live off £37,000-a-year benefits !

britboy4321 · 29 Dec 2009 at 14:25

Let us not forget a few things here

1) It's not the kids fault that they were born as number #14 of a *****'s family.

2) Anything we should do, should not adversely affect the kids, as THEY ARE INNNOCENT.

3) Taking the kids into care by force, WILL adversely affect the kids

4) If we hire big burly men to physically hold down women and forcibly inject them with something to make them infertile because they've had their 'government allocated kids quota' -- we'll have the worst human rights record on the planet.

5) We do not want people starving in the streets in the UK. Not least because a parent will not sit around as their kids starve -- before it gets to that they'll break into YOUR house, steal YOUR fancy PC and sell it for £35 down the pub. Some people are not employable (especially if they have > 10 kids to look after)

There is no answer. Starving innocent kids to 'teach someone or other a lesson' is not a reasonable solution. Big burly men forcing women kicking and screaming into operating theatres to have their ovaries forcibly removed is not a reasonable solution ... giving parents so little money that they end up stealing whilst their kids prostitute themselves so they can eat is not a reasonable solution ..

ZXSpectrum · 29 Dec 2009 at 14:34

Well when the new sprog drops out.. Litterally.. They should sow her vagina up... Geeeeeeez have they never heard of contraception???

Dolph · 29 Dec 2009 at 14:38

britboy4321 said:
Let us not forget a few things here

1) It's not the kids fault that they were born as number #14 of a *****'s family.

2) Anything we should do, should not adversely affect the kids, as THEY ARE INNNOCENT.

3) Taking the kids into care by force, WILL adversely affect the kids

4) If we hire big burly men to physically hold down women and forcibly inject them with something to make them infertile because they've had their 'government allocated kids quota' -- we'll have the worst human rights record on the planet.

5) We do not want people starving in the streets in the UK. Not least because a parent will not sit around as their kids starve -- before it gets to that they'll break into YOUR house, steal YOUR fancy PC and sell it for £35 down the pub. Some people are not employable (especially if they have > 10 kids to look after)

There is no answer. Starving innocent kids to 'teach someone or other a lesson' is not a reasonable solution. Big burly men forcing women kicking and screaming into operating theatres to have their ovaries forcibly removed is not a reasonable solution ... giving parents so little money that they end up stealing whilst their kids prostitute themselves so they can eat is not a reasonable solution ..

So what approach do you suggest to deal with such irresponsible people? Forcing other people to give them money isn't really any more of a valid option...

Ziggy · 29 Dec 2009 at 14:38

3) Taking the kids into care by force, WILL adversely affect the kids

Not to mention that, amazingly enough, caring for kids costs money wherever it is done.

britboy4321 · 29 Dec 2009 at 14:39

Skyline said:
Well when the new sprog drops out.. Litterally.. They should sow her vagina up... Geeeeeeez have they never heard of contraception???

Some people it is against their religeous beliefs to use contraception.

Some people are allergic to contraception.

Forcing medical procedures is not only ethically repulsive, but most doctors will refuse to do such a thing (hippocratic oath).

And before you say 'Don't do the wildthing at all then' .. for a lot of women .. their husbands give them no choice

(One of the great 'undiscussed' parts of life in England behind closed doors)

Hatter The Mad · 29 Dec 2009 at 14:44

britboy4321 said:
Some people are allergic to contraception.

Not all contraception, and you will struggle to find any women allergic to both the combined bill and bi-pill (both of which are made of naturally ocurring hormones any way, and they would be allergic to themselves if that was the case, thus infertile).

And before you say 'Don't do the wildthing at all then' .. for a lot of women .. their husbands give them no choice (One of the great 'undiscussed' parts of life in England behind closed doors)

Go to the police, go on the pill, have an implant, have an IUD.

Efour · 29 Dec 2009 at 14:44

Send them back

Ziggy · 29 Dec 2009 at 14:48

Dolph said:
So what approach do you suggest to deal with such irresponsible people? Forcing other people to give them money isn't really any more of a valid option...

And what approach do you suggest?

There is no solution other than making having children illegal. And if that happened I would be ashamed to call this my country.

muon · 29 Dec 2009 at 14:49

Dolph said:
So what approach do you suggest to deal with such irresponsible people? Forcing other people to give them money isn't really any more of a valid option...

Definitely is. That's why we have children's tax credits. We are willing to pay to give children a basic standard of life.

That's why we have JSA, we would rather have people live than die of starvation when unemployed.

Same exists for every other developed country in the world.

britboy4321 · 29 Dec 2009 at 14:51

Dolph said:
So what approach do you suggest to deal with such irresponsible people? Forcing other people to give them money isn't really any more of a valid option...

'Forcing other people' to give them money is unfortunately in real life the best of a pretty dire list of options ...

It's not very good, pretty unpalatable, but unfortunately until someone comes up with a better system ... basically there is no good answer, so you have to take the least bad idea. Which is just for society to take the hit, and help them support their families. There is no better system than this fairly naff one! (Starvation, forced medical procedures, children being ripped out of their screaming mother's arms by authorities who then pay bucket-loads to have them bought up elsewhere etc .. it's all worse! No-one can think of anything a reasonable person would describe as a 'better' system!)

As others have suggested, I think there may be credibility in examining some kind of voucher system, to ensure only essentials can be purchased by the family in need ... undoubtably this would create a black-market within about 3 minutes though .. as smokers 'sell' the kids baby-food vouchers for half-price actual cash so they can afford their benson and hedges

Horrible dilemma really ..

steve-h · 29 Dec 2009 at 14:52

britboy4321 said:
Let us not forget a few things here

1) It's not the kids fault that they were born as number #14 of a *****'s family.

2) Anything we should do, should not adversely affect the kids, as THEY ARE INNNOCENT.

3) Taking the kids into care by force, WILL adversely affect the kids

4) If we hire big burly men to physically hold down women and forcibly inject them with something to make them infertile because they've had their 'government allocated kids quota' -- we'll have the worst human rights record on the planet.

5) We do not want people starving in the streets in the UK. Not least because a parent will not sit around as their kids starve -- before it gets to that they'll break into YOUR house, steal YOUR fancy PC and sell it for £35 down the pub. Some people are not employable (especially if they have > 10 kids to look after)

There is no answer. Starving innocent kids to 'teach someone or other a lesson' is not a reasonable solution. Big burly men forcing women kicking and screaming into operating theatres to have their ovaries forcibly removed is not a reasonable solution ... giving parents so little money that they end up stealing whilst their kids prostitute themselves so they can eat is not a reasonable solution ..

Well the idea is... to say... not offer any support for over 2 kids
people think twice about having millions and staying on the dole all their life
???
profit

muon · 29 Dec 2009 at 14:55

steve-h said:
Well the idea is... to say... not offer any support for over 2 kids
people think twice about having millions and staying on the dole all their life
???
profit

And what happens to the children? Average benefits per person already decline with additional children. And yet that doesn't do anything for this family. (It does for most families, but exceptions will always exist). If having 16 children was so good, it'd occur more. Bad decision makers will always exist.

person · 29 Dec 2009 at 14:57

I don't think its right when there are people who work hard and are still struggleing to make ends meat yet they can't get help because they work. Why not help the genuine people instead of thoes that sit on their backside doing nothing, they don't want to work and have child after child just so they can get more money .. thats the only reason these women have so many kids not because they " want " more and more its because as long as the kids keep coming so will the money.

gillywibble · 29 Dec 2009 at 14:58

22B or not 22B that is the Question said:
Wow, I bet her flange is like an axe wound

The echo must be terrible.

