junction1 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Won't happen, no matter how much the Daily Mail readers scream about it. You quote the Daily Mail quite a lot Rich, are you a reader? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonjon Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 You quote the Daily Mail quite a lot Rich, are you a reader? I think I heard him say he reads it through Firefox browser on his pc or on his PS3 otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 This is possibly the most ridiculous thread ever on SF. It's cropped up before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cressida Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I don't know the link between benefit claimants and child neglect by the parents, but what ever I think of the present Government I don't want to impute that they want to see children of those on benefits starve. As I understand it the new benefit or universal credit will merge all existing benefits (except disability) into one. It also proposes that people who want to work won't be penalised as heavily by the benefit system as they are at present. http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7957/7957.pdf With regards to parents of children who are neglectful of their children, or parents who cannot cope then I'm not aware of any changes to support systems in social services. Won't it cost just as much or more if the children are taken into care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 China has achieved its quota of one child per couple by applying the rules ruthlessly. I'm afraid that's the only way it would work in this instance too. People will me much quicker to get the message and save heartache in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLakeland Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Won't it cost just as much or more if the children are taken into care? That's a good point. It will probably cost a lot more. I think it'll be like most "initiatives" and crash and burn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
love_rat Posted January 11, 2012 Author Share Posted January 11, 2012 People say "this will create unfair poverty" Is the taxman, or the people at the council tax dept, are they so lenient towards people on very low incomes who cannot pay there taxes? Why should someone who is on a low wage, drowning with the cost of living be forced to pay for people who produce lots of kids? As I said before, let what has happened in the past go, fund all the current crop of large familys, but there comes a point where a line in the sand has to be drawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 As I said before, let what has happened in the past go, fund all the current crop of large familys, but there comes a point where a line in the sand has to be drawn The first problem is the moral one; when people continue to be irresponsible despite the new rules, and end up with more children than they can afford to provide for, then refusing to give extra benefits means condemning those children to starve to death - and the children are not the irresponsible ones. You'd be punishing those who are not at fault. The second problem is the financial one; if you take those children out of the irresponsible family, and place them somewhere else, it would end up costing more than if you'd just carried on paying the benefits in the first place and not bothered introducing new rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
love_rat Posted January 12, 2012 Author Share Posted January 12, 2012 The first problem is the moral one; when people continue to be irresponsible despite the new rules, and end up with more children than they can afford to provide for, then refusing to give extra benefits means condemning those children to starve to death - and the children are not the irresponsible ones. You'd be punishing those who are not at fault. So if I have an extra 5 kids, can I expect an employer to give me a hefty pay rise, so I can buy a bigger house? If we go down this road, you would have shelf stackers in supermarkets on salarys of £80,000 a year because they have 11 kids to feed and clothe. If the rules apply to non working people, then would we be able to apply the rules to people in work? who would pay the additional wages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollwithit Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 People say "this will create unfair poverty" Is the taxman, or the people at the council tax dept, are they so lenient towards people on very low incomes who cannot pay there taxes? Why should someone who is on a low wage, drowning with the cost of living be forced to pay for people who produce lots of kids? As I said before, let what has happened in the past go, fund all the current crop of large familys, but there comes a point where a line in the sand has to be drawn The only trouble with that is, under the current human rights act you'd be treating families in similar circamstances differently. You can't acknowledge one family as requiring such high benefits and new claiments not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.