ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Catch 22.

Because if they are allowed to contually pop out kids, what we could end up with is a country full of feral kids, as their parents really just have them for the money but don't really care about them much. Sure they are fed, watered and clothed and get all their toys at christmas...but are they really brought up to be good individuals? I can't help thinking that they'll turn out like the parents...lay-about benefit leaches.

The Zohan

Bang on!

dpb

i reckon ten years time families like his wont exist

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

There is little that can be done with 'current' families without risking penalising the kids, so how about a new system is put in place as of now. It seems to be that the greatest amount of benefits possibly available for non-working families centre around having loads of kids, from child benefit, to greater housing benefit costs due to having to home these people in larger properties. What would make sense to me, is from this point on have a policy that allows child benefit to be given for one, maybe two children and after that, nothing more. It seems to me that children are being brought into this world purely to serve a purpose of generating more income and that is completely unacceptable!

Kids should never be born just as a means to an end like this, and the sooner the system changes to stop this being the case, the better all round.

tony de wonderful

But then what happens to families with loads of kids? The kids wear rags and half-starve?

How about forced sterilisation of the unemployed or limits on family size by law?

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

This is a big part of the problem. The system has been too easy to abuse and people have rightly or wrongly, taken advantage of it. The whole point of a benefits system to me is to help those genuinely in need, not provide a life long income to those who can work out how to play the system, and then result in them being better off than some workers.

I wish I had an easy solution, but I don't, and it's not as simple as just letting people suffer. It's about making things as they are, less appealing. Going on from my thoughts on child benefits, make people work for the benefits they get (even if it's for charity, make them do something). Yes, people will jump on this and say it would mean they would be paid less than min. wage, but would they? If their total benefits are anywhere near the figures being mentioned at the moment, then no they wouldn't. Ok, they may not have x amount of actual cash in their hand, but if they are having their house and council tax paid for along with jobseekers, then all totted up, that would put them over minimum wage, so they can bloody well give something back for all of that. Someone on min.wage would have all of that to pull out, leaving them with little, if anything more per week cash wise.

Maybe if so much money wasn't being wasted paying people to sit on their *****/pop out babies, then some money could be put into assisting those on low wages. Offering support to the lower paid would still most likely cost less than the current setup, and would also act as another encouragement for people to actually work. Cutting benefits full stop is probably never going to happen, so a more thoughtful approach is needed, one which gets rid of this being on benefits is better than working, without putting people on the poverty line.

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

At first I was going to say what are you on about, but unless I'm thinking too much, I guess you are being a bit tongue in cheek.

I've already said, it would be almost impossible to just implement this and apply it to anyone already in this situation. Bring this in so it deters people from having large families from this point on. If they choose to do so, then tough **** tbh.

I've made some mistakes in my life, but I'm paying for them. These people aren't and are more than happy to just take, and unless the government want to just let this carry on and get worse, something needs to change. I would quite like a dog, but my circumstances don't allow for that to happen, so I have to do without. To some extent, the same applies with having kids. If you can't afford them, maybe you shouldn't have them, and certainly not as a way of getting money coming in.

Unless something is done, this will only get worse. One person has say six kids to get more benefits, they quite possibly don't look after them and they potentially turn to crime, adding to the cost to the state. That is one issue, then there is the possibility that due to the upbringing of said six kids, they then all go on to do the same thing as it brings money in, six badly brought up kids then potentially breeds 36 new ones, and so the cycle continues. All made possible by a **** poor benefits system.

I doubt forced sterilisation or limits on family size by law would make it past the human rights brigade, sadly.

dunx

iTrader: (3)

Well here in grey South Leeds (at work) we have third generation spongers getting pregnant at fifteen, for a flat, and then a career as a sprog-factory... I would pay out for the first two kids and then nowt. Or a descending proportion i.e. 50% for a third kid, 25% for a fourth, etc.

As for that guys booze and ****, tough sh*t, I sacrifice a holiday to run my car, rarely drink and don't smoke. TBH I would be O.K. on benefits except for running a car.

dunx

P.S. No shame in a claim, I have paid in far more than I could ever get as payouts...

billythekid

Which is why so many get a mobility car... its the easy life and those of us that work for a living are fools!

Butkus

I think they should stop saying a £26k cap in benefits would make it the same as the national average wage, because that's wrong. £26k on benefits is £26k in the bank, a £26k salary is a little over £20k in the bank.

To actually bank £26k on a salary, you'd need to be on just shy of £35k. So being on benefits is actually like having a £35k/year job.

The guy in the OP's link is on a £41k salary.