poorest in society is resented for having decent housing, but those that are making money out of the poor aren't, I don't understand.

It hasn't been picked up on this board, but the infant mortality rate, her, in Liverpool, is rising because of the cuts. But by the sound of things, some people won't think that, that is a bad thing.

He makes a good point badly

"that anyone can get the equivalent of £90k a year on benefits
You disagree with this based on what evidence?"

Erm the benefit cap, perhaps? Unless you are counting the Royals as Benefit Scroungers, of course.

you can't exactly stop their money and let their children starve.

So how would you incentivize them to work?

@Flowerpot1234 I’m perfectly entitled to my opinion, I am entirely coherent (it’s me that’s rude while you come out with that little gem?) and have no interest in fuelling your agenda. Find someone else to get your kicks from, because I can’t be bothered.

you can't exactly stop their money and let their children starve.

But isn't that, effectively, what happens when a working parent gets made redundant, gets fired, is discriminated against for taking maternity/paternity pay, their company goes bust or re-locates.... etc?

Suddenly, people have to deal with the fact that their income has stopped. And it isn't always fairly done either, e.g. with clear rules or warning - just look at the number of suppliers letting staff go after going into administration with massive staff wages being owed!

So we're now making the Victorian distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor. God I hate this bloody 21st century society.

There are some odd responses on here. Many people do get benefits for not working just 'cos they cba, they just have to show they have applied for jobs. I've interviewed enough of them. And the government capping cb at 2 means loads of children will have been taken into care??? Perhaps he worded it wrongly, but the only reasonable response to "should people have children they can't afford?" Is "no".

So how would you incentivize them to work?

Improving the job market, banning zero hour contracts and temp work being used to the advantages of multi national companies while keeping people in poverty, introducing a living wage.

But isn't that, effectively, what happens when a working parent gets made redundant, gets fired, is discriminated against for taking maternity/paternity pay, their company goes bust or re-locates.... etc?

No, the welfare state is there in those circumstances. Unless they get sanctioned.

@agbnb Well no, if someone gets made redundant etc then they have access to benefits, that's what they're there for.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?

I personally don't think people should have kids if they can't afford to.

I know people that have had more kids when they can't afford the one they've already got, are on benefits with no intention of coming off of them & are expecting to be kept by others. (2 separate people).

I think it's a bit mad that you have to go through hoops to adopt a dog, but can have a kid with absolutely no thought involved in the process....

OP, why have you dug up a blog from 6 years ago, and asked MNetters for their thoughts on it, without even hinting at your own thoughts/views?

@Notreallyarsed Improving those things will certainly help the working poor but not those who can't be bothered to work. Extra support needs to be given to children from these families to help them to have aspirations.

Birdsgottafly

"that anyone can get the equivalent of £90k a year on benefits
You disagree with this based on what evidence?"

Erm the benefit cap, perhaps?

Erm.. what benefit cap precisely was in place when Bradshaw wrote these comments 6 years ago?

Its a reasonable point. To flap your arms in horror at the discussion is merely shutting down free speech.

There is a problem. Something needs to be done.

There will always be those that abuse the system. These are in the minority. The government would have you believe it’s rife in this country.

A small amount is lost to these families, compared to say...tax avoidance from the very rich.

Maybe we could switch all these propaganda programmes ‘benefits street’ and ‘on benefits’ for an abundance of programmes on ‘Tory boy tax cheats’ and ‘celebrity tax avoidance schemes’.

The country isn’t rife with families with 10 kids +, this is the minority.

Doesn’t make it right, but it would be nice to get it in proportion.

@crazycatgal agreed that children from a minority of families who can’t be arsed do need extra support to have aspirations. However in my experience, kids from these families are written off very early in school and society. That’s where the failures are taking place.

@crazycatgal agreed that children from a minority of families who can’t be arsed do need extra support to have aspirations. However in my experience, kids from these families are written off very early in school and society. That’s where the failures are taking place.

Thankfully nobody's suggested that all benefits claimants are taking the p**s or that the very many decent claimants should be penalised for the chancers, but as a PP said, how the heck do you police this? The cheaters might compare notes and share tips among themselves, but they'll hardly volunteer themselves as such, so what's the answer ... a more widespread reporting system, better checking or something else?

And why is the benefits cap being written of as some kind of absolute? Surely folk are aware - as cheaters certainly are - of the many exceptions, one of which is having a disabled dependent child in receipt of DLA/PIP?

Obviously I'd hope nobody would grudge a disabled child the help they clearly deserve, but what about the minority of parents who suddenly "discover" a hitherto unperceived issue in their child when they learn of the exception? Again, they're hardly going to speak of their intentions except among friends and family, so what's the answer here?

And please don't tell me that absolutely nobody does this or that DLA/PIP is almost impossible to get, because anyone with sense knows that it just isn't true