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.

"Most people take stock of their income when considering how many children to have."

yes most people do. So what's the big deal? It is only a small minority that have more kids. It doesn't cost us that much, and their kids will contribute to halt the declining birth rate. They are doing us a service. Labour have often told us that we need more immigration so that the pensions of our old can be paid for, since we have a declining birth rate. What's wrong with increasing our own birth rate? Who has got it in for our people?

Shirelyknot Respect! for remaining celibate in these promiscuous times, and you're a Christian even better, and you love animals, having a little budgie called Jim, had 7 children (you probably fostered), you become more saintly with ever letter I type. One thing that does puzzle however is why someone as obviously lovely as you would call someone she does not know a moron?
But anyway I digress.
Hunts' statement that people should not have children they cannot afford to keep, is cleary a shot across the bows, and a warning that in future people will not be allowed to have as many children as they like and expect the state to keep them. However I believe children must be looked after, and that includes pregnant mothers. I agree with Claig in that children come very far down a pecking order for any government and they are the next generation, I don't agree with many areas of government public policy on children and in particular the criminalisation of young people, but thats another story. Electra is also right welfare covers many different circumstances and they should be considered. Now I'm serious with you, 'sister' Shirleyknot. (you're probably preetier than me)

Well I didn't do that, when I had my children I thought that their father might support them (along with me)

I'm certainly paying for having had my children.... in many ways. I'm having to be carer/parent. It's their father who's not paying for them, in anyway whatsoever.

David Cameron would love my x if he met probably. Same smug attitude, and they both hold single mtohers in contempt.

Just to butt in.

I think that individuals, whether on or off benefits, whether HRT or not do need to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for the choices they make RE: their families'.

Individuals do need to consider how many children they are going to have and how many they can afford to have (a lot of people do this as a matter of course).

Nobody has the 'right' to have any number of children they WANT, only upto 1 child, because as a society we are (in most areas I think) prepared to sponsor a limited number of fertility treatments to enable a couple to have ONE child only (ie - if you are fortunate enought to have 1 child from the small amount of help available, you don't get any other paid for help to have another child)

QED: as a society we have already determined that there is a financial responsibility element to having kids - we'll sponsor you for X rounds of FT in order to have a possible 1 child, but then you're on your own and have to find your own money to do the job...

So...just because you are lucky enough to be v. fertile, does that give you the right to have any number of children if you are unable to financially support them?

OK, the welfare state DOES need to be flexible to take into account changing circumstances, but I think we need to be discussing personal responsibility. Just a thought.

How many children has Cameron got?

We live in a free country (for now), you can have as many children as you like. We're not China yet (although Porritt would probably support some of their policies). Very few people have lots of children anymore, which is why we have this declining birthrate, and why they tell us that we need more immigrants.

It's not the problem that they are making it out to be. This personal responsibility, this "nanny statism", this lecturing and hectoring of the public is to make us less free. They are measuring our "carbon footprint", just like the eugenicists measured our IQs. Soon they will decide that some people have too large a "carbon footprint". What do you think they will then start doing?

No-one's mentioning carbon footprint in this particular debate. It's more about the financial aspect of 'family planning' (to use a slightly old fashioned term). Some people decide the extra expense of more children is worth going without in some other aspect of life. Others prefer a smaller family because they still want to be able to afford a few luxuries. No-one's under any obligation to either increase or decrease the population, I don't think.

Chil1234, it's the underlying message of "sustainability" and why Porritt says we should be restricted to having 2 children. These scrounger messages are not really about the money, because the money is peanuts to the money they spend on Trident and much else. It is to do with giving the public a message that they should reduce their family sizes, because they are a cost and a burden on hard-working tax payers. It is population control and that is why it is "carbon footprint", which is a measure of what resources the population is using and why it must be restricted, according to Porritt and the other messengers of doom.

It is an attack on the poor, which is why the word "undeserving" is bandied about.

