PeteBrant

According to the Tories 150,000 people have been claiming income support for over a year who have 3 or more children.
57,000 of those have 4 or more children.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

For once, something we agree on.

How do you discourage it from happening in the first place though.

My brother knows a couple that are heavy junkies (crack, heroin etc) that have already had two kids taken away at birth due to their addictions. Should they be allowed to continue to have children? I know we will go back to the argument on human rights but surely this isn't fair on the children that are born addicted to drugs?

jonc

Of course people don't think it's ok to have the children suffer, but why should everyone else bear the responsibility when the said parents don't give a flying fig? How about encouraging those parents to take a little responsibility for their existing children rather than just keep pumping new kids out at the detriment to their existing children. Let's be clear, we're not the ones making the children suffer here, we're just the ones left to pick up the pieces.

AndyBaker

Spot on Tidgy any more than two you're on your own and if you are stupid enough to have more then I,m sorry Peter Brant but its not the government putting a child into poverty it's the moron who can't keep her legs shut knowing they can't afford it.

PeteBrant

How do you do that though, Jon? Without detriment to the child? Its incredibly difficult.
Of course it is the parents fault for being irresponsible. But regardless a child is brought into the world, utterly dependent on its parents to provide for it; What are you suggesting? That we should let the child freeze, or starve because of the sins of its parents? Because it will teach others a lesson?

There is, in all reality, no other option to the status quo. You cannot abandon the child, wther it is number one or number twenty-one It's as simple as that

dpb

You see, here in my view, is a fundamental flaw in your argument

They are the responsibility of the parent. What your effectively saying is, it's all fine, just follow your parents into exactly the same lifestyle

I'm guessing you believe 3 week old fetuses have adults rights

mrmadcap

Give us the stats then Martin, you know you want to

Martin2005

That was my question, I have no idea what the numbers are.

But given how exercised people on here are about this, I would assume they would know how big the problem really is.

I notice nobody has actaully answered yet.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to ask again though.

jonc

No, the reality is that we cannot maintain the status quo. Changes to our benefit system needs to be made so that claiming benefits is no longer a lifestyle/career option. Like you said, child is utterly dependent on its parents, it's time that these parents realise this and take responsibility by not popping out sprogs and rely on the state to finance and house them.

Mouser

See Post #31.

ScoobyWon't

As I just mentioned on the thread about the woman with 11 kids - it turns out she is also keeping a horse at the tax-payers expense.

The state is clearly financing that woman's lifestyle.

jonc

This lifestyle is sadly the status quo that some are resigned to accept. Personally I'd put it to good use and send if off to Tesco.

kingofturds

iTrader: (1)

Never mind the long term unemployed what about the never been employed. I left school in 1997 and I know a couple of girls who have knocked out 4 and 5 children respectively and have never worked since leaving school. Both live in 4 bedroomed houses and seem to not be short of a few quid.

Pedroturbo

This problem has only occured due to the way benefits are paid! why should they get cash at all! Rent and bills can be paid direct and food stamps is all they need.

Stop givin them our f'ing money to sit in the pub all week & sit at home blazing it up in smoke!

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

OK, so either I'm missing something here or a lot of people on SN have very short memories. Didn't they already announce a few months back that total benefits paid to any household would be hard-capped at £25K a year?

Midlife......

iTrader: (2)

AFAIK that cap doesn't cover benefits for children.....

I was born into a household with an outside toilet, shared bedrooms, unemployed parents and without state help I wouldn't be the person I am today....

Despite the limitations, I accept that the children come first and if the parents don't have the means then that state intervenes to give them a fighting chance.

If the collateral damage is supporting the parents as well then that's how the state manages the situation for the sake of the children.....

Shaun

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

simple change in the rules would stop the cash for kids .
as of 28/02/2013 anyone unemployed or on benefits found to be pregnant with their 3rd or more child will recieve no more extra benefits, problem solved legs closed and lots of unhappy unemployed blokes, but hey ho lots of very happy working people

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

Nope, after a bit of digging I'm pretty sure I was right. The £26K cap will apply to all of:

• Jobseekers Allowance
• Employment Support Allowance
• Housing Benefit
• Child Benefit
• Child Tax Credit
• Carers Allowance
• Council Tax Benefit
• Widowed Parents Allowance

The only benefits excluded from the calculation will be:
• Working tax credits
• Disability Living Allowance/PIP
• War widows/widowers benefits


Source: http://www.bromfordgroup.co.uk/news-...d-benefit-cap/

This entire thread is seeming decidedly redundant

Bubba po

Yes. We didn't try for our child until it was financially right for us to do so. I don't want a kid to grow up in poverty, but neither do I want my taxes to be used bring up some dole-wallah's children.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

And how much is this new house going to cost? I bet the mortgage payments are more than £25k a year, so explain that one!

