The state benefits system mega-thread.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Osem

My father was one of 8 and they were very poor - it was more down to lack of contraception than anything else I believe. Nobody sensible is stereotyping ALL large families. It is right, however, to point out and try to do something about the irresponsible minority who exploit the benefits system to their advantage and even continue breeding when they patently cannot cope with the kids they already have and are living in abject squalor . It wouldn't be so bad if these people actually cared for their children properly but parenthood is something which seems to stall when their kids are born and the benefits they get seem to be largely spent on things other than their children's welfare.

Somebody please tell me what excuse there is in 21st Century Britain for someone who won't work, won't keep their home clean, won't feed their children properly and keep them clean, safe etc. etc. to have more children? If nobody else, let's consider the poor children who are born to these defective people.

Until we get to grips with that proportion of society who choose not to behave responsibly they will continue to see having children as a means to an end and the more people there will be who've known nothing other than life on benefits and parents who didn't care about them.

Have you made a suggestion of what needs to be done yet?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by peanut

The easy option would be to pay (benefits) for the 1st child, 1/2 for the 2nd child and nowt onwards.

This was one of the proposals of the advisory committee, but the Government decided to opt for an overall benefit cap instead to try to reduce the Housing Benefit bill. When a claimants entitlement exceeds the benefit cap, it is their Housing Benefit that is reduced.

The benefit cap does not apply to those who are working, so this has had the effect of many claimants moving into work (even if part time) or them moving out of expensive places like London.

I broadly support the benefit cap in principle, but on the one hand, as Boris Johnson said, it's like Ethnic Cleansing of the poor. On the other hand, many, many working people would love to live in London, but simply cannot afford it.

Originally Posted by Osem

The trouble is these people know their kids also amount to a bargaining chip. So as well as ensuring certain additional benefits they're also the key to better housing and the state will rightly not want to punish the children for the actions of their so called parents.

I watched a programme about High Court enforcement officers last night. It highlighted a couple with 6 kids who'd paid no rent for 10 months and had, for reasons best known to themselves, turned the newly refurbished house they were renting into a filthy tip in that short time. One of the staff commented on how it was often the case that they'd go into properties like this and find all sorts of expensive consumer goods (and indeed this place was equipped with large TVs, apple laptop, xbox, etc. etc.) whilst the kids would be living in total squalor. We all know these people aren't the majority but they are the core of the problem and they know that having kids will put them on the top of the pile when it comes to housing, services and benefits. What do we do about people like this?

This is a very real problem. I think that society will have to make a decision. Either pay up for these people and stop complaining, or take decisive and drastic action to deal with the 'Shameless' style of living. Such measures are likely to be very controversial, as you can see from some of the responses to my suggestion that some people should be forcibly sterilised to save money and halt the cycle of wasteful and parasitic lives.

Up until the introduction of Supplementary Benefit, there was an a condition that all claimants had to meet in addition to all the usual rules. A person had to be a fit and proper person of good character who was suitable to be given assistance from public funds.

This dealt with those who satisfied all the rules, but were taking advantage. For example, a woman and her partner have children. Her partner gets killed in an industrial accident at work. Another woman has had ten children, all to different fathers and has never worked. As it stands, both would be entitled to state assistance.

The reintroduction of this rule would deal with those taking the urine, cut costs in the long term and help to eradicate the wasters in society.

This, however, would not be without it's problems. The children of underclass lifestyle families could not be left to starve on the street, as it wouldn't be their fault. They would have to be taken into care, which would cost more in the long run. However, once word got out that this was new policy, i'm certain that there would be a massive reduction of these types of claimant. This would help to restore public confidence in the welfare benefit system and stop decent people being tarred with the same brush.

Originally Posted by Taf

Whilst Child Benefit did attract more to breeding "excessively", it's Child Tax Credits that has been the biggest factor AFIAC.

I personally would like to see Child Benefit abolished. It was only ever intended to be a temporary measure to encourage people to have children after the second world war (that's why it was initially only paid for the second and subsequent children).

The restrictions on people getting it in the higher tax band is start, as we had the ludicrous position where poor families effectively lost their Child Benefit entitlement because it is taken into account in the calculation of means tested benefits, whilst a millionaire could keep theirs in full!

Abolishing it would save money and allow extra money to be targetted at (responsible) poor families.

Originally Posted by denphone

My parents had nine of us and apart from some child benefit worked to put food on our table so lets not stereotype every family that has large families.

