The bad side of social welfare (OT)

[TF_NW Cut Angler]

http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2010/08/16/jobless-couple-expecting-their-12th-baby/?icid=main|uk-hp|dl1|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parentdish.co.uk%2F2010%2F08%2F16%2Fjobless-couple-expecting-their-12th-baby%2F

It was an accident. Something happened that wasn’t supposed to.

Very simple solution. The mum to be should have been made to have a contraception implant as a condition of receiving so much social security benefit and it should have happened a long time ago.

[TF_yiddo]

This makes me sick mate people like this is whats wrong with this country spongers who have never had any intention of working.I have worked all my life and paid my tax and nat insurance last year i got made redundant and struggled to find a job so i had to sign on £65 a week was all i was entitled to how the hell do they expect someone with a mortgage and 2 kids to survive on that its a joke

[TF_Gary]

13 years of Labour: unlucky for some…

[TF_redarmy]

people like these must laugh at the hard working tax payers in this country,should limit child allowance to 2 children then nothing for any more,the benefit system encourages this type of situation.

[TF_Serious Sam]

For every headliner with 12 kids there’s anohther dozen living near you with 4 or 5 kids that never make the papers.

It’s bleeding the country die, personally I’m sick of working my arse off to pay for their kids so I think I’ll go bust, impregnate the wife a few more times and relax . . . . . .

[TF_Dodge]

@Gary wrote:

13 years of Labour: unlucky for some…

Even more frightening is that Nick Clegg is running our country for the next fortnight 🙂

[Tippy]

Quite simple no means or partner in work abort and sterilise.

[TF_andy cranes mateParticipant]

@Tippy wrote:

Quite simple no means or partner in work abort and sterilise.

ze heil!

[Anonymous]

NWCA, the family might be Roman Catholic and so contraception might not an option to them! Or, she might want lots of kids. Its a right in this country that ppl can decide how many kids they have. Would you rather we have the Chinese system of one child per family?

Maybe the solution is to put these kids into care at £2000+ per week to the tax payer or maybe we should just shoot them!

The article does not say how much social security benefit the family get to live on? The father is claiming incapacity benefit for a bad back. He is not able to work but might have worked for most of his adult life and payed taxes!

It only says in the article that the family moved this year to a new privately-rented five-bedroom home in Staple Hill, Bristol costing £1200 per month because their previous three-bedroom council house in Yate, near Bristol, was too small for their large family. The owner of the private house is im sure making a lot of money out of renting the house to the family. So, who is really at fault?

The hope is that the kids will grow up to be good members of society and all eventually work and pay taxes. There have been many large families in this country in the past whose children have eventually all grown up, found work and payed taxes like the majority of ppl in this country!

[TF_youngy]

i came from a single parent family with 3 kids in a council house..we’ve all grown up to have good jobs and pay a lot in taxes..i dont begrudge these people anything.
This is just the same old class based argument imo.

[TF_redarmy]

maybe his bad back is due to his wife being on top of him all the time

[TF_wightangler]

the main spongers in this country are the ones that just got elected and expect us to subsidise their homes(national trust), private schools ,’clubs’,and inherited land and wealth.Evidence- english history since 1066(even William 1st was distantly related as a cousin to Harold Godwin) from economic determinist understanding.
traditionally, poor families(where the vast majority of you all come from)had large numbers of children to suriver and mantain subsistence farming,small holdings and trade or family businesses.
that this is still the case in many parts of the world- the birth rate can be evidenced to reduce in countries ,scandanavia and some w,europe where income disparity between rich and poor has been somewhat reduced.
That trhis govt. is underighting that evil pontiff’s visit and introducing ‘faith’ schools comes as no real suprise- given that the church has usually been use to falsely justify unquestioning support of wealth and poliitical power- traditionally – first son in sandhurst and second in clergy- don’t think this has changed much as composition of front benches of commons and lords and support commitee still show no real change since 18th century.
Still, blaming less fortunate or accepting the press highlighted examples of this lot’s press is hardly suprising given that most people appear to have very short memories and like to be told to how to think by their ‘social’ superiors.