Yes it's amazing how accepting we are of attacks on the poor while allowing the rich to take 'the piss because they somehow deserve not to have to pay tax like the rest of us.

who runs Britain?

The media must look for months to find these families with 10 children and their 60 inch plasma TVs. They are few and far between, and the cost of supporting them is minimal, and probably less than what we forked out on MPs' expenses for porn movies, bath plugs, home flipping, and kitchen refits.

They are picking a scapegoat and they parade these families to us in the media so that we can jeer at them. But they know very well it has got nothing to do with the small amount of money that really goes to supporting these families.

exactly CommanderCool. The super rich are laughing at the public. They are setting the public at each others' throats, picking on families on 10, so that we don't focus attention on what the super rich have done, are doing and intend to do. We already bailed the bankers out and paid with our jobs, but they are already saying we may need to do a second bailout. We'll gladly go along with it, because we are too busy attacking Mrs. Jones, her 10 children and their 60 inch plasma TV.

They intend to limit our families because they really do believe we are "feckless scroungers", and they want to get as many of us believing it too, so that we help in our own decline.

Shocking:

" When income taxes were 90%, sheltering wealth was to be expected. But Britain?s central and local taxes are now among the lowest in the developed world. London?s super-rich give almost nothing back, through taxes, charity, public works or anything. That any government should permit them ?a hiding place from fair taxation? Peston regards as obscene."

Will this change? I don't fucking think so

And then "Mrs Jones" with her 10 kids and plasma TV, attacks the immigrants for being put first on the housing lists (anyone listen to Today this morning?).

Is it not a fair statement to say ?not to have children if you can't afford them" .There are people in our society who desperately want children but feel that they are not able to bring them up with everything a child needs. Why is it that people who go out to work have to pay for people to stay at home and pop babies out one after the other expecting society to keep paying and never having to give back to the society they live in? Motherhood is a privilege not a career. I want children but have to progress in my job to be able to give my children everything they need and deserve. Its unfair on the child if the parents feel its ok to keep them in poverty by not being able to provide sufficiently for them. At the moment it is difficult to get a job i understand that I have very little qualifications yet still I try my hardest to get myself into a position where I would be an able parent to support myself and my children. To keep expecting the working public to fund people who are unwilling to contribute to society is ludicrous. The cuts are going to be tough on all of us however in this day and age we have the ability to control our reproduction its nothing to do with sterilising people or eugenics its a question of respect for other people and your children. No one wants to see a child suffer so why would people bring them into the world with no ability to give them everything they deserve which is more unfortunately then love alone. We need to start taking responsibility for ourselves and our own actions.

OrmRenewed, you are right Mrs. Jones then attacks the immigrants. That is what the super rich want. It's called divide and rule, and they have always done it. If people are not attacking each other and getting along fine, then it is the super rich that foment the trouble and start stirring things up in the media and elsewhere, so that it all kicks off. They then sit back and enjoy the show, knowing that nobody is bothering about them.

As I've already said on other threads, I want to move to Denmark!

"Chil1234, it's the underlying message of "sustainability" and why Porritt says we should be restricted to having 2 children."

And you automatically do what Porritt says, do you? I think you'll find that people use a lot of criteria when thinking about family size but that Jonathan Porritt's opinion is well down on the list.

People manage to have quite large families on relatively low incomes if they budget right, have family support and happen to live in an area where big houses aren't too expensive.

I don't understand all this talk of how people ought to take personal responsibility and think before they act, while at the same time saying "of course we have to look after the children".

Of course in theory it would be nice if people were all able to be self sufficient. however in practice some poeple are not. Some people already have large families. The effect of the benefits cap will be huge upheaval, reduction of life chances and increases in terrible deprivation for people who are already struggling. The result will be that the children will suffer, really suffer.

So the ideaology "people on benefits shouldn't have too many children let's cap benefits that'll teach them" simply has the effect of punishing children.