Yes, it's always worth bearing in mind that not all large families have multiple children and expect others to pay everything for them.

---------- Post added at 16:04 ---------- Previous post was at 15:56 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Blinking nora, Eugene.

Having children is a biological imperative, a religious observance, a human right ... take your pick of any or all of those. It is also a privilege, but not by virtue of it having been granted or withheld by the State.

I disagree entirely when it's the state that's paying for it. If the Government adopted this policy and people wanted to have children, there would be nothing to stop them- as long as they don't expect taxpayers money in order to have them.

Even if they work to pay for them, they are still getting a good deal. By this I mean that they will be entitled to free healthcare, education etc.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I disagree entirely when it's the state that's paying for it. If the Government adopted this policy and people wanted to have children, there would be nothing to stop them- as long as they don't expect taxpayers money in order to have them.

Even if they work to pay for them, they are still getting a good deal. By this I mean that they will be entitled to free healthcare, education etc.

The State does not acquire the right to determine who can and cannot reproduce, merely by introducing benefit payments for children.

Originally Posted by Gary L

You don't see many big white British families in Britain.
they're that rare, that when someone finds one they make a documentary about them. and how much it costs to put food in their gobs.

there's loads of big foreign families from abroad. but nobody makes a documentary about them. and how much it costs to put food in their gobs.

My dads family was big.
7 brothers and 3 sisters.

his own kids he had 2 boys and 2 girls
would have had 3 girls. but sold her to put food on the table.

big families were the norm in the olden days. and money was even tighter.

I quote my father.
"This is all Thatcher all over again. she hated working class people too. she made everyone lose their homes"

Strange - I thought she made it possible for lots of people to buy their *council homes?

*around two million....

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Strange - I thought she made it possible for lots of people to buy their *council homes?

*around two million....

I think what Gary might mean is the people who lost their homes due to the recession of the ,80's, high interest rates etc (some of these were people who took advantage of the Right To Buy Scheme).

At the same time, council houses were being sold and building new homes was halted, meaning less affordable housing was available to rehouse them.

Having said that, it was nowhere near as bad as it is today!

---------- Post added at 18:29 ---------- Previous post was at 18:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

The State does not acquire the right to determine who can and cannot reproduce, merely by introducing benefit payments for children.

I think it may well have to come to this and not just because of the financial cost of such lifestyles. There are social, behavioural, medical and legal issues at play too.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by blackthorn

Its not just non working people on benefits who dont look after their kids and dont clean their house. What would you propose to do to the working parents who dont do the things you describe.

Of course it isn't and they're a slightly different part of the same problem. Feckless parents who have kids then don't look after them. We're not talking here about people who fall ill or are subject to unforeseen circumstances after having children, but those who have children and keep on having them even when they can't cope and clearly don't even try.

What to do about these people ultimately has to be decided by govt. but we have to face up to the reality that unless something is done the situation will get worse and children will suffer. Education has to be part of the solution but that's obviously a long term process and whatever else has to be done will have to balance the need to be tough on the parents with trying to protect their unfortunate offspring.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I think what Gary might mean is the people who lost their homes due to the recession of the ,80's, high interest rates etc (some of these were people who took advantage of the Right To Buy Scheme).

Exactly that.

and Dave is doing it all over again.
nobody has security in their jobs at all now. you could be out of work tomorrow or next week. they're shutting down faster than what the pubs were. and it's all going to happen all over again.

one second we're booming (when it suits Dave)
the next we're not (when it suits Dave)

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Osem

Of course it isn't and they're a slightly different part of the same problem. Feckless parents who have kids then don't look after them. We're not talking here about people who fall ill or are subject to unforeseen circumstances after having children, but those who have children and keep on having them even when they can't cope and clearly don't even try.

What to do about these people ultimately has to be decided by govt. but we have to face up to the reality that unless something is done the situation will get worse and children will suffer. Education has to be part of the solution but that's obviously a long term process and whatever else has to be done will have to balance the need to be tough on the parents with trying to protect their unfortunate offspring.

Spot on. Government policies (including welfare reform) are often used to try to influence the behaviour of people.

- Child Benefit was introduced to increase the birthrate after WWII.

- Thatcher cut benefits for the under 25's to encourage young people to stay at home until they got a job.

- MIRAS and the Right To Buy scheme were introduced to encourage home ownership as this was viewed as a way to make people more than responsible and take a pride in their environment (as well as buy working class votes).