[TF_JohnH]

This is a difficult one as no one should play God and say who should.should not have kids. However you cannot assume the state will pick up the tab either so I think there is a case for caps in benefits which the current governement seem to be heading towards. This applies to housing benefits also. I agree fully with the sentiment of leaving these kids with mum and dad. The Mathews kids I think are in care after the bungled kidnap scenario and the cost of this will blow out of the window what this family get. 6 kids to 5 different fathers is taking the micky really, some of these adults should be forced into education to understand how they get themselves into the situations like this.

[TF_IAN.]

@redarmy wrote:

maybe his bad back is due to his wife being on top of him all the time

HIS BACK CANT BE THAT BAD EH!! WITH 12 KIDS

[TF_NW Cut Angler]

It is indeed tricky but I still think it is creates a risk of a cycle of reliance on welfare. 12 children no matter what the parents religious views is simply too many to manage and bring up successfully. After working with similar sized families I have yet to find any such families in the modern era where having in excess of 6 children has been successful and the motive for ‘breeding’ has often been to boost the parents welfare income. Sometimes the care system can do a far better job and IMO increasingly needs to be improved and utilised. The notion that birth parents can offer a better life for a child than the care system is not always true IMO.

Social responsibility should work both ways

[deemanParticipant]

@TrueBlue wrote:

The article does not say how much social security benefit the family get to live on? The father is claiming incapacity benefit for a bad back. He is not able to work but might have worked for most of his adult life and payed taxes!

It was reported in one of the national tabloids that ran the story that they claimed up to £30.000 in benefits a year
The father though claiming a bad back stops him from working takes part in his favorite sport of Motor Cross because “I need to do something to stop me getting bored”
Get a job then you won’t be bored
I have worked and work with people with real diabilities who refuse to give in and go on benefits. It’s about time this country took a grip of these spongers and force them to contribute to society even if it’s only doing voluntary work. We can’t continue to fork out tax payers money on people that don’t want to or refuse to work.

[TF_skimmer_roo]

send all them that dont belong here in the uk back to there countries and stop sponging of our welfare.
it just the same with the drug addicts!

[TF_caster robParticipant]

“The father is claiming incapacity benefit for a bad back.”

My back’s bad too, through carrying sponging ba%^&*ds like him on it every day.

Not a surprise really.

Until you change the system that rewards irresponsible breeding then reproduction on an industrial scale will continue to be an appealing career-path for the lower orders.

[Anonymous]

Housing benefit = £1200 X 12 months = £14,400. That leaves £15,600 to pay house hold bills and feed and cloth 11 kids and 2 adults. £30,000 reported does not go fare when you look at it. It works out at less than £1200 per person, per year to pay for everything. The private landlord is making a nice earner!

Its their choice to have a large family and they are in effect living in poverty. Its easy to target these large families in the press with £30,000 benefit figures. However, there are a lot more individuals in society who avoid paying there taxes and make massive profits off the backs of the poor or weak in our society! Why are they not targeted by rags like the Sun?

The father has a bad back. The Sun rag is claiming that in effect he is able to work. So, give the evidence to the DSS and ask for him to be re assessed as being fit for work and moved onto job seekers allowance. Until such time. The father is unable to work and thats a fact! So easy to target the weak/poor in our society and manipulate ppls ideas with a none news story for political gain!

The argument still stands that these kids will grow up and are likely to work long term and pay taxes. The family will in effect pay more taxes than a smaller family in the future.

NWCA, the argument that large families are not successful is rubbish. The families you might have worked with or come into contact with are a very small number of large families. Most large families will be suffering from issues such as poverty created in part by the size of the families and the lack of support and social welfare. However, most large families do very well and so your not likely to have issues raised to indicate that they are from a large family.

Many of our parents and grandparents came from large families. Those kids in those large families found work and have payed there taxes and had there own successful families (us) who pay taxes.

[wendylythgoe]

I doubt they are Roman Catholic – if they are, they fell at the first hurdle, the sex before marriage part, as reading the report would suggest they haven’t even tied the knot!

We all have choices and it is anyones right to have as many children as they an pop out, but most decent hard working people, will only have as many children as they can provide for and not expect everyone else to take the slack.

