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.

One of things that annoys me most is comments like "don't expect me to pay for your children" (I'm paraphrasing, but saw this recently on a CB thread). What seems to escape these people is that those children are the taxpayers of the future, and the ones that will be paying for their pension and their NHS treatment.

However - and this is where the logic becomes muddled for me - there clearly is a point where it becomes ridiculous. For me, any more than 4 children is getting silly. But who am I to say that? How exactly does one define the number of children that is "sustainable"?

They'll soon create an enviroment where people with large families will be socially unacceptable and will be abused in the street for not being "sustainable" and will be falsely accused of being scroungers. The media can whip the public up any way they want. There'll be a Big Brother "two minute hate" against scroungers with large families. It will be a bit like the opprobrium towards people driving gas guzzling cars.

These families will be restricted to £26,000 in benefits and will be told that they have exceeded their allowable "carbon footprint". Bureaucrats will tell us that these families are threatening the "sustainability of the planet". The sad thing is that millions of people will believe it and applaud the bureaucrats.

Jeremy Hunt, rhymes with............

Shirly,

"I would quite like to know where all these jobs are for the Benefit Scroungers to get off their arses and do, because last time I looked the job market was looking a little...bleak."

How about if unemployment benefit was pegged to unemployment rates.

During times of full employment - there would only be a small, short term unemployment benefit available. When unemployment was high - rates would be increased and timescale lengthened.

An idea for IDS ?

unemployment rates are shite.

I'm on benefits - but not "unemployed" - as I'm on IS. I'm also not "seeking work"..........despite the fact that I look on a weekly basis at the 3 sources of jobs in town..........

It would also have to be done on a regional basis which would complicate matters further

Claig: one big problem is that a lot of women are having more children than they want to have. Everywhere aid agencies are concentrating on empowering women, helping them to get an education and some independence, they are choosing to have fewer children.

yes I agree with that, in the third world. But we are talking about here.

And in the developed world, some women are still having more children than they would choose to because of men's behaviour, the men who won't use contraception either because they reckon their imaginary friend doesn;t approve, or because they don't like condoms and therefor won't use them. Yet it's the women who get blamed for being single mothers when it's the men who impregnate and run who should be held to account a lot more than actually happens.
OK the idea of trying to force people into maintaining couple-relationships is just as wrong as trying to force them not to have more children, yet making sure men contribute financially to their DC's upkeep even if they are not desirable partners for the mothers is one that should be pursued more strongly.

I agree men should be forced to contribute. There are some women who are having more children than they choose due to men's behaviour.

But there are also women who want large families and I don't think any decent government in a free society should try to stop them and threaten them by saying "don't expect us to pay for your children".

What it really boils down to is that these rich and powerful people don't want the poor to have lots of children. Tony Blair has 4 children, twice the average UK amount, and good luck to him and his family. But I don't think that a poor person should be told that they can't have 4 children like him. His children are no better than the children of the poor.

They introduced the census in the 19th century to keep track of the masses. The elite were pissed that the "undeserving" masses were having lots of children. I don't think the elites have changed much. They still think that the poor are where they are because they deserve it and they think that they are superior to poor people.

In the UK there are still really strict branches of Christianity, and I'm not talking about Catholicism, that ban contraception and even abstenance. So the poor women churn out child after child, year after year. In the 21st century - I ask you!

These rich people really do believe that most of us are a waste of space and that we are consuming the earth's resources and wasting them. They think they are entitled to these resources and we just get in the way. That is why every single government, run by the powerful and for the benefit of teh powerful, is green and talks about "sustainability" and "depletion of resources". They even go as far as telling us we should cut out meat because cows' methane is causing global warming. Every powerful leader is behind the same message. The thinkers behind it are Eton educated Porritt and even more sinister figures like Professor Peter Singer, a green animal rights eugenecist, who says that mentally handicapped children are worth less than animals.

PosieParker whispered
" aren't people born into low economic status more likely to end up there?"

As no one seems to have picked up on it I'll shout

THE EDUCATIONAL OUTCOME FOR CHILDREN FROM THE POOREST FAMILIES IS FAR BEHIND THAT OF AVERAGE CHILDREN

It's naive to think you alleviate poverty by just giving poor people money. A system which encourages those with poor parenting skills to have children (and fails to provide parent and child with adequate support) is just cruel.

Btw - I'm not saying a blunt withdrawal of benefit is the solution (though I don't know what is).

But it is not right to actively encourage the poor to have large families.

It's also naive to think that poor parenting skills are only evident in poor families

Riven - Could the problem not be that wages do not properly reflect the cost of living? And CTC has allowed employers to get people (like your dh) at a bargain rate?

But why is it so easy in the UK for absent fathers to avoid their financial responsibility.

Here in Australia, your child support is taken from your salary at source (like your tax), and I believe that under some circs (arrears, disputes perhaps?) you are put on the airport watch list. There was a case a year or so ago about some hole who turned up to go on holiday to Bali and was told by Qantas sorry, no, you can't leave the country as you have an unpaid child support obligation.

Mano - did you read the article and you understand the concept of statistically?

Riven - Agree the house price inflation has distorted things. I've been reading about the 'living wage' campaign lately and wonder if this isn't a better approach to equality than tax/benefits. Just wondering - no real opinion on it.

Complimentary,I'll makesure I tell my 3 children not to pay for your treatment when you are old and ill in hospital,especially if they become nurses,which there are quite a few of in our family!

The house prices thing is true, that housing is no longer affordable the way it used to be. I bought a one bed flat in about 1997, it was what I would say was about the "right" price - 4 x salary for someone in their early 20s, in a nice part of London. Now it's 10 x that same salary IYSWIM. How many single young people starting out afford that? Now it's the price that a family should be paying for their home.

I don't see what you can do about it though without changing away from a capitalist/free market economy, and that's quite a big ask

On the subject of families only being supported for their first two children - does anyone think that this ideological position will be reflected in other benefits? I was thinking about free school meals this morning for eg.