- The present Government believe that marriage is a desirable situation, so have reintroduced the Married Persons Tax Allowance.

And so the list goes on. It really is time that the freeloaders were dealt with as it's getting out of hand. There are some families where the Grandparents, Parents and their adult offspring have NEVER worked.

I personally know of one woman who has many different children to various different fathers.

When she proudly referred to the DWP as her "free bank", I told her that she had reduced her genetalia to nothing more than a urinal for mens sperm.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

When she proudly referred to the DWP as her "free bank", I told her that she had reduced her genetalia to nothing more than a urinal for mens sperm.

What was her reply?

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Osem

Of course it isn't and they're a slightly different part of the same problem. Feckless parents who have kids then don't look after them. We're not talking here about people who fall ill or are subject to unforeseen circumstances after having children, but those who have children and keep on having them even when they can't cope and clearly don't even try.

What to do about these people ultimately has to be decided by govt. but we have to face up to the reality that unless something is done the situation will get worse and children will suffer. Education has to be part of the solution but that's obviously a long term process and whatever else has to be done will have to balance the need to be tough on the parents with trying to protect their unfortunate offspring.

If only the facts aggreed with you.

Table 1.png

Table2.png

link to source - excel spreadsheet from the ONS website

The numbers seem pretty clear to me (despite the size of the attachments!).

Cheers

Grim

Originally Posted by Gary L

Exactly that.

and Dave is doing it all over again.
nobody has security in their jobs at all now. you could be out of work tomorrow or next week. they're shutting down faster than what the pubs were. and it's all going to happen all over again.

one second we're booming (when it suits Dave)
the next we're not (when it suits Dave)

Gary not sure how old you are but in the 70's I lost my job 4 times and the government at the time was labour, in 79 I changed profession and kept the same job for over 20 years through Thatchers reign and various others.

You cannot assume that everyone is in the same boat as you describe above, I know more people who have been in a job for a long time than those who have not?

[Mr Angry]

"Right to buy" in the news again.

"Council houses are being sold off on the cheap to people who immediately rent them back to housing benefit tenants, according to an Independent investigation that exposes a new “Right to Buy” scandal.

In echoes of Margaret Thatcher’s drive to force local authorities in the 1980s to sell their properties at a cut price, the Government’s new initiative to encourage councils to sell their houses is having a disastrous effect in allowing social housing to be exploited for personal profit."

Cardigan.

[Gary L]

Told you.
Dave's getting it all in before he gets evicted.

it's all going to end in tears.

Anybody who trusts the Tories when they say they have no intention of lining the pockets of their friends and supporters at the expense of the poor and needy is a fool. It's what the party of greed is all about.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Gary L

What was her reply?

She came out with a tirade of abuse. I was stood next to her father, who told her that he was ashamed of her.

The DPS of the venue then ordered her to leave (apparently she had already had a warning for threatening another woman in the toilets).

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

"Right to buy" in the news again.

"Council houses are being sold off on the cheap to people who immediately rent them back to housing benefit tenants, according to an Independent investigation that exposes a new “Right to Buy” scandal.

In echoes of Margaret Thatcher’s drive to force local authorities in the 1980s to sell their properties at a cut price, the Government’s new initiative to encourage councils to sell their houses is having a disastrous effect in allowing social housing to be exploited for personal profit."

Cardigan.

Yup, being forced to sell off council houses at a discount is costing the taxpayer a fortune.

Many of these ex council houses are now being let out in the private rented sector, at a much higher cost to the Housing Benefit bill.

Also, when no social housing is available for those that the council has a legal duty to rehouse, they get put into bed & breakfast accomodation. This costs hundreds of pounds a week. Total madness due to political ideology.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

"Right to buy" in the news again.

"Council houses are being sold off on the cheap to people who immediately rent them back to housing benefit tenants, according to an Independent investigation that exposes a new “Right to Buy” scandal.

In echoes of Margaret Thatcher’s drive to force local authorities in the 1980s to sell their properties at a cut price, the Government’s new initiative to encourage councils to sell their houses is having a disastrous effect in allowing social housing to be exploited for personal profit."

Cardigan.

So the tenants of those council houses bought them at a discount, and are then later letting them out - so one assumes they have moved out of the ex-council house into private accommodation, and are letting there previous (ex-council) house, making it available (which it wasn't when they lived there).

So there are swings and roundabouts - those ex-council houses are available to be rented, which they weren't before....