Metoo Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 My Mum (now aged 82)grew up as one of 13 kids in a 3 bed council house.Only her father worked (and no he did'nt have a well paid job either)and they all survived ok!They had no benefits! My FIL grew up the same in Liverpool, one of a family of 11. They didn't all survive though and those that did had rickets. Hard times indeed. These days though, no excuse for such a large family, plenty of methods of birth control. If you can't afford them then don't have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whichway1 Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 I bet any money her hair and make up is done every day. I know its not relevant but I don't care. Poor decisions or what, you shouldn't be having 8 children if you want the state to pay for them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest16631 Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 You could even abolish benefits altogether. But the risk with cutting benefits to a level on which people cannot survive is that you will drive many into crime or the black economy. Others would starve. It would make for an unstable society in which the righteous employed people would not feel secure to enjoy their wealth. Benefits may exist to help people who receive them, but just as much they exist to help those who don't. And yes, capping benefits at two children would be a disincentive for some to have a third child, but what would you do about those for whom the disincentive didn't work? ..........I don't think abolishing them altogether would help...... ..........perhaps more selective.......controlled...... ..........we've pushed our children out into the world.........some with few skills in running a home..... ..........they have no idea of budgets or cooking........ ...........tv advertising have now pay later....... ...........the days of family from grandparents to grandchildren all living together have mostly gone.... ...........the days of free child care.....and cookery and house running classes.....all learnt at home..... ..........welfare has taken the place of the parent.......providing.......but not teaching..... ...........handing out solutions with little regard of why the situation even arose..... ...........but......what would I do.....? ............bring my children up the best I can.... ............and hope those that are paid to solve these problems......earn the big money they're paid.....! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andy Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 ....wasn't there a suggestion of capping child benefits at two children..........and denying out of work under 25 's.....housing benefits.....? ......not sure if this ever got past the .....planning stage.... ......but the days of living at home with the parents until you could afford to move out might curb those with few scruples... ......and then as always .....it's the innocents .....that get caught in the trap..... .......the parent that has quads......and loses their job through cutbacks... .......a mine field of things that could go wrong..... .......I would of thought ( hoped).....,that cases like this are in the minority though.....and just used to inflame public opinion.... This as far as i am concerned would be the way forward, i agreed with it when it first came up and got a bucket load of abuse on here but i still think it's the way it has to be. I am not talking particularly about the lady in the op because she has the children now its not their fault and they need looking after but for the future it should be if you have anymore than 2 kids then you have to be able to support them yourself. Why should i be responsible for someone who has as many kids as they like with no thought about who is going to pay for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wakeboard1980 Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 This as far as i am concerned would be the way forward, i agreed with it when it first came up and got a bucket load of abuse on here but i still think it's the way it has to be. I am not talking particularly about the lady in the op because she has the children now its not their fault and they need looking after but for the future it should be if you have anymore than 2 kids then you have to be able to support them yourself. Why should i be responsible for someone who has as many kids as they like with no thought about who is going to pay for them? Mate, if you have any kids you need to be able to support them yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellers and Whitehead Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 I'm all for helping the vulnerable..but really £500 a week...if you have children you think BEFORE having all those children..if **** hits the fan...how will I pay for us to survive!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johndoe Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 This as far as i am concerned would be the way forward, i agreed with it when it first came up and got a bucket load of abuse on here but i still think it's the way it has to be. I am not talking particularly about the lady in the op because she has the children now its not their fault and they need looking after but for the future it should be if you have anymore than 2 kids then you have to be able to support them yourself. Why should i be responsible for someone who has as many kids as they like with no thought about who is going to pay for them? Mate, if you have any kids you need to be able to support them yourself. I agree that you shouldn't have kids if you can't support them..................I think that's a given for everyone. I also agree that the taxpayer shouldn't have to fund the kids of those parents who can't support them, but I think that it's a fact that we have to................. If the kids aren't funded, then they become "at