Won't somebody please think of the children?

[megalithic]

I genuinely applaud you for doing the right thing and working your way out of that situation. You would have had the option to sit on the benefits and enjoy a decent lifestyle without contributing. Instead you got yourself back into work and you're not only contributing to society, but also trying to make a better life for your kids.

Not everybody has your conscience.

 

Having been through that, perhaps you have a suggestion about how we could deter people from having kids just for the benefits without making things harder for families who go through struggles as yours did.

 

Ingraining a strong sense of morality ?

I'll leave the details for you to sort.

 

Seriously though, coming from a rather deprived inner city council estate i do see what you're getting at. I know women who've had another child solely to stay on benefits. I don't think it's my job to judge them though, it's a pretty meagre existence.

[unbeliever]

Ingraining a strong sense of morality ?

I'll leave the details for you to sort.

 

Indeed. Well put.

 

Seriously though, coming from a rather deprived inner city council estate i do see what you're getting at. I know women who've had another child solely to stay on benefits. I don't think it's my job to judge them though, it's a pretty meagre existence.

 

I think it's only people who've never been poor who deny that this goes on. I appreciate you confirming it from first hand observation.

 

Working full time for minimum wage is also a rather meagre existence.

 

Although, you're accepting having kids for benefits as a legitimate lifestyle choice. Did these women really not have any other options?

[megalithic]

Did these women really not have any other options?

 

They have most of the options others have, they just choose not to work.

In my experience it's usually single mums very low on confidence. Another i know is just plain lazy, and better off not around other employees to be honest.

 

I had 5 people working for me, and room for another, you'd be surprised at the fecklesness of some i interviewed. Some just aren't built for work, it's probably more productive letting them have their benefits.

[unbeliever]

How many people do this? And how much does it cost? Where is the evidence?

 

I haven't seen any statistics. I'll see what I can find. It would not be a trivial task to separate out those who got into that situation deliberately from those who fell into it and are honestly trying to get out.

 

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence. I've met these people. As I'm sure have most other people on this thread. It's a matter of principle as much as anything.

[amberleaf808]

They have most of the options others have, they just choose not to work.

In my experience it's usually single mums very low on confidence. Another i know is just plain lazy, and better off not around other employees to be honest.

 

I had 5 people working for me, and room for another, you'd be surprised at the fecklesness of some i interviewed. Some just aren't built for work, it's probably more productive letting them have their benefits.

 

Wow .... Don't agree!!!!!

[megalithic]

Wow .... Don't agree!!!!!

 

I'm not saying that's the case across the board, just what i've experienced.

I also know single mums that have to run around like blue arsed flies to meet work hours whilst catering for their kids school needs. you really can't generalise in that way.

 

 

Edit: Bit naughty how you've highlighted that btw, you've really taken it out of context.

[amberleaf808]

I'm not saying that's the case across the board, just what i've experienced.

I also know single mums that have to run around like blue arsed flies to meet work hours whilst catering for their kids school needs. you really can't generalise in that way.

 

 

Edit: Bit naughty how you've highlighted that btw, you've really taken it out of context.

 

Fair enough , I Agree!

[Detetcive]

Many of us are increasingly fed up with subsidising scroungers. .

 

...oh god not another thread about bankers...

[Cyclone]

I genuinely applaud you for doing the right thing and working your way out of that situation. You would have had the option to sit on the benefits and enjoy a decent lifestyle without contributing.

Do you really believe the bit in bold?

Instead you got yourself back into work and you're not only contributing to society, but also trying to make a better life for your kids.

Not everybody has your conscience.

 

Having been through that, perhaps you have a suggestion about how we could deter people from having kids just for the benefits without making things harder for families who go through struggles as yours did.

 

Perhaps you could actually show to what scale this happens? Then we'll be able to work out if it's a problem that's worth addressing at all.

Presumably most people who are unemployed and have children, are in that situation temporarily, and maybe they were even employed when they decided to have children.

[ivanava]

But by subsidising them, you are subsidising their boss.

 

Wealthy benefit scroungers, you see.

 

Actually its the taxes paid by the wealthiest people that are subsiding the lower paid workers, managing director on £1,000,000 a year pays close to £400,000 in tax, if he has 100 staff on 10,000 a year they pay close to zero tax, but may receive tax credits depending on their personal circumstances.

 

So his staff wage bill is £1,000,000

 

 

So lets reduce his wage by 50% to £500,000 and give the money to his staff.

His tax bill is now close to £200,000 a loss in tax revenue of £200,000.

 

His staff are now on £15,000 a year and pay £1,000 each in tax, but they will loose some of their in work benefits, so are probably no better off.

 

His total wage bill is now £1,500,000 and the tax paid by his employees is £100,000. So by reducing his wage and increasing their wage the government has £100,000 a year less to work with, obviously they will be able to reduce their tax credits bill.

 

So as you can see, tax credits and in work benefits are a means to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, but it allows for miens testing which makes sure the money goes to those who need it the most.

 

---------- Post added 06-05-2014 at 09:12 ----------

 

Well done:clap:

 

I'll still have had many more Maths lessons than you:)

 

Probably because you was a very slow learner.

 

---------- Post added 06-05-2014 at 09:15 ----------

 

So you want your right for freedom of speech whilst advocating State control of an individual's right to reproduction against their will, removal of children from families for the crime of being poor and show a general negative opinion of anyone you deem a scrounger? I'd say you were a little hypocritical if I didn't think your entire post was one long wind-up.

 

Freedom of speech doesn't cost anything, whilst kids do, so even poor people can be free to think and say what they like without someone else having to pay for it. Kids on the other hand means someone will have to pay if the parent can't.

 

---------- Post added 06-05-2014 at 09:18 ----------

 

We really shouldn't be paying people to have children. But I can't be doing with leaving the children they have in poverty. So I'm looking for a way to remove the incentive to have children in order to receive extra benefits, without harming the children.

We have to pay for the support of poor children. I want to do this without giving people the option of exploiting it to raise their own standard of living by having children.

 

Cut their benefits and provide their kids with three meals a day at school, that should help.