PeteBrant

SO what happend when the parents do not have enough money to support their children?

Even if I did (which I don't by the way) What the **** has that got to do with the debate?
You aren;t offering up any solutions, Jon. You're just spouting rhetoric about how we can't carry on etc. What happens when the parents do not have the money to cope? Let the child starve?

Saying that we need to make work pay is fine. When there are lots of Jobs about. We are about to hit a triple dip recession. Lots of industries are on their knees. There's not a lot of jobs about.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

I don't see any solutions being offered by you either.
Other than keeping things the same.

Luan Pra bang

Why should I care about providing money to fund somebody else's lifestyle ? Children live in poverty all over the world what makes the ones in the UK immune from their parents bad decisions. Kids have been living in 1 room mud huts in Africa for hundreds of years so why not let the lazy unemployed of England live in similar conditions ?
In reality the generous benefits system encourages more people into the benefits system and is harmful to all UK citizens, cutting benefits will reduce the number of scroungers and become beneficial to the citizens of the UK long term. There is no logical reason to have a benefit system that provides such luxury only emotive ones.

jonc

I have made a few suggestions in my previous posts unlike yourself who just prefers to maintain the status quo. Sure those suggestions are tough measures. On your question of what parents do on hard times, we do what all the other hard working parents do and that is cut back on spending on luxury items like **** and booze, sky TV and keeping pets (and I mean taking on new pets) and of course horses. Why do you seem so against encouraging people to take responsibility for their own and their children's future? Do you even have children? If not I guess the time is not right for you or that you don't have the finances to cope. If you do, I would also guess that you wouldn't have any more unless you have finances or a home big to cope. Either way, you wouldn't have children without giving serious consideration of how you would support your child(ren) and what future you, not the state, are able to provide.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

Do you have kids Jonc? Having kids puts a very different perspective on the situation.
If I saw a child suffering and I was in a position to help, I woudn't hesitate.
May be this is what separates us from countries such as Africa.

I really don't think you can make children suffer and live with it. I know I couldn't.
What we need to do is attack the cause.

I have no issues with sterilisation if parents continue to have children that they cannot afford.
As others have said, having children is not a right, but a privilage.

PeteBrant

Er... well, yeah, that's why I said I think the Status Quo is the only option. I don't have to give alternatives; I'm not arguing against it.

Yup I have kids, all grown up now.

I have no problems encouraging people to take responsibility for their own childen, Indeed if you incentivise work (by not having a benefits cliff edge and a effectvie 90% tax rate as we do now) then all the better.

But you still have not said what you would do with children that are suffering as a result of benefits cuts to large families.

So a more direct question, you have a family of 5 kids on benefits. A 6th arrives and without an increase in benefits, all 6 children will suffer as a result. What do you do?

PeteBrant

Enforced sterilisation. Jesus Christ. WTF is this? 1984?

Having children is not a "privilage", it is the most basic right we have, it is our purpose of existence.

dpb

Make bloody sure you don't have a seventh

Easy really

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

I agree to a point, but we are not hunter gatherers anymore are we? If we don't 'hunt' i.e. - 'work', someone else will provide. This is only a recent development in human evolution. It puts an entirely different perspective on the subject.

And please drop the sarcastic tone in your responses, there is no need for it.
It makes you look childish and takes away any impact in the points you make.

ScoobyWon't

You've obviously lived a sheltered life! I've been inside many houses, where the parent(s) are long term unemployed (or criminals if you prefer). Most of them had bigger televisions than I do, they would have at least two current generation games consoles, there would be signs of drug taking and always empty alcohol cans and bottles. Dog crap on the floor - inside the houses - wasn't uncommon. I saw missing floor boards, used needles discarded on the floors and much more. I think it's fair to say that despite the money (and proceeds of crime) being spent on the luxury items, the children were suffering having to love with theiving/junkie parents who spent most of their time out of their heads or in a cell.

I've seen a baby left in a pram, outside a pub, while it's mother went inside to get wasted. I've even seen seasoned CID officers upset that they can't persuade social services or a 15 year old girl to give up a baby, which was living in a house full of drugs, stolen property and discarded rotting food. The girl couldn't look after herself, let alone her loser boyfriend and a new-born.

You may not be able to ignore a child in need, if you could help, but there are plenty out there who willfully neglect their own children, and social services who should protect the children don't give a damn.