I think my mother calls it ‘cutting your cloth accordingly’.

Now back to work…..

[TF_NW Cut Angler]

TrueBlue I think historically it was easier to manage a large family both practically and economically. Economic pressures IMO were not so great but more important any family was often surrounded in close proximity by their extended family. I do not think you can compare past with present.

Such large families simply do not work and by your own admission you are consigning a dozen future adults to a childhood of poverty whilst taking a considerable amount of social welfare without contributing towards society. In facy you are exacerbating the problem because from those 12 children the majority will suffer IMO and have to themselves rely on social welfare.

I think I read somewhere that to raise a child properly would cost the parents £250,000 over the lifetime of that time. On that basis hardly anybody can jusdtify 12 children.

I have far too often seen the children used as a source of money generation by their parents which is IMO unacceptable and if the care system was good enough I now advocate such children being better off in care than with such selfish parents.

[TF_Gary]

The only knot that they need to tie is in her Fallopian tubes! LOL

[TF_caster robParticipant]

@NW Cut Angler wrote:

TrueBlue I think historically it was easier to manage a large family both practically and economically. Economic pressures IMO were not so great but more important any family was often surrounded in close proximity by their extended family. I do not think you can compare past with present.

Such large families simply do not work and by your own admission you are consigning a dozen future adults to a childhood of poverty whilst taking a considerable amount of social welfare without contributing towards society. In facy you are exacerbating the problem because from those 12 children the majority will suffer IMO and have to themselves rely on social welfare.

I think I read somewhere that to raise a child properly would cost the parents £250,000 over the lifetime of that time. On that basis hardly anybody can jusdtify 12 children.

I have far too often seen the children used as a source of money generation by their parents which is IMO unacceptable and if the care system was good enough I now advocate such children being better off in care than with such selfish parents.

Have to say I agree with most of this.

Never thought I’d advocate taking children from parents and putting them into care but when you see some of the “parents” featured in news reports over the last 10 years then I can only conclude that life in care couldn’t possibly be worse than with them.

A way to start tackling these sort of problems would be to scrap the allowances that adults are rewarded with simply for the act of producing children. I’ve never understood the need for it. Removing this would not only eradicate the financial-incentive (career-choice) of breeding, the country could also rid itself of the thousands of administrators employed solely to give them our money.

[TF_Gary]

Perhaps part of the solution to child poverty is to give lower class families cash incentives NOT to have children, rather than the other way around? The quid pro quo would be to give greater tax breaks to high earners who do have children, eg, through increased childcare allowances, etc. This should result in general social betterment for the country as a whole, right?

[TF_Dodge]

Dont they have very large family,s in countries like Ireland , Spain , Portugal, USA, South America , Asia , Africa etc etc …… or is it just here in the UK ? ~think ~sick

[Anonymous]

Are you suggesting that there are no extended family units in todays society that help to support other family members? In most big cities you still get family groups of several generations living in the same street or areas of a city. Not to the same extent as 50 years ago. However, we ave less large families today than in the past.

Poverty does have an effect on opportunity and life chances. However, most children grow up and become valued members of society if they are educated to a reasonable level and are given life choices. Once they leave education they find jobs and so pay taxes. Most do not go on to have large families themselves and not work or pay into the tax system but as a family unit. They do pay into society in the end!

£250,000 over a lifetime to raise a child properly. On that basis. You cannot raise your own kids properly on your teachers wages!

I have worked in the care system (children,s homes) for almost 15 year. Im sorry to say that it is a last resort for children and only gives at best minimum care standards but costs stupid amounts of money. Once again the care system is dominated by money or the lack of it. At £1600 minimum per week for a single child to be kept in a care home. The child gets very little in the way of care but the private companies make massive profits! Almost every child is better off at home with their loving family unless they are at risk of real abuse. Being poor/poverty is not abuse!

[Tippy]

To have twelve kids and expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab is completely unjustifiable. Why do people flout the decency of others, quite simply because they can. There is no class question here just pure and simple screwing the system.

It’s not just benefit abuse, look at the Pope visiting and the taxpayer shelling out. Until we sort the purse strings out we will always be picking up the tab for those who should pay for themselves.

[TF_Gary]

TrueBlue, can you give me an example of a care home company making massive profits? I am not saying it does not happen; I am just intrigued to do some research into what kind of margins these companies make (and I do not know anything about the care home industry). If they make as much money as you imply, it sounds like I should be investing in them!

[TF_NW Cut Angler]

@TrueBlue wrote:

Are you suggesting that there are no extended families units in todays society that help to support other family members? In most big cities you still get family groups of several generations living in the same street or areas of a city. Not to the same extent as 50 years ago. However, we ave less large families today than in the past.

Poverty does have an effect on opportunity and life chances. However, most children grow up and become valued members of society if they are educated to a reasonable level and are given life choices. Once they leave education they find jobs and so pay taxes. Most do not go on to have large families themselves and not work or pay into the tax system but as a family unit. They do pay into society in the end!

£250,000 over a lifetime to raise a child properly. On that basis. You cannot raise your own kids properly on your teachers wages!

I have worked in the care system (children,s homes) for almost 15 year. Im sorry to say that it is a last resort for children and only gives at best minimum care standards but costs stupid amounts of money. Once again the care system is dominated by money or the lack of it. At £1600 minimum per week for a single child to be kept in a care home. The child gets very little in the way of care but the private companies make massive profits! Almost every child is better off at home with their loving family unless they are at risk of real abuse. Being poor/poverty is not abuse!

£250,000 is a lot of money and if even hard work for average couples. Hence why family size has come down. Most couples realise that 2 or 3 children is simply the reality of what they can afford.

Family size in LEDCs is higher because a child benefit the family economically which in itself might tell you why somebody in an MEDC like Britain has such a big family. Economic gain.

I agree the care system is not what it should be but I have seen far too many children who are home alone living in squalid, damp, cold let accomodation whose so called parents are getting smashed on whatever from their social security (money intended for the children) Children sat in the dark because mum & dad, often only one are waiting for the next cheque with no money to light/heat the accomodation. Now IMO TrueBlue care can offer better than that. Fostercare certainly can. Yes it could be a lot better but I sense even at the highest levels there is a subtle shift from keep with the parent(s) at all cost to maybe care is better and indeed should be better.

I don’t think we have extended families / communities like we did 50 years ago. Families are more dispersed and communities sometimes non existant.

[TF_NW Cut Angler]

Gary wrote:

TrueBlue, can you give me an example of a care home company making massive profits? I am not saying it does not happen]

My understanding is that it is quite cut throat as an industry but also potentially very profitable if you cut the margins etc

[TF_youngy]

People had large families years ago do to poor health etc thats why we now have the NHS. Nowadays it is expensive to bring kids up “properly”. But what is properly?, spending money on games and PC’s?..You could be stoney broke and bring up 5 kids on benefit and give them love and bring them up to respect people and work hard.
Better than being brought up to love money and not pay taxes, cheating the tax system..TB is right, its paper like the Scum who make money out of slagging of these large families. Do they ever expose the tax cheats and royal family spongers?..
Good topic this btw, and not even a mention of Maggie Thatcher. hehe

[Anonymous]

Gary, just google the information you need on prices charged by private children,s homes. Also, look up minimum care standards for Children,s Homes. As NWCA has said. It is now quite a cut throat industry but was a massive growth area only a few years ago. £1600-£5000+ per week to home one young person depending on the level of support needed is normal and much higher costs in some areas of the country. A typical Children,s Home has 4 young people per house. That gives you some idea of the potential for profit if you can get the young people placed in your home long term! However, in my experience. What the young people get is limited in terms of real care. Now that we have a Conservative Government. In my opinion the number of Children taken in to care is likely to rise over the next 5/7 years! If you need a qualified Registered Manager. Let me know, Gary!

[Anonymous]

NWCA, i have worked with lots of families you describe with major issues. Almost none are large families of 4 or more children. One of my roles was to run a famous shared care unit/ Children,s Home in Liverpool. That put me regularly in the homes of 40 young people who we where attempting to support and stop the family from breaking up. The main issues where drugs/alcohol abuse and other mental health issues.

