May I respectfully suggest to Tory Jeremy Hunt that if the poor "stop having kids they cannot afford" that high earners should stop taking highly paid jobs if they cannot afford the tax?

[HeftyNorks]

All these tax avoidance schemes to help the poor darlings. Or do morals not apply if you are rich enough?

Yes there are people who COULD afford a large family when they had them and then fell on hard times. But surely that is part of it? You have to THINK about how you will support your family in the long run and plan accordingly.

I do agree with TwoIfbySea, tbh. I know where she has lived, roughly, my husband being from a similar area in the same region, and I live in similar ourselves.

I'm not a Tory, didn't vote that way.

Oh for Goodness sake. Yes, circumstances can change but we all know that, don't we? And we can prepare for change. So if you want a large family and know that you'll need more than £26k to get you through hard times then you save, you take out life insurance/sickness insurance/redundancy insurance. Expensive? Yes, but not in fact more expensive than the day to day costs of having a child.

Who ever predicts where redundancies will fall? Who falls accidentally pregnant? MN has lots of threads of "OMG I'm pregnant".

What is immoral is limiting the benefits so that the children suffer. This will affect the children more than it curbs any notion of 'being careful with your fertility in case you fall on hard times'. And people don't fall - someone pushes: public sector job cuts; passport offices shut.

Studies in the States indicate that where welfare benefits are cut and limited to 'curb' family size and abrogate govt, responsibility, there were increases in abortions. Great - let's put women who have all circumstances of child-bearing sometimes inflicted upon them, through a traumatic process (to say the least) so they can manage on the meagre benefits they get.

It is utterly perverse to ignore the incentives built into a system.

The benefits system at present creates incentives for not working and having multiple children. The marginal tax rates for families in benefits can be 80-90%

It is similar to bonus schemes that pay big money for short term rises in share price - executives will happily trash and loot a company to get their bonus, if that is how they earn the big bucks.

It is clearly unfair that the working poor are scrimping and saving to afford children while their idle neighbours get paid and housed for having children assuming the state will pick up the bill.

It is not just about falling on hard times - the "underclass" are not stupid. They can clearly see when not working, pretending to be single, working cash in hand, having (more) children is to their advantage and act accordingly.

I have no problem with capping benefits in this was as long as something is done on the other end to make sure employment is worthwhile. And end to zero hour contracts, regulation and unionisation of temporary agency workers, and a requirement for employers to contribute towards a pension would be a start.

Agree with Edam and Dandy Dan - no-one knows what is round the corner.

I abhor the double standards. Was Jeremy rhyming slang thinking of Boris or other sexually incontinent toffs? I don't think so?

The smugness displayed on this thread is alarming.

Portofino the policies you are talking about are disproportionately expensive and only pay out - if they do at all - for short periods.

Friend has 5 kids both she and her DH were in excellent very high earning jobs and had every expectation they would provide for them. He had an accident and is now brain damaged and she is his carer. What does Jeremy think she should do? Send the kids back? Have them adopted?

Where is the double standard?

I'm just not seeing it here.

In the situation you describe the family will not be affected anyway.

People do accidentally get pregnant and it is nice that the State can support this but there are also people that have large families without considering who is going to pay for this.

There are some very large families who do not get benefits with a high level of income but surely most people choose to limit their family size to ensure that they can provide their children with a home, food and some luxuries. In some countries you get no benefits for more than the first child.

The minister phrase was made to appeal to Daily Mail readers who are constantly being bombarded by families with 42 inch screens (for some reason the size of the TV is important) and I think that was a cheap gibe but it is only reasonable for the State to cater for the average family surely to allow for an equitable spread of the budget. Any parent considering having a large family should think this through and not be irresponsible as the children will be the ones who suffer.

AGree with skidoodly.

There isn't some limitless purse of money.

As for the argument that 'no one knows what's around the corner' - absolutely, none of us do - any of us could lose our job, fall ill etc. Therefore, as we are all in the same, uncertain, boat, why should some people, who try to take responsibility and plan for their future as well as the present, end up paying for those who choose not to plan?

If I lose my job, or decide to split from my husband and run two separate households, I'd be bloody grateful for the opportunity to claim benefits up to 26k. Christ, it's way more than a lot of people who work their arses off all week.

I can't get my head around this idea that people have an entitlement to have as many kids as they want, or live in a home in a certain area with a certain number of bedrooms, paid for by other people.

Many many people do plan their families carefully and limit the number of children they have so that they can afford to raise them - so why should they then be forced to pay out for other people who don't? We waited longer than we'd have liked to have dc2, because we couldn't afford childcare for two children, and needed to wait until eldest was almost at school, and then take out a loan to cover the overlap of two in childcare. We also stopped at 3 children rather than indulge ourselves with 4 (which I would have liked) because we couldn't afford 4. And before anyone pipes up and says babies don't cost much, actually, once you want to transport a family of 6 anywhere together, you can't do it in a standard family car. The fact is, practicalities like this do need to be taken into account when having a family.