~>Dg<~ · 29 Dec 2009 at 14:59

to be honest no one in there right mind can call it a easy life not working but having 16 kids.

bet she doesnt have a spare quid at end of week

muon · 29 Dec 2009 at 15:02

But he soon realised his family was better off claiming benefits than if he worked.
'With the social giving us £700 a week, why should I work for anything less?' he told the News of the World.
'There's no point me even trying to look for a job. I've got a family of 15 to support. I'm better off staying at home and helping Dawn with the kids.
'People could call us scroungers but what would they do in the same situation?'
Rent on the Cains's home in Wythenshawe, Manchester, is paid for them and they do not have to pay their £1,023-a-year council tax.
They get £7,176 in child benefit, £22,828 in child tax credits and free school dinners for eight of their children worth £1,920.
Mr Cain also receives £3,900 in Jobseeker's Allowance.
The total amount is £36,847 a year, equivalent to someone earning a gross salary of £51,500. Britain's average salary is £21,320.

The idiot fails to realise that if he earns just £10k a year, most of the benefits will still exist. Child benefit will be exactly the same. Children's tax credits will be scaled back a tiny bit. Would have have to pay part of the council tax. He would lose JSA but gain working tax credits.

He wouldn't end up getting less. He's just stupid.

britboy4321 · 29 Dec 2009 at 15:03

person said:
I don't think its right when there are people who work hard and are still struggleing to make ends meat yet they can't get help because they work. Why not help the genuine people instead of thoes that sit on their backside doing nothing, they don't want to work and have child after child just so they can get more money .. thats the only reason these women have so many kids not because they " want " more and more its because as long as the kids keep coming so will the money.

So you'd suggest as your official government plan

'Let the women's kids (who are entirely innocent human beings by the way) starve to death'

?

Wow. Awesome. Medievil society, anyone?

Dolph · 29 Dec 2009 at 15:03

ghost101 said:
Definitely is. That's why we have children's tax credits. We are willing to pay to give children a basic standard of life.

That's why we have JSA, we would rather have people live than die of starvation when unemployed.

Same exists for every other developed country in the world.

Appealing to tradition doesn't make an argument. Just because taking money from people and giving it to others already happens doesn't make it right.

britboy4321 said:
'Forcing other people' to give them money is unfortunately in real life the best of a pretty dire list of options ...

It's not very good, pretty unpalatable, but unfortunately until someone comes up with a better system ... basically there is no good answer, so you have to take the least bad idea. Which is just for society to take the hit, and help them support their families. There is no better system than this fairly naff one! (Starvation, forced medical procedures, children being ripped out of their screaming mother's arms by authorities who then pay bucket-loads to have them bought up elsewhere etc .. it's all worse! No-one can think of anything a reasonable person would describe as a 'better' system!)

The system should not 'reward' bad choices though, I don't actually have too much of a problem with giving money to people, I have a problem with giving money to people solely because they made bad choices.

I return again to the negative income tax idea, set the basic level sufficient so that people won't starve (assuming they manage the money correctly) and leave them to it, don't give people extra because they have kids...

As others have suggested, I think there may be credibility in examining some kind of voucher system, to ensure only essentials can be purchased by the family in need ... undoubtably this would create a black-market within about 3 minutes though .. as smokers 'sell' the kids baby-food vouchers for half-price actual cash so they can afford their benson and hedges Horrible dilemma really ..

I'm fully against vouchers for food etc, I think they create far more problems than they solve.

The issue of irresponsible parents remains, but that isn't an issue that can be solved by the application of cash...

muon · 29 Dec 2009 at 15:05

Dolph said:
Appealing to tradition doesn't make an argument. Just because taking money from people and giving it to others already happens doesn't make it right.

I'm appealing to a status quo which has come about due to decades of analysis. Analysis which I agree mostly with, and evidently so do most governments.

Evidence shows that the incentive to decline labour supply due to the ability to have more children isn't there on the whole. This was done by doing state level analysis in the US taking into account attrition factors. (Looking at EITC which is basically what we have here).

Zenduri · 29 Dec 2009 at 15:06

She needs scraping with an ice cream scoop to stop her or a good kick in the ovaries, 16kids and that range fo benefits is disgusting.

Why should I pay for them to Shag