Jeremy Hunt: "Don't expect us to pay for your children"

[LadyBlaBlah]

I know lots of people agree with this in principle (especially going by the Daily Mail comments)

If you can't afford a child, don't have one. Simple.

But it really is not that simple-like all these things that make judgements on those on benefits

Where does this policy end up - eugenics and enforced sterilisation?

Based on what criteria?

Starving children?

And this is all in the context that Nick Clegg was bleating on increasing international aid to lift children out of poverty in his conference last week - "look at me and how good I am to the little starving children in Africa". The hypocrisy staggers me. By the same rules, Africans should stop having children too. That should be policy rather than giving them aid - right?

Desmond Tutu said "My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together." I love that quote. It is simply a reflection on us how we chose to treat other human being.

This poor bashing is really really depressing me. It is daily It is worse than I imagined it could be.

bb99, yes educational standards have been raised under Labout but it's too soon to know what the impact of that will be - some one who was five when Labour got in would be only 18 now, and it's not as if they waved a magic wand in any case. Plus, having ACCESS to education isn't much good if your family background predisposes you to think it's a waste of time.

Agree totally that you don't have to have an exam certificate to be able to make responsible decisions about your life but the fact is lots of people don't make very good decisions (I include myself in that) and one of the functions of the welfare state is to provide a safety net. Personally I'd prefer it to be a non-judgemental one.

Tbh, the whole thing about large families on benefits has been blown up out of all proportion. Only 3 per cent of families in the UK have more than 3 children, down from 8 per cent in 1961, so the press/Tories have as usual whipped up a frenzy of disapproval about something that's the exception, not the rule.

LabouR, not Labout (which sounds like a Tory slogan)

what wrenches my guts is these threats about the 'jobless' and how they are to be encouraged to 'get back into work'

the public spending cuts will put (it's estimated) 300,000 people out of work...
WHAT 'work' are they supposed to do??

does anyone think they might reopen the Foundlings Hospital?

c as a curiosity (and I am getting kicked off the computer now ) how could you encourage people to make better decisions (ie either try to return to work), or have fewer children if they genuinely cannot afford them - whatever their income stream?

It seems people have been left to it and had few consequencces for their actions (eg more kids on benefits does equal more money, albeit not a massive amount of income, generally) and have continued to make alternative decision - which is their right - goodness knows, we've all made crap poor decisions or got caught out from time to time. But when or how does this stop in the current economic climate - If it isn't turned around we could be in real problems in years to come, so what do you do?

Harpsichord, can I refer you to a poster on a previous thread who suggested the unemployed should start their own small businesses?

Don't worry, she got a good kicking.

ha,
GOOD.

If you believe that educational standards have been raised after 13 years of a Labour government then you are delusional.

Attainment has increased but that does not relate to standards.

And cinnamontoast - I'm not concerned by the family size, it offends me that I have to support any other family, regardless of whether that is one or ten children, that the State has to fully support as I made a conscious effort to only have the number of children that I can finiacially support.

Why should I work and pay taxes for other people who procreate irresponsibly?

If everyone only had children that they can afford without requiring benefits from the government than this country would be a much better place.

The exception to this is when people lose their jobs through no fault of their own. Of course State aid should be available in these circumstances - that's what welfare was invented for. My comments are aimed at the many families who have never had the income to support their offspring but opt to have children regardless.

OMG, will it really happen?
Dh and i both were going go on benefit and have big family. Wouldnt be great to be full time mum and dad.

wrong, wrong, wrong.

Families in reciept of benefit actually get LESS the more kids they have. This is the same in Child benefit for example...more for your first and less ther after. It is even the same for an absent parent and their very own flesh and blood! IE: The CSA only expect the absent parent [usually dad] to pay so much for the first and less ther after and even less after that if he starts a new family! So, they do not get paid more at all. And, compared to a lot of European countries we do rather poorly indeed at supporting larger familes with most already living in poverty/being classed as poor.

I would suggest you google the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and UNICEF to find out about how the UK does in regards to the welfare of it's children.

bb99, God knows how you encourage people to make better decisions and it's obviously a really crap decision financially to have children if you're on benefits anyway because the more children you have the poorer you will be, despite the increase in benefits. But many people on benefits would have had children BEFORE they ended up on benefits and in any case we can't go down the road of telling people they can't afford children and frankly I don't see why the poor don't have as much right to have children as the rich.

Interestingly, in America, when they tried to discourage women from having more children by not increasing state benefits in line with the number of kids, it resulted in an increase in the abortion rate - opening up a whole new moral dilemma.