The "take responsibility for yourself" argument is not compatible with any social programs... These positions are at odds. If you want the benefits capped then understand that you are voting to punich children by pushing them into grinding poverty and removing the support networks of their families ie potentially making their home situaitons very difficult. At least be honest with yourselves what you are supporting.

Complimentary I have the exact opposite experience. Foriegners only have child and English families have many. It just depends on where you live.

I do not believe in the idea of "deserving poor".

I am convinced that higher living standards and education act as a natural contraceptive anyway. My parents had 15 siblings between them. I am an only child and DS is going to be an only child.

Do you want less poor children? Spend some money on them now, and they will have ambitions and contribute more to society. Sorry for ranting. I'll read the rest of the thread.

I completely agree with you Claig.

When white, rich, older men (Porrit, Prince Charles et al) feel the need to lecture women all over the globe about how many children they should have it makes me want to hurl. It is all about control and keeping us in our place.

There can't be that many families with 10 children who have never worked. I live in Leith (very mixed area) and the biggest family i know of has 4 children. Why are we deciding policy on a couple of freakish exceptions?

"No one wants to see a child suffer so why would people bring them into the world with no ability to give them everything they deserve"

this is the message they want us to believe. A child doesn't suffer, just because it doesn't have the latest material gadgets that we all work hard to afford. In the past, we were poor and had large families, but we had community and love and didn't require all the material possessions they tempt us with. They want to restrict our birth, which is why they have made it harder amd harder for us to make a living. They have shipped our jobs abroad and offered us low wage jobs for longer hours, while house prices were artificially boosted by lax credit so that we needed to stretch ourselves ever more. Then just as we climbed on the ladder, they crashed our economy and now intend to cut thousands and thousands of jobs. Then they blame it all on the scroungers. They are having a real good laugh.

The main message that once everyone has got their allowance/salary/top-up they're supposed to use it responsibly is valid because it sets expectations. A good social programme should be able to cope with people who fall outside of the norm, emergencies and extreme cases.... the people who already have large families, for example, and then need extra help.

The two are not incompatible.

"And you automatically do what Porritt says, do you?"

I don't do anything that Porritt says or that any of his ilk says, because I understand where he is coming from. But he is very influential and he does influence society and many people believe in his "sustainability" arguments.

So what mechanisms is the government proposing for those who "fall outside of the norm"?

Seems like quite a straightforward policy of punishing those who have the temerity to breed while being on low incomes or unemployed.

What is "the norm" anyway? It goes back to the whole concept of the "deserving poor".

It all makes me want to have another baby just to piss people off.

I hope I live long enough to see these eco fascists and people who hate large families lying in their own waste and getting no care in their old age.

Advances in medicine are happening fast, people are living very long and it is all becoming rather costly. These high costs and the longevity was never imagined or prepared for by those who created the NHS. And it has not been prepared for.

The miserable twats who moan about large families will not, in their lifetime, even come close to paying enough into the system to pay for their own old age.

They better hope and pray that the younger generation coming up is very charitable. And that there is a lot of them.

I work hard and support my children and so does my husband. I pay my taxes. I wish they would stop pissing money away on things like Trident and start helping families that are not as lucky as we are.

October 9, 2050
Dear Whinging Eco Fascists,

You may be a 90 year old in need of 24 hour nursing and medical care but the taxes you paid in your life time don't even come close to covering the associated costs. Basic medical and nursing care is more complex and expensive in 2050 than it was when you were working and paying taxes. In the early 21st century families were stopped from having more than two children while the elderly population grew and grew and demanded more and more. Families with more than 2 children were seen as pigs and cut off from help when they fell on hard times.

There is no one to tax to pay for your care. There is no one to take care of you. Young working people these days are outnumbered 40 to one by people like you with incontinance, immobility, and dementia. And they don't owe you a thing. Deal with it. Ha ha ha ha.