risk". Cutting/denying benefits to the innocents (kids) in the hope that it will deter irresponsible procreators is awash with risks. The solution would be to direct those benefits squarely at the kids. Instead of allocating the parents the total benefit, the benefits should be broken down into units....................only essentials such as rent/utilities should be paid directly to the parents and a basic food/living allowance based on a parent/s estimate with inclusions such as weekly transport costs etc, which would be vetted prior to allocation by a case officer..................extra items such as kid's clothing/medical fees/unseen circumstances etc, should be claimed on an individual basis, backed up with receipts for the purpose (not to include branded items such as Nike trainers) . This would guarantee that the state/tax payer is paying only to meet the (basic) requirements of those in need, and not for the parent's luxuries such as fags, booze and designer clothes for the kids. Obviously, the above would incur greater admin costs, but a consequence of that would be a need for more public servants (employment) which hopefully, would be covered by the savings on payment previously made, and a huge drop off in the social payments made, due to the fact that (I'm guessing) a large proportion of claimants "couldn't be @rsed" jumping through the hoops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beeps Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 Sorry to hear that,bit of a bad scenario for you,i guess having a job in place is ideal,not easy tho depending on your occupation Hubby is a carpenter, and I work in admin, kids are happy so not too worried yet! May look at buying a cafe or Restaurant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KIRK AND CO Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 look at your own lives before you cast the first stone, I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andy Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 look at your own lives before you cast the first stone, I have. Are you going to elaborate on that Kirk or is this a guessing game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KIRK AND CO Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 realy is it needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 It is a riddle,wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma,but perhaps there is a key................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simmo Posted December 4, 2013 Author Share Posted December 4, 2013 from what i gather from Kirk and co's recent posts I think we should cut him some slack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andy Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 realy is it neededYes, as far as the post is concerned, I was questioning what you said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KIRK AND CO Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 Yes, as far as the post is concerned, I was questioning what you said?life has a way of making us all equal no matter what position in life you our. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest 47403 Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 You'd feed 'em to the dogs eh Kirky, low life benefit scroungers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andy Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 life has a way of making us all equal no matter what position in life you our.yes ok, but what are your thoughts on the op? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Counting Stars Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 Benefits should be a solution for people who NEED them for reasons outside of their control. Not for people who sit on their arse and have kid after kid and have everyone else pay for them. When we were 18 hubby and I got pregnant. We have never been on benefits. We have worked bloody hard to get to where we are now. If something was to happen to us I would need benefits in the short term until I could finish university and provide for myself and my children. For me benefits should be available for people who need them until such a time that they can provide for themselves. This does not include people who cannot work due to disabilities etc. It makes me really angry that people assume they are 'entitled' to something, no one should be entitled to benefits for sitting on their backside having kids. If you have kids you should be able to provide for them xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinkla Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 For me benefits should be available for people who need them until such a time that they can provide for themselves. This does not include people who cannot work due to disabilities etc. It makes me really angry that people assume they are 'entitled' to something, no one should be entitled to benefits for sitting on their backside having kids. If you have kids you should be able to provide for them xx Nobody disagrees with your sentiments (and sorry if it seems I am picking on you when others are saying the same thing). It would be great if people didn't have kids they can't support - but they do and they always will. So what should society do when a situation arises when someone has children that they are not able to provide for? You're probably not going to like the answer, whichever one we run with, because it is an exercise in damage limitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johndoe Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 Let them eat Cake! :goofy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Counting Stars Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 I don't disagree with you. I do think that a lot of people don't use the benefits on their children. If they did they wouldn't have 50 inch TVs etc they would have decent food and warm houses. How many people