We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Child-related benefits may be 'capped' at two children
Comments
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »You can't. But what's the point of your question?
Cause and effect.
You get pregnant, you have a baby.
You have a baby, you get free money.
If you stop the free money, it doesn't get rid of the root cause of Waynetta getting pregnant in the first place. Because she's still likely to do it regardless of if there's a carrot or not.
Can you forcefully sterilise people(yes, men too)?... I think that's probably stepping over a line somewhere... blame it on 21st century civilisation or something.
Do we know how many 'large' families are doing it to milk the system, or how many have no idea about money and just can't be bothered with contraception?0 -
Cause and effect.
You get pregnant, you have a baby.
You have a baby, you get free money.
If you stop the free money, it doesn't get rid of the root cause of Waynetta getting pregnant in the first place. Because she's still likely to do it regardless of if there's a carrot or not.
Can you forcefully sterilise people(yes, men too)?... I think that's probably stepping over a line somewhere... blame it on 21st century civilisation or something.
Do we know how many 'large' families are doing it to milk the system, or how many have no idea about money and just can't be bothered with contraception?
The aim isn't to stop people getting pregnant. If someone wishes to do so, thats their choice.
The aim is to reduce the benefits bill at a time our debts are going through the roof.
This seems a sensible proposal. You'll get help with 2, but no more help after that.0 -
You can't stop it, but you can disincentivise it. It won't be 100% effective, but a lot better than what we have now. Regarding those who still knock out kids and don't have enough money to look after them, you take the kids away and put them into fostering or care. Rather than keep subsidising such behaviour I would rather that taxpayers' money were used to have these kids looked after properly, as opposed to being dragged up by morons.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »The aim isn't to stop people getting pregnant. If someone wishes to do so, thats their choice.
The aim is to reduce the benefits bill at a time our debts are going through the roof.
This seems a sensible proposal. You'll get help with 2, but no more help after that.
Sure, but you still have to consider the children. They're blameless in all this and if they can't be fed then what happens? forced into care?0 -
kids in care often face abuse also and not just of a deprived kind. the so called foster care isnt always being so because they love kids and want to give back to society. Sometimes its coz of the 25000 a year it pays.Jan 2015 GC £267/£260
Feb 2015 GC /£2600 -
Sure, but you still have to consider the children. They're blameless in all this and if they can't be fed then what happens? forced into care?
Yes -- surely better than being dragged up by morons.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
kids in care often face abuse also and not just of a deprived kind. the so called foster care isnt always being so because they love kids and want to give back to society. Sometimes its coz of the 25000 a year it pays.
At least they are vetted, and are unlikely to be f e c k less, ignorant, self-indulgent, irresponsible drunkards and druggies mumping off the state.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
Sure, but you still have to consider the children. They're blameless in all this and if they can't be fed then what happens? forced into care?
It would be difficult to feed them on £13 a week anyway, especially under the circumstances you suggest where the parents don't care.
In the situation you describe, proper social service involvement will do massively more than chucking the parents £13 a week. I believe I am considering the children when I say that.0 -
kids in care often face abuse also and not just of a deprived kind. the so called foster care isnt always being so because they love kids and want to give back to society. Sometimes its coz of the 25000 a year it pays.
I refer to what I posted on page one.
People don't seem to even take on the fact that chucking £13 doesn't solve ANY of these problems.
But people home in in on the removal of this £13 from these bizzare angles and suggest that the kids will suddenly suffer, and they can't go into care as they'll suffer far more, therefore we muct keep bunging the parents £13 a week.
As an aside, your post disgusted me. £25,000 is a pittance for carrying out foster care, and secondly, 99% are truly loving, devoted, and brilliant people. The amount they have to deal with blows my mind.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards