Father with 26 children by 15 women has ‘received £500,000 in benefits’
- Thread starter Efour
- Start date
I would still rather have a system that lets abuse like this happen as opposed to a system that allows children to starve.
Though you do wonder if there was a cap on how many children benefits would pay for if it would have any impact on this number of children people have.
Though you do wonder if there was a cap on how many children benefits would pay for if it would have any impact on this number of children people have.
I think it would help to have young mothers hostels, somewhere where children are looked after and potential bad habits are trained out of them, don't allow boyfriends to stay for very long.
if they want their own flat then they better send their partner out to work to support them.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
I suspect it probably wouldn't. Cases like these are just people wheeled out to suit the agenda of whatever Newspaper. They are fairly rare. Most people with lots of kids would have lots of kids irrespective of whether the state was there to prop them up or not. Some people just won't ever think rationally before decisions (or lack thereof) like that.
Well I'd argue it's child abuse if people have children they can't afford to feed. Take them off these people.
Put them on a register to prevent any more. Yes it's drastic but this is not sustainable.
You say what about the poor children born into this, well use the money to pay for new facilities trained in house foster houses for these children to grow up and get a decent start in life and not grow up knowing of this trap their parents want.
Put them on a register to prevent any more. Yes it's drastic but this is not sustainable.
You say what about the poor children born into this, well use the money to pay for new facilities trained in house foster houses for these children to grow up and get a decent start in life and not grow up knowing of this trap their parents want.
By the balls. Human trash.
The problem is that the current system rewards irresponsibility. It isn't the fault of the people that they behave this way, if you are in the system, having more children is a rational thing to do as it creates a greater income and a greater entitlement to things such as housing.
Until the benefits system mimics the real world, where decisions have to be taken thinking about the consequences, rather than the benefits of the activity, then this will keep occurring.
To clarify before people kick off, this doesn't mean I advocate no benefit increases based on number of children, but because I advocate a universal combined benefit and tax system, it means that you would still be better off working than not and there would be no more friction between those who receive benefits because they were irresponsible and those who were responsible and do not.
Until the benefits system mimics the real world, where decisions have to be taken thinking about the consequences, rather than the benefits of the activity, then this will keep occurring.
To clarify before people kick off, this doesn't mean I advocate no benefit increases based on number of children, but because I advocate a universal combined benefit and tax system, it means that you would still be better off working than not and there would be no more friction between those who receive benefits because they were irresponsible and those who were responsible and do not.
Idiocracy in real life.
And yes, we can blame the guy for being a jerk. Having all those kids at tax payers' expense is very much being a jerk.
You're saying we should have no self-imposed limits on our actions - the only boundaries should be what is legal/ possible.
Self-control, being a decent human being - you can't expect the law/govt to totally define this for us.
If he was a decent human being he would have thought about the fact that other people are paying for him to do **** all. But he doesn't care, because he's a jerk.
And yes, we can blame the guy for being a jerk. Having all those kids at tax payers' expense is very much being a jerk.
You're saying we should have no self-imposed limits on our actions - the only boundaries should be what is legal/ possible.
Self-control, being a decent human being - you can't expect the law/govt to totally define this for us.
If he was a decent human being he would have thought about the fact that other people are paying for him to do **** all. But he doesn't care, because he's a jerk.
We protect them from the consequences of their own actions.
Actually I agree if she's willing to take the **** like this we should forcibly sterilise her.
What are the alternatives?
a) punish the children by withholding benefits (in the most extreme case, let them starve ala Africa). Most people would not find this acceptable.
b) continue to support however many children she produces. Either in her care or in state care - makes little difference to the cost. Neither will stop her having more kids
c) imprisonment/sectioning. Living beyond your means isn't against the law, although you could argue it should be in when the action is so deliberate. She hasn't fallen on hard times, after all.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,644
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I think we should have a collection so his kids can have Xbox Ones and PS4's like other kids.
I can't believe the benefits system doesn't pay for these.
I can't believe the benefits system doesn't pay for these.
ITT lets all get angered by yet another exceptional case of exploiting the system (no different than tax evasion that most of this forum defends) so that the government can push more severe austerity on the majority of people struggling on benefits.
