George Osborne....Limit amount of children for benefits

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

I agree in many respects, but you have to consider in how many cases does the money make the childs life better or just help mummy get a better iphone contract.

You're right - tell me just how many mothers on benefits are buying iPhones in preference to spending the money on their kids so I can consider it.

The person I posted about earlier will definitely be spending the extra benefit money on herself rather than the child (hopefully motherhood will change her though) but she's an idiot.

Percy1983

wotsthat wrote: »

You're right - tell me just how many mothers on benefits are buying iPhones in preference to spending the money on their kids so I can consider it.

The person I posted about earlier will definitely be spending the extra benefit money on herself rather than the child (hopefully motherhood will change her though) but she's an idiot.

Sorry to say we both know there isn't any official stats for that one.

ILW

Must say that that in my local town centre, your chav mums with 2 or 3 kids in tow all seem to be able to afford to smoke like chimneys.

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

Sorry to say we both know there isn't any official stats for that one.

Let's stick to stereotypes then...

https://www.derbygripe.co.uk/philpott.htm

This chap, and his wife, go to trial in January accused of murdering their children.The details of their lifestyle will harden the general public attitude to benefit lifestyles better than a posh tory could ever do.

Some people would have you believe this is how all people on benefits live.

wotsthat

ILW wrote: »

Must say that that in my local town centre, your chav mums with 2 or 3 kids in tow all seem to be able to afford to smoke like chimneys.

A 20/day smoking habit is the best part of £3k per year.

Maybe they just have a couple a day in the town centre to look 'cool'? I've noticed the same thing but just don't see how it's an affordable habit.

chewmylegoff

wotsthat wrote: »

A 20/day smoking habit is the best part of £3k per year.

Maybe they just have a couple a day in the town centre to look 'cool'? I've noticed the same thing but just don't see how it's an affordable habit.

it would cost £3k a year if they smoked malboro lights they bought in asda. however, they actually smoke mayfairs which fell of the back of a lorry, and which probably cost £2 a pack.

Percy1983

wotsthat wrote: »

A 20/day smoking habit is the best part of £3k per year.

Maybe they just have a couple a day in the town centre to look 'cool'? I've noticed the same thing but just don't see how it's an affordable habit.

Its easy to afford, just have another kid.

the_flying_pig

The ‘number of kids’ issue is a bit, well, I find it quitedifficult to opine on.

Everyone would agree that it would have an upside in termsof dissuading X number of !!!!less members of the underclass from churning outquite so many miniature versions of themselves, with no doubt similar prospects.

Everyone would also agree that it would have a downside interms of causing Y number of instances of worsened hardship, with no doubt knock-oneffects on crime, health, social mobility, & whatnot.

But who really knows how big X and Y are? I can’t see whatmethod, other than pure guesswork, could possibly shed any light on the subject.Maybe a controlled experiment is called for… starting with somewhere like Scotland,perhaps [tho I suppose people would just migrate southwards]??



The ‘HB for young adults’ issue is really only an attempt toput a sticking plaster on the grand canyon-sized festering wound of the miserablestate of our social housing stock. I’ve no idea if it’s fair or makes sense ornot.



Child tax credits for the relatively well-off [earning up to£40 grand a year] always struck me as stupid, a low-hanging fruit for cuts. Butthe threshold has already been pushed down way below this. Can it go lower?



On the inflation vs. wages link I have to say that this seemspretty much fair. It kind of would ensure that everyone prospers, or suffers,or whatever, at the same time, that we really were all in it together. The downsideof course is that benefits are theoretically only set at a subsistence level,meaning that claimants need to be compensated for every pound of a cost ofliving increase in order to survive. I’m not sure how good this is.

Sampong

Chancellor says Tories are on the side of pensioners, teachers, corner shop owners and commuters who 'strive for a better life'

this - would be a first

drc

I really hate this element of blackmail that comes into any discussion of capping benefits at a certain number of children, along the lines of punishing children, surely if anybody is punishing their children it is the parents? Surely all children are the responsibility of their parents and not the taxpayer/government? If someone chooses to have 5 kids and then loses their job, that is their responsibility and they should have factored into account the possibility that they would not have a job that lasts forever? It's very naive to think your job is indispensable or to think that if the worst happens, the taxpayer will pay.