Coalition crack on to cutting benefits to Baby Factories

The_White_Horse

i'll believe it when i see it, if that Smith family are restricted to 500 a week in benefits. Personally, I think that is 500 too much, but they are currently getting GBP1826. If that drops to 500 I will be extremely happy.

These people are filthy scum and they deserve to starve. no one told them to have so many kids. it was their choice and now they (and their kids) should pay for it.

You have to be cruel to be kind - all this "its not the kids fault" sentiment simply keeps up the problem. Yes, i agree, it isn't the kids fault, but it is just tough luck on the kids. You can't choose your parents. and if you happen to be born to fat chav penniless losers, then you strarve. same way that charles happened to be first born of the queen and will become king. Is that fair? no. But that is how it is.

I hate these people. Benefits should be renamed "handouts" and they MUST be restricted to 500 per family per week. If this rule is flouted, then it is pointless. People must pay.

elaina79

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

26k plus all their disabled benefits.

I hope you never become disabled

ruggedtoast

The state needs to be much more robust about removing children early on from problem parents early on. And it wouldnt hurt to have a look at the rules on surrogacy either.

If people are going to have babies for money anyway (benefits) then at least allow them to do so and hand the children over to people who desperately want a child, cant have one, and are willing to pay someone who can.

It makes little sense to me to turn a blind eye to mistreated and neglected children, while paying their parents to look after them, which they clearly arent doing, and then have millions going on IVF treatment.

The fact of the matter is, some parents dont want their children and only have them to get the benefits.

silvercar

For those with an assortment of kids from an assortment of parents, I suspect the answer will be for the latest father to move to a place of his own, so that the mother and the latest father get £500 each.

N1AK

mvengemvenge wrote: »

As Peter Hain just said on Newsnight, what about when a working family with, say, 5 kids, split up? Not the mother's fault she ends-up on benefits.

1. She'll get to stay in the family house.
2. The benefit cap is equivalent to £32k a year.
3. She'll get money from the father.

Assuming they were on really good money pre-split, and spent it all rather than investing/saving (you know; being responsible) then their quality of life might decrease.

They'll still be living in a nice house, with nice small (by now) mortgage payments. Is giving her an extra few £k really a priority? Couldn't the money be spent better improving schools, helping the homeless, getting people off drugs etc?

silvercar

mvengemvenge wrote:

As Peter Hain just said on Newsnight, what about when a working family with, say, 5 kids, split up? Not the mother's fault she ends-up on benefits

Can truly working families afford to have 5 kids?

dopester

There was a woman just on Radio5 with 10 kids... some now adults, but many she still claiming for. When her husband was on £14ph as a joiner she felt that would never change. Keep popping them out. Until his job replaced by Polish workers on £7ph. No eye on the future at all, cause now can ravage benefits.

She said it wasn't any person's business how many kids she chose to have. "Give people a job" she kept insisting. As though job creation is not an ever increasingly delicate thing - with the well paid jobs more reliant on brain-power / tech ect, rather than factory, manufacturing, joinery and building skills, which are set for deflationary surplus. She said there are 40 people chasing every single job in her Glasgow, and how all the jobs government says are available are in the South East.

Gordon Brown has a lot to answer for, promising No More Boom and Bust over 100 times in the House of Commons. All of Labour too, championing debt and only boom from now on. They should have been adapting the economy towards when there will be fewer jobs in old-world industries. Low debt and sustainable living. Instead of popping out baby after baby and ragging the equity out your ever rising home and borrowing like insane people to party cause they believed the money never runs out.

Alan_Cross

mvengemvenge wrote: »

As Peter Hain just said on Newsnight, what about when a working family with, say, 5 kids, split up? Not the mother's fault she ends-up on benefits.

Sorry but I have to eject you from the forum for mention compassionate concern - a subject which is not allowed in MSE forums in the context of Tory Government actions for the reason that it may show them in their true light and intention.

We cannot have the great, unwashed, ghastly British public suspecting that HMG may still have nasty party tendencies and only be in business for the sake of promoting the interests of the super rich, media tycoons and the like at the expense of everyone else...

Alan_Cross

dopester wrote: »

Gordon Brown has a lot to answer for, promising No More Boom and Bust over 100 times in the House of Commons. All of Labour too, championing debt and only boom from now on. .

Obviously, you were living in a different country from the rest of us, where there was a stable economy for 10+ years, blown off course eventually only by the effects of a world wide banking crisis - wherein he was a leading figure in the stabilisation process.

The_White_Horse

Alan_Cross wrote: »

Obviously, you were living in a different country from the rest of us, where there was a stable economy for 10+ years, blown off course eventually only by the effects of a world wide banking crisis - wherein he was a leading figure in the stabilisation process.

hahahahahahHAHHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA