Trying to get my head around it

Pobby

kegg wrote: »

Of couse they should have kids but limit themselves to the number they can afford to look after with what they have got.
Dont have more then go cup in hand for a larger council house and extra benefits.

Which it was years ago. That`s the whole point of my post. Having kids, not working and being supported by the state. I see it as a life style choice funded by the tax payer ans I can`t say that I feel it is right.

SingleSue

kegg wrote: »

Of couse they should have kids but limit themselves to the number they can afford to look after with what they have got.
Dont have more then go cup in hand for a larger council house and extra benefits.

The fact also remains that some comfortable people have children (which they can afford) then fate deals them a !!!!!! hand and they become poor.

Savings and insurances don't last that long when that happens.....

ninky_2

pipkin71 wrote: »

I entered into a conversation in DT regarding the 'poor' having children, and not for the first time it's been suggested that those on benefits would stop having children if their benefits didn't increase.

i think it has more to do with aspirations and what people consider to be achievable for themselves. statistically those on longterm benefits are likely to have lower aspirations and a lower sense of what they can achieve. therefore they don't have the dilemma of the ambitious / career focussed / adventurous parents that think to have children might limit their alternatives in life. indeed, for low aspiration benefit claimants, having a kid is a realizable 'achievement'. the decision has more to do with this than thinking they'll get more benefit per se.

ninky_2

Emy1501 wrote: »

Do any of other country in the developed world have such a generous benefit system as ours? If we are near the bottom for child welfare what are the countries at the top doing? Whats their welfare system like?

norway. consistently at the top of the league tables for quality of life. high taxes and higher benefits than here. around a quarter of the working population are on some sort of disability benefit or sick leave.

bo_drinker

Pobby wrote: »

Which it was years ago. That`s the whole point of my post. Having kids, not working and being supported by the state. I see it as a life style choice funded by the tax payer ans I can`t say that I feel it is right.

It's not right, far from it but it seems to be accepted as the norm by so many. We are into 3rd generation a lot of the time, families who do not know the meaning of the word work and I'll be fkd if I will pay for the lazy b4stards. How is it that people do not question it? especially tax payers.

StevieJ

bo_drinker wrote: »

It's not right, far from it but it seems to be accepted as the norm by so many. We are into 3rd generation a lot of the time, families who do not know the meaning of the word work and I'll be fkd if I will pay for the lazy b4stards. How is it that people do not question it? especially tax payers.

I suppose the reason is that most people don't see it as the Utopian option that you obviously do

kegg_2

SingleSue wrote: »

The fact also remains that some comfortable people have children (which they can afford) then fate deals them a !!!!!! hand and they become poor.

Savings and insurances don't last that long when that happens.....

Yes and that is when the state should act as their safety net to give them a hand to get back on their feet. But whilst they are needing that help they shouldn't be looking to increase their family and expecting the state to then give them more.
Nor should they let the state carry them for longer than needed.

StevieJ

ninky wrote: »

norway. consistently at the top of the league tables for quality of life. high taxes and higher benefits than here. around a quarter of the working population are on some sort of disability benefit or sick leave.

Remember meeting a couple of Danes on holiday many moons ago, they were on the rock and roll and receiving something like 80% of the previous wages from the social.