You should all focus more on what charities are saying with regards to benefits reforms rather than the governments compliant media mouthpieces. Oxfam recently ran a poster campaign criticising economic/welfare policies and they got attacked from all sides... "hey Oxfam, shut up being all political and quietly give these people free food like you're supposed to".
You should all focus more on what charities are saying with regards to benefits reforms rather than the governments compliant media mouthpieces. Oxfam recently ran a poster campaign criticising economic/welfare policies and they got attacked from all sides... "hey Oxfam, shut up being all political and quietly give these people free food like you're supposed to".
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 914
- Location
- Darwen
IMO you should get out what you put in. If someone has paid in more then they should recieve more if they need to claim during hard times. People who have never paid in should only get the bare minimum regardless of how many kids they have or how hard their lives are boohoo. You get what you put in to it as with the real world. I don't slave away at work every day to pay for some lay about scrounger to stay at home doing nothing all day.
Social security was introduced to help people who have hit hard times such as being made redundant, it was never there to support lazy people or people from other countries who have never paid in. If we carry on dishing more money out than people pay in then the country will be in serious trouble.
Social security was introduced to help people who have hit hard times such as being made redundant, it was never there to support lazy people or people from other countries who have never paid in. If we carry on dishing more money out than people pay in then the country will be in serious trouble.
How can that possibly work? It's just nonsense like all the other pub-talk ideas on how to revolutionise government spending.
There will ALWAYS be people who put in far more than they ever take out and people who take out far more than they put in. It's why the system exists. If you got back what you put in we might as well just not put in in the first place and keep the money for ourselves!
Don't you think we are really very lucky to live in a country where people are free to whinge incessantly about people getting too many benefits as one of the biggest complaints they have? I'd far rather be annoyed about that than live somewhere that has entire families on the street in actual, genuine poverty, even if it is as a result of mistakes they made.
No, but you 'slave' (just lol at the use of that term) away at work all day for the ability to live in a society like ours. Which provides you with the opportunities you used to be able to 'slave' away at work all day and have what you want in life. You took far more than you as an individual had ever put into the system until far into your 20's I'd imagine. Infact if we looked at personal tax paid versus benefits received for you individually you might be surprised to discover you too have taken more than you've paid in.
Your education wasn't cheap, for example.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 914
- Location
- Darwen
[TW]Fox;26494384 said:
It it very simple, if you have paid in all your life and have a well paid job, if you are made redundant you will get paid the same sum that someone who has never worked will get. Infact as they probably know how to milk the system they will get more and you will end up losing your house. Is that fair?
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 914
- Location
- Darwen
As i said the system is there to help people who have hit hard times, it shouldnt be a permanent benefit so scroungers have an excuse not to work
Your scenario is made up so it's fairly pointless to judge the fairness of a pretend situation. If you've got a well paid job and have had for a long time then you will almost certainly have:
a) Some sort of personal safety net you've built up anyway
b) Very realistic prospects of finding a new job quite quickly anyway - you don't get a well paid job by being of little value
c) A redundancy package in most situations, though bankruptcy etc might reduce that.
So it's unlikely you'd 'lose your house'. Infact it's unlikely you'd even need to avail yourself of the safety net the welfare state offers - you'd be an intelligent, well paid and successful individual who can sort themselves out.
But if, for whatever reasons, some of those things are missing, there is a small safety net to fall back on.
It's probably not the case that somebody who has 'never worked' would get the same anyway, as they'll not qualify for some of the things you would.
Most of this stuff is perception versus reality. Most of us know all about the benefits system because the newspapers have told us about it and held up ridiculous poster-families to demonstrate all that is wrong. Our view of it is therefore based on this warped reality. Some people take the ****. Most people do not.
It is not really a viable choice for most people to simply not work. The actual money you end up getting is just rubbish!
yup - though it has to be phased out... i.e. capping for new claimants and though it sounds a bit draconian to say sterilize the poor its not all that unreasonable to both put a cap at 2 kids per household and add in a requirement or incentive in the form of a higher rate of benefits for using long term contraceptives
most people don't have more than 2 kids anyway these days so giving incentives to people reliant on the rest of us for their existence to also stop at two kids isn't really unreasonable...