Divatheshopaholic - why are you both going on benefit? Have you both lost your jobs?

But Garcia10, maybe you have smoked or drank irresponsibly, or made poor dietary choices. You might as well say, why should my taxes pay for your healthcare?

Cinnamontoast - you haven't responded to my question. Why should I be responsible for supporting parents who have children regardless of whether they have the means to support them?

I have worked incredibly hard so that I can get to a level where I can support a 2nd child. I also pay enough taxes to ensure that I will never be a burden on the welfare state regardless of how much I smoke and drink (I have private healthcare too through my work so your argument is void).

I have a problem in paying taxes to support irresponsible people who choose to have as many children as they wish knowing that the State will support them. As mentioned in an earlier post - I chose NOT to have a 2nd child because at the time I couldn't afford to do so. You cannot deny that if everyone took that same choice that the country wouldn't be better (and richer)place.

Garcia, you go off and live on a little island and enjoy your self sufficiency ( though don't expect to rely on private healthcare if you have serious health problems). Personally I prefer to be part of society, one in which we all contribute according to our means.

Frankly I'm getting pretty sick of the peevish way some MNers say 'I don't pay my taxes to support [insert benefits scroungers/single parents/whatever the latest DM hate figure is]' as if their taxes go straight into the pocket of whatever poor sap has most recently managed to outrage them. How much of 'your' money do you think goes to other people's kids? It just doesn't work like that. I might just as well say I don't pay my taxes to support defence spending/traffic wardens/public libraries - can't think when I last went in one of those. Every street you walk down has been paved and lit with public money, every park and public place paid for out of the national spending pot, so there's no point claiming that you're somehow above taking advantage of what the state provides.

The state pays families a basic subsistence level - barely that in many cases. The idea that people have large families and just sit back and rake in the money is ludicrous.

And finally, Garcia, I would refer you to the Tutu quote from the OP except I suspect there's not a hope in hell you'd know what he was on about.

cinnamontoast - well thank you for your histronic posts. They made very interesting reading.

I am still concerned that you may not have understood the underlying premise of my posts. I shall clarify - I made a decision not to have any more children as I could not afford to. Therefore, I do not want to pay for the children of people (whether I have to pay £1 or £1,000 towards that child) who believe it is acceptable to have them and request that the State support them.

I do not wish to cast aspirations but I can only assume that you are one of the individuals to whom I refer in the previous paragraph.

And btw - my health policy is the one of the best available: underlying conditions, oncology drugs ftw.

cast aspirations?

Sorry I don't understand that line. Do you mean aspersions? Or something else?

When you say you do not wish to pay for the children of other people Garcia, does that mean that you are happy if these children are not fed? Because that to me is what you are saying. What then - taking them into care is more expensive than giving their families enough to feed them. Aside from the moral issue of forcibly removing children from loving families. or would you just leave them in hunger?

Would you abolish free school meals for 3rd and subsequent children? That would follow naturally from your position - do you support that policy? Or in fact reading your post again, would you prefer to abolish free school meals entirely? What about other services? Should 3rd and subsequent children be allowed to access them?

Lego -

"I would suggest you google the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and UNICEF to find out about how the UK does in regards to the welfare of it's children."

This is not an argument for preserving the status quo though - is it?

No, it's an argument for more support for children and families who need it, not less.

Well don't expect those children to grow up and pay for you.

"does anyone think they might reopen the Foundlings Hospital?"

Joking aside, keeping a child in care costs the state far more than paying their feckless parents to sling them some chicken nuggets once in a while.

The whole argument moves seamlessly from 'we don't have an endless pot of money' to 'parents who smoke, drink, feed their kids shit and don't deserve children'. This move is nothing to do with economics. It's ideological.

The only way you can stop people having more children than they can afford is to sterilise them or remove any surplus children. Fancy it?

We probably won't have another child now because we want to continue to be able to support the one we already have should our income fall. What's the problem, isn't that just being responsible? Why shouldn't others be the same?

It IS ideological Tethersend, isn't it, and one of the scariest things about all the cuts is how seamlessly they fit with Tory ideology. Shrink the state, cap benefits and immigration, punish anyone who's unfortunate enough not to have been born into affluence or who's fallen on hard times. It's so easy for them they can do it on autopilot and meanwhile the Tory press is dusting down all the old 'scrounger' headlines.

Good post cinnamontoast

Why thank you, ISNT