I do find it rather astonishing that some people seem to have a head in the sand attitude about the cuts. I know quite sane, sensible adults, who understand full well that if they blow all the housekeeping money one month, they're up shit creek, they can't just bleat that they want more. Yet apply that situation on a wider scale - ie the country being bankrupt - and they seem to whine that it's not fair and 'someone' should provide more money

Actually I think the benefits system needs to be overhauled regardless of the deficit/financial crisis.

The current arrangements mean that the state is providing massive subsidies to profitable companies so that they can pay wages below the cost of living.

That needs to change.

What a silly OP

Oh I agree that people need to take some responsibility - that's not the issue - the issue is that he is decreeing only those rich enough can have children (something anyone is entitled to do legally). That's fine if the rich then pay their taxes and not legally avoid them.

Actually no one has addressed the OP's rather salient point, far from silly, which is the very rich cost this country billions in tax evasion. Legal it may be, moral it is not. And if the Tories want to claw back money, then this is the primary target. Of course they won't do this, because those people are their chums.

I agree with a benefits cap. But it absolutely immoral and illogical to do this without going after tax evaders and changing the laws to make this impossible.

Only those rich enough should have a posh car. Should the State provide one of those for everybody as well?

... and feck right off FranSan - take your stupid face with you. It's not "a silly OP" it's an observation that there is going to be
one rule for the rich as usual while the poor can go feck themselves - Jeremy Cunt is a rich tosser no doubt legally avoiding taxes. That's fine but I will asert my legal to have children if I want to - however poor I might be (and yes I am on benefits but I also work).

Has anyone considered that if these rich feckers paid the taxes they should then there might be more money to go around? Nope = thought not. Smug smug smug, pull the ladder up Jack and sod the rest.

Is 26k tax free as well as having your house paid or do people have to pay their rent out of that? Because it does seem remarkably generous - I had no idea that people were receiving more than that in benefits currently.

Still, tax evasion being ignored is immoral and Paxman should call someone up on it.

There's a difference between a "posh car" and children. The country needs children - we have a falling birth rate and a rising elderly population. Nobody needs a posh car or the pathetic personalized "ooh look how rich I am peasants" plate to go with it.

Right - am off to burn up my seething annoyance on housework - have a nice day all.

If all those kids grow up and pay tax that is fine, as that will be repaying the benefits. Unfortunately there are some parts of the country where we are under third generations of non-working families who have been raised on the State.

A rich person who is able to avoid paying tax will be earning in excess of £150,000. Think of all the tax they are paying on £150,000. Most of them pay for private education rather than relying on state eduction reducing that bill and pay for private health insurance. There are some super rich who should pay more tax. Think Oasis who left the country for a year. The Government are also cracking down on tax avoidance schemes but these have not received as much publicity as taking CB of the middle classes.

Yes it is an argument but parents are responsible for their children and should take this into account when choosing how many they have. My Gran had 10 children and always said if the pill had been available she would have reduced this number as they had it really tough with no nanny state to support them then.

Tax evasion costs this country 15 billion every year

And that is illegal tax evasion. Legal tax evasion, carried out by big companies, cost the UK hundreds of millions for each one of them. Look at what Barclays did.
here

A lot of people are consumed by jealousy with the idea that anyone else might earn more than them, and then they fail to look at the reality, which is that actually high earners will be paying a huge amount of tax anyway, regardless of any legal ways of preventing themselves from paying more.

I'm not a huge fan of bankers, and I've never voted Tory in my life, but it becomes very wearisome reading threads where people just seethe with resentment about the fact that they can't have exactly what they want courtesy of the state.

I'd have quite liked to have 4 children.
I'd have quite liked to have the option of living in the area I was raised.

I couldn't afford either of those options, so I took other ones instead. And guess what? My life is ok!!

I am in the same situation as you violet hill. But extremely odd, this refusal to acknowledge fairness has to start with those who are the richest, and many of those are not paying what they should, costing this country billions. Acknowledging that does not make you seething with jealousy actually, it just makes you want social justice.

Weren't Vodafone recently 'let off' a very large tax bill ?

It does seem rather baffling and insulting that these sorts of decisions are being made when we are being told that the country is in dire financial straits and cuts are being made left right and crentre, sometimes to save relatively piffling amounts.

Ok some could afford a large family and then fell on hard times but could they really because for us factoring in DC4 meant factoring the savings to ensure we wouldn't be in dire straights too.

Everyone has to have a back up plan and that includes savings before you even have DC1
I was a lone parent with my first child and on a reasonable not fantastic wage but i had £5k in the bank before she was a year old, just in case.