Parasites like these make everyone else suffer

[Paul2412]

That does not let these absent fathers off the hook, in my book. They also need to take some responsibility.

 

I totally agree, it appears some parts of society now see kids as cash cows. If there was an introduction of 2 child benefits only, then that would stop.

 

I'm sure there are families that have 12 kids who also have lots of money, but very few middle class families have so many kids. It always seems to be idiots that you wouldn't trust with 1 kid, let alone 10 of them.

[Fishcake]

Had that debate on here some time before, and -unsurprisingly- it didn't turn out too good for the "common-sense brigade" (of which you and I are obviously part )

 

I too have advocated the use of "voluntary work" to receive the full amount of benefit. If they refuse that, then gas them or flog them dependant upon the lunar cycle

[truman]

What about the morals of these absent fathers? Where are they and what are they contributing? Or do they just go around impregnating women then decamping into the sunset?

 

If benefits are capped at 2 children then it would be the children who would suffer and we'd be condemning them to a life of poverty. I couldn't condone children suffering the 'sins of the fathers'.

 

I don't know what the solution is or how we break the culture of benefits and entitlement.

 

Difficult decisions but they have to be made..Child benefit for 2 kids only...make absent fathers pay...I can't believe the woman in the OP had 13 contraceptive failures so she was irresponsible.....people like that need to take more responsibility for their own actions....if there was less benefit available maybe some mothers would actually name the father on the kids' birth certificate..(I'm not saying that's what's happened in this case,just generally) the people who should "think about the children" are,first and foremost the parents...

[convert]

What about the morals of these absent fathers? Where are they and what are they contributing? Or do they just go around impregnating women then decamping into the sunset?

 

If benefits are capped at 2 children then it would be the children who would suffer and we'd be condemning them to a life of poverty. I couldn't condone children suffering the 'sins of the fathers'.

 

I don't know what the solution is or how we break the culture of benefits and entitlement.

 

You presume that she knows who the fathers are?

 

I do agree that fathers should have responsibility (financial and moral) for the upbringing of their offspring, isn't that what the CSA are supposed to enforce?

 

Capping benefits @ 2 children is the only way forward for society as a whole. We think unemployment is bad now. Rats have to be stopped from breeding or you get over run with them.

[convert]

I totally agree, it appears some parts of society now see kids as cash cows. If there was an introduction of 2 child benefits only, then that would stop.

 

I'm sure there are families that have 12 kids who also have lots of money, but very few middle class families have so many kids. It always seems to be idiots that you wouldn't trust with 1 kid, let alone 10 of them.

 

Good post,

 

My wife is one of 11 children. My inlaws have never claimed a penny in benefits. They have led by example and all my wifes siblings contribute towards society, several of them having their businesses, providing employment for others.

 

Having a large family isn't a bad thing, expecting society to pay for them is, as is setting a good example of the work ethic.

[Swan_Vesta]

We aren't talking about everyone. The quote refers to one specific family, for whom your suggestion is completely useless.

 

True, the horse(s) have bolted from the state paid for stable, however, it's not like it's an isolated incident. The advice holds true seeing as you could chuck a stone on Fargate and hit at least three of 'em.

[Rupert_Baehr]

One way would be for long term claimants to do some kind of community service or voluntary work in order to be eligible to continue claiming. Many would soon get fed up 'working' for nothing and it may encourage them into paid work.

 

Had that debate on here some time before, and -unsurprisingly- it didn't turn out too good for the "common-sense brigade" (of which you and I are obviously part )

 

Why not replace 'Welfare' with 'Workfare'?

 

The claimant would be required to work a 40-hour week. (If appropriate that 40 hours could include training/educational courses.)

 

If the claimant needed childcare, that too would be provided by the state.

 

If the job provided didn't pay enough for the claimant to support himself/herself/family, the state would make up the difference.

 

Eventually - with adequate training and once the claimant has sufficient qualifications, skills and experience - the claimant might stand a chance of getting a better-paid job.

[chem1st]

The one with 13 children, 9 of them living at home, gets benefits of £3450 per person per year. That is £66 a week.

 

Not really that much to be honest. Although it could be lowered, maybe even increased..

 

Disabled people often get £300+ per week.

 

5 children are worth 1 disabled person in benefit terms.

[Suffragette1]

The one with 13 children, 9 of them living at home, gets benefits of £3450 per person per year. That is £66 a week.

 

Not really that much to be honest. Although it could be lowered, maybe even increased..

 

Disabled people often get £300+ per week.

 

5 children are worth 1 disabled person in benefit terms.

 

If one of those parents were forced into some kind of community service and left the other holding the fort with 9 kids, they may think twice about having any more. 13 children is madness, as far as I'm concerned. I wonder what the 3 who've left home are doing?

[chem1st]

If one of those parents were forced into some kind of community service and left the other holding the fort with 9 kids, they may think twice about having any more. 13 children is madness, as far as I'm concerned. I wonder what the 3 who've left home are doing?

 

I'd imagine 2 would be working, 1 on the dole. Going by the youth unemployment rate.

 

I'd imagine if one of them started working, they would lose pretty much all they earned and have to fork out for travel. They have no incentive to work.

 

Let the bloke earn minimum wage and keep £3 per hour, reducing the benefit by £2.93 per hour worked.