Further cuts to child benefits?

[st4]

Why is it always up to someone else to do something?

If someone find themselves in a hole, whether from birth or from circumstances, it's primarily up to that individual to pull themselves up. It's that individual's responsibility, not mine, not the state's.

And most of the time they don't pull themselves up but become pensioners of the state. A growing underclass is forming due to financially incentivised breeding and it needs stopped, now.

 

[davidjpowell]

And most of the time they don't pull themselves up but become pensioners of the state. A growing underclass is forming due to financially incentivised breeding and it needs stopped, now.

Steve

You are the daily mail. You should not believe everything that you read,

 

[paulC180]

How about this for a formula

No child benefits to households with an income above £40k
Only first 2 kids eligible for benefits
If third child pops out, second child benefit is stopped
If fourth child appears, first child benefit is stopped
If fifth child should dare to show its face, father ( if known ) is forced to have a vasectomy
If sixth child manifests itself, father ( if known ) is castrated without anaesthetic
If seventh little mite plops out, mother is obviously a slut and should be incarcerated in a labour camp
If eighth bundle of joy should appear in the cell one morning, the camp should be carpet bombed and any survivors strafed with 20mm cannon


Not written in stone, changes can be made, discuss


As Freddie Mercury once said, I'm going slightly mad

Strange, a guy in Germany once had a similar idea !

 

[Palfrem]

Strange, a guy in Germany once had a similar idea !

...and more recently in China too I believe.

 

[st4]

Steve

You are the daily mail. You should not believe everything that you read,

Lol. I see it with my own eyes up here in Glasgow and overheard a scummy couple talk about how they'll get a bigger "hoos aff the cooncil" when the 2nd wean popped out

 

[WesLangdon]

It might sound harsh but it is the sad truth of the matter.

It is a well known fact that children from deprived backgrounds get less support at home and are less likely to be high achievers in life.

If you finantially encourage the unemployable to breed and tax the hard working middle classes so they cant afford children, it amounts to little more than an ill thought out breeding program and a rapid societal decline.

This sounds like you think that the middle classes are inately more intelligent than the working classes; more loving and nurturing too, I suspect this is conjecture based on Daily Mail style prejudice rather than fact.
Something for you to ponder on, the Grammar School system provided real social mobility and demonstrated time ofter time that the brightest working class kids could outshine their petite bourgeoisie rivals given a whiff of opportunity. Better education is the answer to this "problem" not pauperisation.

 

[WesLangdon]

Why is it always up to someone else to do something?

If someone find themselves in a hole, whether from birth or from circumstances, it's primarily up to that individual to pull themselves up. It's that individual's responsibility, not mine, not the state's.

For most people state means the community writ large, your attitude was defeated in 1945 with the Labour landslide.

 

[markjay]

I doubt that anyone here questions the idea of state welfare as a whole, it is usually the details we disagree on.

 

[Palfrem]

Grammar schools - yes!

There has to be some selection in education, one size doesn't fit all.

 

[WesLangdon]

I doubt that anyone here questions the idea of state welfare as a whole, it is usually the details we disagree on.

I think that is a naive outlook

Just for the record the biggest benefit scroungers in the UK and who had 4 children are Mr and Mrs Windsor-Mountbatten and the occupy an unreasonably large number of council properties too. What chance of them having their £200million a year plus cut back.

 

[Scott_F]

Why is it always up to someone else to do something?

If someone find themselves in a hole, whether from birth or from circumstances, it's primarily up to that individual to pull themselves up. It's that individual's responsibility, not mine, not the state's.

We already have one of the most unequal societies in the developed world and an appaling lack of social mobilty. And that helps foster the problems in society with which we are all very familiar. Without some help, most people who are born poor will stay that way. Even with help, most will stay poor but let's at least try to level the playing field a little bit.

And most of the time they don't pull themselves up but become pensioners of the state. A growing underclass is forming due to financially incentivised breeding and it needs stopped, now.

A growing underclass has been forming due to the policies of successive governments producing an ever-wider gap between the better-off and the poor.

