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

Generali

Emy1501 wrote: »

Yep no different to where I am. Personally I would charge £3-£5 a time to those not on benefit to attend and force those who are on benefit to attend.

The kids of the parents being targeted need to be given a better start in life if we are to get out of the generations of benefit claimants.

The trouble is, if the parents aren't interested then no amount of coercion or offers of help will change a thing. That has been shown for generation after generation in the UK: these are exactly the same arguments that Elizabethans were having!

The best thing I can see to do is to provide the best possible education for all so that those that want to work their way out of poverty can do so and stop throwing huge amounts of sums at a problem that you will simply never fix. If people don't want to work and want to behave badly then there is nothing that you, me or anyone else can do about it. Don't think that everyone in poverty is 'scum' or whatever, people find themselves poor for many reasons and it is right, IMHO, for the rest of us to give every support to those that will help themselves.

To give you an idea of the extent of the problem, in Aus there used to be a 'baby bonus'. When you had a baby you were given a few thousand dollars as a lump sum in order to help you pay for the set-up costs of having a baby. In some of the crappier suburbs of Sydney it was not uncommon for mothers to receive the baby bonus and then give the child to the authorities for them to raise and repeat. Some people can't be helped.

Emy1501

SingleSue wrote: »

Why those just on benefits to attend? Would it just be some of those on benefit or all?

For me it would be young parents on benefits. My wifes a teacher and says that kids of these parents often start school way behind.

We need to do something to educate the parents and help the kids to get a better start in life.

Also I would make all people on benefit other than the disabled do some sort of training if they cant find work after 6 months.

SingleSue

Ok thanks for that although you do realise that there are some very good (but young) parents of children. Personally, I think there should be parenting courses for all parents, young or older, working or not as the information gained from one is essential and helpful for all (I say this as a parent who has attended parenting classes designed for parents of disabled children, both as a working mother and as a non working mother)

On your second point, what about the carers of those disabled people, would you expect them to do the training as well?

RUN_RABBIT_RUN

Generali wrote: »

To give you an idea of the extent of the problem, in Aus there used to be a 'baby bonus'. When you had a baby you were given a few thousand dollars as a lump sum in order to help you pay for the set-up costs of having a baby. In some of the crappier suburbs of Sydney it was not uncommon for mothers to receive the baby bonus and then give the child to the authorities for them to raise and repeat. Some people can't be helped.

true, although calling it a 'baby bonus' even if that was just the aka isn't exactly sending out a good message is it?

mazza111

PaulF81 wrote: »

Why is any if that the states problem? The under25s are getting screwed because they are apathetic and don't vote. Hence why the boomers are so well protected.

Sad but true.

You don't think as a society we should look after our disabled? Whether they are under 25 or not?

Emy1501

SingleSue wrote: »

Ok thanks for that although you do realise that there are some very good (but young) parents of children. Personally, I think there should be parenting courses for all parents, young or older, working or not as the information gained from one is essential and helpful for all (I say this as a parent who has attended parenting classes designed for parents of disabled children, both as a working mother and as a non working mother)

On your second point, what about the carers of those disabled people, would you expect them to do the training as well?

I know single mothers who have gone on to do well for themselves and their kids but I doubt there are many who will come from households where their parents were life time benefit claimants.

I agree all parents could benefit from parent training but we need to target areas which cost the country lots of money at present and do all we can to break the cycle.

If there are other parent types who's children are likely to grow up costs the country money they need to be targeted too.

Other than that Sure Start Centres could be there for everyone with a cost to those who can afford it.

As for Carers of the disabled for me these people should be classed as employed and paid a proper wage for what they do

ash28

Percy1983 wrote: »

In the simplest form:

If a child grows up with everything and sees their parents doing nothing for it, they will most likely do the same.

If a child grows up seeing their parents working to get the nice things in life they will most likely work to get by.

Which would you rather had less children?

The end of the day we have enough people in the country, so why pay for more children who are wanted for all the wrong reasons.

I'm in my mid 50s and I was brought up by parents who were on benefits for a substantial part of my life - my father had motor neuron disease and my mother was his carer. He got Invalidity Benefit and they got attendance allowance, rent and rates paid, they got child benefit for 3 of 4 children.

I have 3 siblings we all grew up and worked all of our lives - we all own our own homes - all of us mortgage free now.

There was no way we wanted to live in the type of poverty we grew up in - it was a great driver.

OH was brought up in similar circumstances - father had stroke at quite a young age.

We're early retired now and we are bringing up our grandson - who is just turned 11 - he has the nice things in life and we don't work for them, so are you saying because he is being brought up in a workless household there is a strong possibility that he will live his life on benefits?

I would suggest he won't.

Percy1983

ash28 wrote: »

I'm in my mid 50s and I was brought up by parents who were on benefits for a substantial part of my life - my father had motor neuron disease and my mother was his carer. He got Invalidity Benefit and they got attendance allowance, rent and rates paid, they got child benefit for 3 of 4 children.

I have 3 siblings we all grew up and worked all of our lives - we all own our own homes - all of us mortgage free now.

There was no way we wanted to live in the type of poverty we grew up in - it was a great driver.

OH was brought up in similar circumstances - father had stroke at quite a young age.

We're early retired now and we are bringing up our grandson - who is just turned 11 - he has the nice things in life and we don't work for them, so are you saying because he is being brought up in a workless household there is a strong possibility that he will live his life on benefits?

I would suggest he won't.

Dare I say you are the kind of example I hope will happen if benefits are cut, you have less so you work hard to have more, I will also say I can see a huge difference, as in you grew up seeing your parents couldn't work, its hardly the same as have mummy watching jezza on ITV+1 having a fag while fecebooking there mates on the best way to get more benefits.

I think the biggest point is you say you lived in poverty and wanted out, right now if mummy (and maybe daddy if you know who he is) don't work you don't really live in poverty.

System

The_White_Horse wrote: »

Plus, ANYONE who smokes should have their benefits cancelled. At nearly £9 a pack in London, if they can afford these, they clearly don't need any financial assistance.

No, they should be encouraged to smoke in order to reduce the country's pension burden.

N1AK

mazza111 wrote: »

You don't think as a society we should look after our disabled? Whether they are under 25 or not?

I don't think he was defending the situation as such, more that he was pointing out that laws are decided by people who get elected and people who get elected are picked by those who vote.

It is frustrating that voting levels amongst people my age are so low; but it hardly helps that the major parties (the ones that will invariably win under FPTP) target middle-aged to elderly voters.