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?

violethill, asking for solutions to the problems cutting this benefit will create is not polarising the argument.

Incidentally, I am a teacher too.

smalwhitecat nails it. Short of forcibly sterilising 'feckless parents' (or just those too poor to afford children), there is no cost-effective action the government can take to stop people on benefits having children without punishing those children.

And that is the point that the money isn't reaching the children all too often because the parents can't be trusted.
Argue all you like or not but with all the state intervention we've had for the past 10 years should no longer be needed, there should be no more child neglect sure start have educated people, no more teen pregnancies, no more drug problems, no more poverty, as it is the problems haven't gone away so we need to try something else.
The carrot failed that leaves the stick.

"And that is the point that the money isn't reaching the children all too often because the parents can't be trusted."

mamatomany, I am baffled now. I thought the problem was that there was not enough money in the pot?

I disagree with any notion that the govt would be 'punishing' children.

It all comes back to balancing personal responsibility with the duty of the state. The state has a responsibility to intervene anyway in cases of abuse, or neglect. They can't be blamed for 'punishing' the children if feckless parents choose to spend what money they do get on fags, or booze, or nights out rather. Let's face it - that already happens. In the school where I teach, some of the pupils are brought up well, some adequately, some shockingly, and everything inbetween. A good parent will put the needs of their child first, a bad one won't. And throwing more money at bad parents won't change that - it just gives them more money to feed crap to their children or to smoke more fags all over their kids.

Any system is based on carrots and sticks, and unfortunately the 'carrots' haven't proved successful enough - therefore there needs to be more of the stick.

I think you have a woefully naive understanding of neglect, teen pregnancies, drug addiction and poveryty if you think that a country can eradicate it through ten years of Surestart

This doesn't mean Surestart is ineffective.

x posts there with mama!

the banks are behaving immorally by charging the kind of interest that they do. The law is immoral if it allows loopholes to avoid tax, that are only available to the rich [because you have to pay a very expensive lawyer/accountant to avoid the tax] Just because it has not been changed in order to pander to what the very rich want does not make it less immoral.

You should only have a child if you can afford it, and it is prudent to tax plan.

There should never be a tax impediment to going for a highly paid job.

For a teacher I'm surprised that with all the piss poor parenting you must come across and the impact it has on young people that you don't support the cuts tbh.

The social workers and teachers and one who became the other are of the opinion that hanging is too good for many they see.
Plenty of people should not be allowed to have children because they do not put their children first which is awful if you are supporting the kids financially at least but frankly if I am supporting you with my taxes I expect you to be an outstanding parent, better than most and if you aren't you don't deserve anything but the public humiliation of being forced to use food stamps or soup kitchens.

I do not understand your assertion that reducing the benefit cap will make an adequate parent become an inadequate parent. We survived on £25,000 net with no benefits with children and still managed to feed the children, get them to school, pay the mortgage, run two cars, holidays and sky TV. Therefore this is still enough money to support a family. My DF was one of ten kids living in a three bedroomed house. People do manage on lower amounts of money and I do not see why this would reduce a parent to being an inadequate parent. Where is the corelation?

My point was that I would not save money by not intervening with care if the case is proved to be that the child should be taken from the parents. The money should not come into that decision. It was not that all children should be taken from parents if they are inadequate.

I have seen a sister raise their sisters as foster parents rather than let her mother raise them with a father who abused them and a mother turn a blind air. This is intervention and care and completely different from the discussion with regard to cutting benefits.

"And throwing more money at bad parents won't change that - it just gives them more money to feed crap to their children or to smoke more fags all over their kids."

Sidestepping your interesting (and simplified) take on 'bad parents', feeding your kids crap is not to be commended but neither is it grounds to take a child into care. Not feeding them at all, is.

Removal of a small amount of money from poor parents can mean that dividing line is crossed.

Children are only a good thing for society if they grow up to be productive members. We don't need more benefits scroungers.

• the teachers and SW that I know that should say, all 4 of them.

I also think that comments like 'the government would be punishing the existing children' are in themself part of the problem.

Why not tell it straight?

Parents who choose to spend money on shit food or fags rather than feed their children properly, are punishing their children.

Parents who have more children than they have the physical or emotional capacity to cope with are the ones punishing their children.

Not the 'state'.

If I choose to spend my money on shit rather than on nurturing my children, I see that as my responsibility, not anyone elses.

And don't roll out the old chestnut about it being a lack of awareness or lack of education. 50 years ago maybe. Not these days. Basic knowledge such as what constitutes a healthy diet, and the fact that smoking kills, is widely known - god, it's difficult to ignore it. The internet has become a really useful source of knowledge - and that's available widely. And if someone is now going to claim that all these poor families on benefits can't afford the internet (my arse!) then there's always the local library.

How do you tell who will grow up as what, MmeBlueberry?

'How do you tell who will grow up as what'

There are no 100% guarantees, but there is certainly a lot of statistical evidence about outcomes.

Children of unemployed parents are more likely to be unemployed themselves.

Children of unskilled and poorly qualified parents are more likely to grow up with fewer skills and qualifications.

There are also links with things like parents who smoke, who gave birth in their teens etc etc

"For a teacher I'm surprised that with all the piss poor parenting you must come across and the impact it has on young people that you don't support the cuts tbh.
The social workers and teachers and one who became the other are of the opinion that hanging is too good for many they see."

Err... since when is supporting cuts synonymous with supporting poor parenting?!

Nowhere have I said that there isn't a problem- I have simply stated that cutting benefits under the guise of saving money is a wholly inadequate way of addressing it, and may even be counter-productive.

violethill, please don't patronise me; I am well aware of the statistical evidence.

My point is, if you are going to write off one single child's worth as an adult, as Mme implied, you'd better be certain of their future.

I believe that as teachers, we need to part of the solution, not contribute to the problem.

That's empty rhetoric unless you elaborate, Mme.

It means that my values are the polar opposite of your values, TE.

Violethill, you physically cannot leave the maternity hospital without what DH and I called the baby manual, you have booklet after booklet on nutrition, cot death, not smoking, contraception and an hour long discharge brief.
and then the HV brings another wad along with her 6 weeks later. Ignorance is just no longer an excuse.

No news there, Mme.

I for one, am relieved.

If you have a point about the topic, please do make it though