The £40k family

Bogof_Babe

Spendless wrote:

Is this what you mean Bogof Babe-All the money comes out of the same (taxpayers pot) but some is seen as respectible,some isn't.

Yep that's exactly what I mean, thank you for putting it so succinctly .

Spendless wrote:

To me though the only reason that she gets so much is because of a large family which as others have said is unusual these days. I doubt very much that you could get the same outrage by posting about a 2 kid family on IS.

On that point, probably not (the outrage) but you might expect them to try to do some sort of work to contribute to their own fortunes. In the case of the family under discussion, they have stitched themselves up pretty thoroughly, what with the number of kids and the (arguable - sorry I'm not convinced) arthritis, so that with the best will in the world (even if they had one) they could not possibly earn enough to maintain their own offspring with just moderate taxpayers' contributions.

It can be hard to understand what is in these people's minds when they continue to produce sprog after sprog with no consideration of how it is draining the system. I'm afraid they are either (a) very stupid, (b) very short-sighted, or most likely (c) very cunning.

I suppose it would be against their human rights to suggest one or other of them gets sterilized? :rolleyes:

Curry_Queen

Bogof_Babe wrote:

I suppose it would be against their human rights to suggest one or other of them gets sterilized? :rolleyes:

I wasn't gonna go down that road on here but ....

Spendless

So is anyone good at figures? How about we send the husband out to work,need only be part-time and use the entitledto website to work out tax credits and add in Child Benefit and DLA to see what sort of income we are looking at instead.

Curry_Queen

Ok, I'm bored enough to do it LOL! ... bear with me while I do the math

Fran

Bogof_Babe wrote:

On that point, probably not (the outrage) but you might expect them to try to do some sort of work to contribute to their own fortunes.
In the case of the family under discussion, they have stitched themselves up pretty thoroughly, what with the number of kids and the (arguable - sorry I'm not convinced) arthritis, so that with the best will in the world (even if they had one) they could not possibly earn enough to maintain their own offspring with just moderate taxpayers' contributions.

When would you have time to work looking when you're bringing up 6 kids? As the mother has arthritis (and why should we doubt that the doctor is wrong in this case any more than in any other case?), the father has more than enough to do. It's nothing to do with low wages then?

It can be hard to understand what is in these people's minds when they continue to produce sprog after sprog with no consideration of how it is draining the system. I'm afraid they are either (a) very stupid, (b) very short-sighted, or most likely (c) very cunning.

I suppose it would be against their human rights to suggest one or other of them gets sterilized? :rolleyes:

Perhaps if the people who are paid to be responsible for education did their job properly people would be more financially and socially aware before they left school and less likely to get into these situations.

Some women have much more drive to have babies than others, you only have to look at people you know, some will not want kids and have no interest but would rather further a career or make money and some are perfectly happy as long as the next baby is on the way and are in their element when they are pregnant or caring for babies and children. This might be a factor when women and men who are in this situation go on to have more than they can afford. It should be treated more as an obssessive compulsion (and looked into and treated properly as such) not just dismissed out of hand.

Spendless - When you (or someone else?) does the calculation, don't forget to add on the possible maintenance from the other two men who have fathered some of the kids!!

jellyhead

didn't one of the political parties suggest implants for women/families on welfare back in the 90's sometime? i remember an uproar about it.

there are possible side effects from any kind of contraception - a tiny risk of a bad reaction to anaesthetic while being sterilised or having a hysterectomy (don't know about men though, do they have anaeasthetic when having a vasectomy?), risk of blood clots/thrombosis, heavy bleeding, anaemia, strokes, etc. from having an implant in the arm, probably similar risks for a coil with added risks of perforation, depression after a depo jab. i don't think people could ever be 'forced' into contraception, too many risks - it's something you have to give consent for. i still think that MOST people don't have subsequent children once they're on welfare. if there are pregnancies what then? it's not as if people can be forced into abortion/adoption/surrogacy etc. and capping the money the family receives at a level of say no extra rises after 4 children might lead to children being born into large families and suffering as a result of poverty (although a cap on payments for more than 4 children might encourage more people to voluntarily use contraception). i don't think there are any rules that could be brought in that wouldn't end up affecting children, if they're born then they need supporting and to refuse that support would be detrimental to the wellbeing of innocent children.

jellyhead

they'd lose free healthcare if they were on tax credits and would also have to pay vets bills for any pets they might have (people on IS can get their pets seen to for free by the PDSA). we don't know if the other 2 fathers pay maintenance (maybe their kids are over 16 now?).

ho hum .... i remember an article in a mag once about a family with 11 or 12 children. the hubby worked full time but people still complained about their child benefit and council housing (i think the council had to buy a large house for them or have one built). they didn't see why anyone should moan though, as hubby worked hard to support them all and child benefit is available to everyone, plus there are lots of working people in council housing, it's not just for those on benefits.

Spendless

Fran wrote:

Spendless - When you (or someone else?) does the calculation, don't forget to add on the possible maintenance from the other two men who have fathered some of the kids!!

That is a very good point Fran. Also the absent fathers may be paying maintainance anyway but it isn't passed onto the mother as she is in receipt of IS - or only a very small amount.(I think it's £10 in total - i don't think it's £10 a child but i might be wrong).

If maintainance is being paid it is kept by the government who are paying IS instead (and perhaps that puts a different slant on the way things are looked at).

It's Curry Queen doing the calculations not me (i failed O'level maths twice!! LOL).

Spendless

Jellyhead - don't people only loose free perscriptions over a certain level of income on tax credits.

We'll assume they have no pets -lol

Curry_Queen

It won't give me a figure for Working tax Credit for some reason, and I don't know enough about the rules to know why, but it came up with around £12,000 a year for Child Tax Credits paid on top of Child Benefit and DLA etc etc

That was based on a couple, with one partner working 16 or more hours a week, and 6 children under 16 ... didn't count any 16-19 year olds as we don't know if they're still at home (assuming any are over 16)!