The £40k family

Sarahsaver

The kids have a right to be looked after, they did not choose to be born into this situation, and Im with Fran on this, there is nothing wrong with knowing your rights. I have an (ex) relative who I suspect was addicted to having babies - honest! 11 at last count, but her hubby had a well paid job. Even so, they will have got loads of child benefit. People who are addicted to food, cigarettes, alcohol and drugs get help on the NHS. I am sure an addiction to having babies is very rare, but whatever the circumstances THEY have a right to a decent life. Im more angry when I hear for example George Best getting a new liver and so on...

IvanOpinion

Sarahsaver wrote:

Im more angry when I hear for example George Best getting a new liver and so on...

While I agree with you on this point there is one difference, his taxes have probably bought 'the right' to a new liver 100 times over... in the same way that an average smoker has probably paid for their first bypass operation within 5-6 years of starting to smoke.

it does however seem a shame to 'waste' an organ on someone that will go out and destroy it all over again.

Ivan

Fran

IvanOpinion wrote:

Fran
I think you are still missing the point ... ignoring absolutely everybody else on benefits, how on earth can any benefits system be justified that gives one family the equivalent of £50K per year ... about 3X the national average wage for NOT working. Where is the incentive for this family to contribute to society instead of taking from it?

I would prefer to see this money going to people that actually need and deserve it.

Ivan

But the family do need it! The mother has arthritis and needs help with the smallest children etc. Or are you saying their doctor is wrong (especially after this publicity)? Someone has to look after the children so the father is.

The eleven children will hopefully contribute back into society. Maybe they will be carers when we're all pensioners? Or clean the bins? Or doctors themselves?

Poppy9

No one has said anywhere on this thread that you shouldn't know your rights so what is the problem?

Why can it be ok for people to use benefits to buy drink, alcohol or other drugs or to pay for people to satisfy their compulsion to have babies but not for George Best to have a liver transplant. After all the transplant saved his life. It might not be our quality of life but who are we to judge. I realise livers are a scarce resource and should be used for the best purposes - same as benefits really a scarce resource that should be targeted at those who need them. Or do you advocate making a judgement on those in receipt of all health services. i.e. smokers no treatment until you give up and have been clean for x years. Put working people to the top of hospital waiting lists as they are more useful members of society? What about old people should we even bother with those are they are going to die soon anyway? I would hope that the people who decide who gets any transplant organ do so on a purely clinical need basis. If George was the only match then he should have it.

Now that the kids are here they have to be cared for no one has said they shouldn't but the point is if the benefit system wasn't there Mr & Mrs Scott would not have had such a large brood. They only did so because the benefit system enabled them to afford it.

Fran

Poppy9 wrote:

Fran

Did I say I had a problem with people knowing their rights? I really don't see the need for the agression in your posting .

It's your perception of it, this is a discussion and I was only putting my point. :mad:

jellyhead

this thread has got me wondering actually - how did my father-in-law's parents afford their dozen children? the father was a bus driver, the mum didn't work. they had a council house but it only had 3 bedrooms so i wonder why they had so many children? i'm pretty sure they had condoms in those days but correct me if i'm wrong, these are people who would be late 70's if they were alive today. is it more expensive to bring up children nowadays do you think? back then they would have grown their own veg, baked their own bread etc. (and used the dripping from meat to spread on bread, mmmmm bread and dripping ....) and i suppose coal may have been cheaper than the central heating we have. the children would have worn second hand clothes and maybe the girl would have got clothes handed down from cousins or other people in the street. i'm going off at a tangent here, apologies, i just got to thinking about why my grandparents-in-law had 12 children without room to put them all (and without child benefit too i assume).

chugalug

Poppy, is that necessarily true? There were several posts earlier describing historically large families of 10, 11, 12 children. The difference now is that the benefit system supports this particular large family whereas for the families at the beginning of the 20th century there was no financial support. As has been discussed, we dont know the motivation behind the large family we can only speculate that its to 'cash in' on the benefits system.

Spendless

Jellyhead both my grans are still alive aged 81 and 79. One was from a family of 12 (a 13th died at a few days old) the other there was just her and her sister.

I have tried asking my gran from the family of 2 how come there weren't any more kids but have never got a full answer!

The gran from the family of 12 had a 4 bedroomed council house, all girls shared a bed,all boys shared a bed. If there wasn't enough shoes to go round they missed school.

My great-gran with the 2 kids went back to work to help pay for things like uniform and books when my gran got into grammar school.

I suppose there were less material possessions than today. You had less furniture,less clothes, toys were home-made and so on.

Plasticman

jellyhead wrote:

this thread has got me wondering actually - how did my father-in-law's parents afford their dozen children? the father was a bus driver, the mum didn't work. they had a council house but it only had 3 bedrooms so i wonder why they had so many children? i'm pretty sure they had condoms in those days but correct me if i'm wrong, these are people who would be late 70's if they were alive today. is it more expensive to bring up children nowadays do you think? back then they would have grown their own veg, baked their own bread etc. (and used the dripping from meat to spread on bread, mmmmm bread and dripping ....) and i suppose coal may have been cheaper than the central heating we have. the children would have worn second hand clothes and maybe the girl would have got clothes handed down from cousins or other people in the street. i'm going off at a tangent here, apologies, i just got to thinking about why my grandparents-in-law had 12 children without room to put them all (and without child benefit too i assume).

They afforded them because they had a lower standard of living. We seem to have moved from a time when people were grateful for what they had, into a time when people aspired to have more and on to a time when people expect to have what they want. When my parents were first married they didn't have carpets, they didn't have a TV and they didn't have any heating. The majority of people wouldn't be happy to live like this any more.

chugalug

Thats true, even just the last 20 years have seen expectations rise massively. My kids cant believe that when I left home (at 16) I had literally nothing. When I got my first house I had the basics - bed, cooker, a second hand sofa and not much else. They expect that they will never have to buy second hand and will move into a fully furnished property when they leave home. The expectation now is that you have everything immediately or you've failed. I suppose thats why there is so much debt, its a way of life.