 

[st4]

We already have one of the most unequal societies in the developed world and an appaling lack of social mobilty. And that helps foster the problems in society with which we are all very familiar. Without some help, most people who are born poor will stay that way. Even with help, most will stay poor but let's at least try to level the playing field a little bit.

A growing underclass has been forming due to the policies of successive governments producing an ever-wider gap between the better-off and the poor.

The growing underclass has developed because its been made easier to breed and free load rather than to work and not starve.

 

[WesLangdon]

The growing underclass has developed because its been made easier to breed and free load rather than to work and not starve.

It is clear to me that a revolution is required, similar to that of 1789 rather than 1917

Alan Rickman - The Preacher part1 - YouTube

Alan Rickman - The Preacher part2 - YouTube

 

[Scott_F]

The growing underclass has developed because its been made easier to breed and free load rather than to work and not starve.

Nothing to do with the loss of millions of jobs in our heavy, mining, manufacturing and other industries then ?

Nothing to do with allowing the City and big business free reign to create massive wealth for themselves and cause economic chaos for the rest of us then ?

Nothing to do with squeezing public spending and benefits whilst cutting top rate tax then ?

 

[markjay]

Nothing to do with the loss of millions of jobs in our heavy, mining, manufacturing and other industries then ?

Nothing to do with allowing the City and big business free reign to create massive wealth for themselves and cause economic chaos for the rest of us then ?

Nothing to do with squeezing public spending and benefits whilst cutting top rate tax then ?

The first and second paragraph I suspect most here will agree are considered negative outcomes, though some here may dispute the facts.

The third paragraph is quite the opposite - I suspect most people here will agree with your facts but some will dispute that this should be considered a negative outcome.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Given the option of being two hard working low to middle earners, unable to afford to rent or buy a home of their own or to be able to adequately provide for any children they would otherwise be thrilled to have...

Or

To play the system, sire as many children as you like, pretend not to live together, poor single parent gets local authority housing, benefits, free rent, no council tax, free dental, free school dinners, free school trips and other charitable donations whilst live in partner who officially still lives elsewhere brings home a moderate wage which allows them to live the life of Reilly courtesy of mr and mrs hardworking low to midle earner.

Come on Spike, are you trolling?

Do you believe all of that short-sighted, right wing rhetoric?

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Why is it always up to someone else to do something?

If someone find themselves in a hole, whether from birth or from circumstances, it's primarily up to that individual to pull themselves up. It's that individual's responsibility, not mine, not the state's.

I agree with you to a point, but you make the basic error of thinking everyone has the get-up-and-go to get out there and be enterprising.

The facts are that the majority of people aren't entrepreneurs or go-getters, they just want a decent job, decent house and a nice holiday once a year. They want to clock on in the morning, do their job, clock off and then go home to their family. Where are the jobs for these people?

Instead, normal & proper jobs are few and far between now. Do you genuinely believe that someone on the dole with a family of four is 'better off' than someone earning a decent, living wage? If there are no long-term jobs for these people, where will they come from, who helps create them?

 

[coupe deville]

How about this for a formula


My point is, for those who can't see past the flippancy ( because I really don't care what happens to child benefits ) is that to make any impact on national finances the cuts would have to be swingeing, anything less would be a drop in the ocean. So if benefits were limited to the first 2 children, would that stop certain people having more, I don't think so, there would be millions of kids in low income, one parent families living on (reduced) benefits, just like there is today. Would the govt let them starve ??

 

[davidjpowell]

Lol. I see it with my own eyes up here in Glasgow and overheard a scummy couple talk about how they'll get a bigger "hoos aff the cooncil" when the 2nd wean popped out

But for every one of those there are a lot more family who want to be self-sufficient.

It's easy to throw the baby out with the bath water trying to solve what is a perceived problem, but in reality is not.

 

[Sp!ke]

Come on Spike, are you trolling?

Do you believe all of that short-sighted, right wing rhetoric?

I actually know quite a number of people that have played the system in this exact way for the last 25 years since they left school. Take your blinkers off , its happenening all around you.