are photographed in newspapers and they are moaning about being 'skint' and unable to feed their kids, heat their houses but are stood in front of a 50 inch TV and a brand new play station. They need to be given a certain amount of food stamps or something rather than cash they can waste on material items. And I still think that benefits should be capped to a certain number of children. People who have their first kid at 15 and then 8 more say until they are 30 that's ridiculous that they are still on benefits. People need to be more responsible for their lives and the children they have (I know sadly most won't be lol) xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinkla Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 But people do make bad choices - especially some people at the poorest end of soiciety and that's why they are at the poorest end of society. Besides, TV and Playstations are actually relatively inexpensive ways of entertaining yourself and your family - and if you are at home on benefits you have a lot of time to fill. I think it is wrong to portray benefits dependency as anything attractive or glamorous. Even without benefits caps, it means being pretty skint, not being able to afford treats or anything that breaks the routine, being bored stupid. Yes, you can lie in bed all day, but the novelty would wear off quite quickly. I know - I spent a couple of months on benefits when I finished university. At the time, I found I was able to eat relatively well by cooking my own vegetable heavy food, but didn't know where money would come from in the longer term for clothes, bills or haircuts. Incidentally, personal televisions used to be unavailable in prisons because they were not seen to be compatible with the austerity that the public expected. However, since personal televisions have become widespread, prisoners have been much more docile and less troublesome. By the same token, if you took marginalised people and denied them entertainment, they would be much more inclined to seek it in more destructive ways at a greater social cost. There are no easy answers. One of the more interesting ideas is the Basix card which only allows purchases of certain types of product. But this also comes aat a social cost of further marginalising those who use the cards and denying people the opportunity to make choices - including bad ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 People "should" be more responsible,but they're not,and they wont be in the future either,whether the system can be "tweaked" with things like shopping vouchers instead of £ or not is open to debate,vouchers could still be sold/traded anyway,im afraid we have no choice but to accept its the way its always going to be,at the end of the day we cant take adults irresponsibility out on their kids. The other thing is to remind ourselves of the obvious,that for every "scrounger" with 6 or 7 kids,there's probably 50 to 100 who aren't living a life of plenty on benefits,so it might be best for everyone to content themselves with that?these people they choose with 50 inch hd tellys etc,aren't chosen because they're the norm are they,thats why they're in the news. We'll always have shirkers like this,just like we'll always have big business tax evasion and legalised tax avoidance where the figures involved dwarf the cost of scroungers and benefit cheats to us tax payers Anyway,early night,finish me book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest16631 Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 ......agreed about the choices part...... ......and that those who really need help should get it.... ......but what angers many is that those earning a minimum wage......with no help...... ......and then you have some getting the same money with all the help.....concessions..... .......life's hard enough as it is without the tabloids sensationalising the few who rort the system so spectacularly...( not pointing to the OP !) .......but pointing out what they have in their homes....... ........cheap or not ........large tv's to some are out of reach when you have rent and bills to pay.... ........bus fares for work and clothes to attend in..... ........so yes this sort of story gets people's backs up......... ..........but then again if you met most of those these stories depict....... ..........you wouldn't want to swap places....ime..... ..........to solve it...? ..........I agree with the controlled spending.......yes it limits personal choice.... ..........but if you've made bad choices ending up in the position you are..( obviously those whose position is circumstantial are a different kettle of fish) ...........then someone needs to help you make better choices..... ..........a bit of a rant I apologise......not usually so judgemental ..........but a little lose to home ATM.......................................tink x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johndoe Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 No easy answers.................I was a milko for several years......................The gov't thought that milk tokens would benefit the kids...................not a chance...............we ended up selling all sorts of stuff from the floats including tights.........Unigate was the first to introduce non-dairy sales in Blackpool. My round was the biggest council estate and on collecting day, I returned with more milk tokens than cash as the company told us to accept them as cash. Most of them I receieved for chickens/tights/Pop........................a nice little earner for the milkmen as no change could be given for the tokens................some milkos even started carrying their own goods to exchange for tokens, the tokens then being accepted as cash credit by the company, the milkos having already taken out the cash from the round, equal to the tokens given in to the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.