ScoobyWon't

That's the question many people have asked. In terms of the various realities of the children/parents etc, I see it going like this:

Baby A: I'm Hungry. Feed me. Change me.
Baby B: I'm Hungry. Feed me. Change me.

Parent A: We're short on cash, we better hold off on having another baby and cut back on the expenses.
Parent B: We're short on cash, we better have another baby asap.

Politician: Who's vote am I most likely to get?

PeteBrant

Pensioners are by far the biggest outlay for state welfare, and the seeing the largest growth.

Outside of this number of claimants depends on the state of the economy.

ScoobyWon't

Parents A: "We can't afford another. Let's start saving and cut back on our luxuries".

Result: less purchases, economy suffers, more people out of work, more benefits to pay out.

Parents B: "Let's have another. The tax payer can pay for it."

Result: more benefits paid out, taxes go up to meet demand, cuts made putting people out of work, economy suffers, less disposable income for those working, economy suffers.

I think the economy is doomed either way.

PeteBrant

Thing is, inherently, most poeple want to go out and work and earn money and do well. I think both of your examples are extremes.

ScoobyWon't

Do they? Really?

Most people would rather work for money rather than getting it for nothing?

PeteBrant

Well yeah, as evidenced by the fact that many more people go out to work versus those that don't.

Of course we would all like to get money for nothing and not have to work. But the vast majority understand that outside of winning the lottery, this is not a viable lifestyle choice.

jonc

And how are you going to pay for it? You're happy to pay as long as they keep churning them out, is that sustainable? Handouts have increased from £129bn when Labour took office in 1997 to the total spent last year of £205bn and is set to grow. The growth in the economy is being outstripped by the growth in welfare. In the last 50 years our economy has grown threefold whilst welfare spending has grown sevenfold.

PeteBrant

Most of that is in pensions, Jon. And that is being tackled in raising the pensionable age.

The amount spent on childrens benefits of 4 plus children is not a huge amount; there are possibly 57,000 families claiming to varying degrees.

Our ecomony has grown considerably more than threefold in 50 years. In 1960 GDP was £25billion. In 2010 it was over 50 times that.

I would be interested to see where you got the threefold figure from.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_gdp_history.

There are various options to what funds get diverted from where. Or you raise taxes. Either way, you are talking about a few billion. Not 10's or 100's.

ScoobyWon't

I'm not saying that everyone is lazy, for example in the little community where I live, there is a new Costa Coffee opening on Friday. They required 8 staff. 1701 people applied. I'm wondering where the 1693 who didn't get the jobs are getting their income from? Or are where they going to find work? Or they could just have more kids to enable them to claim more benefits.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...osta-jobs.html

The Government may be claiming that the latest figures for employment show the highest levels, but I suspect that these figures must have been massaged.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/j...wth-slows.html

PeteBrant

You're assuming that all the applicants are unemployed at present, that might not be the case. Of course there is a high unemployment problems at the moment, made worse by an ailing economy. But the fact remains; on the whole people want to go out and work and better their financial standing.

Sitting at home on your **** on benefits is not seen an a desireable lifestyle choice by most people

^Qwerty^

But it's not sustainable. I’m not saying I have the answer, but at some point the human population has got to, or will realise that it can’t continue to grow and grow.

jonc

My figures were from the Office of National Statistics based on GDP per person factoring inflation. You'll have to forgive me if I don't have the link as I looked at this a while ago so going by memory.

jonc

But not if it affects and reduces the amount of benefits they receive. Problem is currently the benefit system is open to abuse and encourages a sense of entitlement that it's the claimant's given right for the State/taxpayer owe them a living and it's this that boils my p!ss, especially those who have never contributed and aren't willing to contribute to the system.

Sure it's the dailymail, but it's written by a reputable journalist.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...titlement.html

Rob Day

iTrader: (78)

Im not disputing the "fact" that the pension is ruled by the amount of people paying into it, the trouble is not everyone is paying into a pension already because not everyone can afford to do so. By having more people able to work than available jobs will not resolve that, so they ever increase in family sizes is simply not going to resolve anything, unless I'm misled!

The Fine as the Chinese call it is simply a case of, they apply to have a 2nd child, and if they have the funds to prove they can look after and cater for the welfare of the said child, they simply pay a fee. This might sound cruel, but it would certainly help prevent the amount of sponging going forward.

We are all aware accidents do happen, but yet safe sex seems to be a distant memory for some. What is wrong with society these days, get pissed up and getting laid on a Thursday afternoon at the local Bingo hall to then appear on Jeremy Kyle 6 years later with 5 kids, all of which appears to be on their bucket list!

Never mind, back to work so I can help fund the poor

Rob

Leslie

In most cases,the pensioners are the ones who worked all those years to generate the wealth of this country and also paid their national insurance while they were doing it. What they paid into the system was based on the cost of maintaining them with a pension when they reached retirement age.

Les

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

Don't you think though that bringing children into such an enviroment encourages this sort of behavior?
Yes, I know we need more children now to fund our pensions of tomorrow, but it's no bloody good if they have no desire to work!
If the parents sit at home all day, why should 'they' have to go to school and learn? What's the point when the benifits system is their to catch them.

Welfare should not provide a comfortable living. It should be for rent, energy and food. And may be the odd £5 to spend in a charity shop for clothing. THIS would make people want to better themselves and find a job. To give some selfish idiot £70 a week to spend however they see fit is a stupid way of doing things.

AndyBaker

FFS Pete even when someone gives you a perfectly good argument you still defend these tw8ts. Only a tw8t would think we've got no money lets have another kid.

Another thing especially for the lady with 11 kids that's getting a purpose built house, who can possibly excersise parental control with that many kids, we have a family in our village with more kids than you can shake a stick at and most of them come home at night in the back of a police car and between them they've robbed quite a few homes in the village - how much does all that cost . Andy

dpb

Ah but, come twenty one they'll all bit contributory members of solid society, propping Pete up his grand old age.

AndyBaker

:

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

Of course they will! Just got back from my sister-in-laws government supplied flat. Brand new 55 inch Samsung tv sitting in the corner!

Yup, nothing wrong there!

ScoobyWon't

No doubt hooked up to a Sky HD box with every channel.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

Der, of course. Plus multi-room for the kids!

RA Dunk

I havent got multiroom or a 55" TV.

hodgy0_2

people on these sorts of benefit "package", must feel pretty indignant about the hordes of immigrants

“coming over here takin our benifits”

Dirk Diggler 75

Why visit then if they **** you off ??

dpb

I guess you would be if you'd invested several generations learning the art of how to scrounge!

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

Because her and her mum were looking after our little boy whilst we were both at work.
Oh the irony.

ScoobyWon't

You should pay her for the babysitting and then tip off the benefits office that she's working and claiming