[TF_caster robParticipant]

So, there are no individual members of these “large families” with sufficient maturity or intelligence to assume a bit of responsibility (beyond submitting claims) for the rest of them?

The whole “non-industry” looks like a drain on resources that we no longer have.

No wonder people want to avoid paying taxes if this where it goes, I wish I’d never bothered running a business at all. Better to be brought up to love money (your own) than love cheating the benfits system.

[TF_NW Cut Angler]

@TrueBlue wrote:

NWCA, i have worked with lots of families you describe with major issues. Almost none are large families of 4 or more children. One of my roles was to run a famous shared care unit/ Children,s Home in Liverpool. That put me regularly in the homes of 40 young people who we where attempting to support and stop the family from breaking up. The main issues where drugs/alcohol abuse and other mental health issues.

Fully agree TrueBlue that other issues are part of what happens either before or after. I worked in Blackpool and you see the real extremes there because every family from everywhere that seems to want to escape from being held accountable seem to deposit themselves in Blackpool. As you say other issues are involved hence why Blackpool dwarfs the rest of the country re alcoholism.

My own experience was that it was far easier to attract funding and assistance for a child in care than for a child not in care.

I still maintain that it is ill conceived pardon the pun to have a dozen children and expect to give them the quality of care you could for 2 children. I also have experienced countless young girls / women deliberately becoming pregnant at a very early age to secure housing and benefits.

[TF_Serious Sam]

Why the hell are some of you making excuses for these people ? having a twelfth kid when you are already living off the state and other peoples hard work is inexcusable.

I have to pay MY taxes and it goes directly to people like these to pay for umpteen brats that are probably gonna be as stupid and leeching as their parents.

I keep reading it’s their choice and it is THAT’S THE PROBLEM they shouldn’t have the option to sit on their arses and sponge up money.

I don’t blame the family, hell who wouldn’t choose not to work if they didn’t have to, I blame the system that makes it possible and it’s this that needs to change.

Any sensible, decent person looks at their finances, looks at their future prospects and things “ok, I can’t afford to support more than three kids” – others just think “fuck it I’ll do what I like and someone else will pick up the tab”.

And we do, over and over again.

[TF_Gary]

TrueBlue, I will have a look at this over the weekend. I am intrigued as to whether there is cash to be made in this sector. I have to be honest, in spite of the numbers you mention, it still sounds like a harder, riskier way to make a lot of money than investment banking!

[Anonymous]

Investment banking ~think . Sounds easier than looking after 12 kids 24/7 and you might be able to avoid paying taxes!

[TF_caster robParticipant]

@TrueBlue wrote:

Investment banking ~think . Sounds easier than looking after 12 kids 24/7 and you might be able to avoid paying taxes!

Instead of living comfortably off the taxes paid by others.

[Anonymous]

Caster Rob and others, do you honestly believe that you could live comfortably on £15,600 per year if you had 12 kids? I dont think most of you could cope with it to be honest. Furthermore, most of you could not cope with bringing up 12 children 24/7 with very little money to make life a little more comfortable. Its there choice if they wish to have 12 kids. It might be a little irresponsible to have 12 kids and live on state benefits. However, those kids are likely to pay into the tax system when they become adults. As a family unit. In the long run the family unit are likely to pay more tax in to the tax system than the average 2.2 kids family! Its easy to criticize this family for living on benefits with 12 kids. However, if it is as easy as some of you seem to think it is. Then maybe some of you should try it for yourself. Those parents will be working much harder than most of you will ever experience in your lives and without much of the benefits of two parents in payed work while the state helps to support and look after your own kids.

[TF_Gary]

TrueBlue, the fact that investment banking was an easier way of making lots of money was precisely my point. I am not sure how it will help me avoid paying tax, though. I wish it did!

[TF_caster robParticipant]

Shock! Horror!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7951842/Council-staff-waste-two-thirds-of-their-day.html

Seems they’re more productive than I thought.

[TF_IAN.]

how do i get a job with the council?

[TF_caster robParticipant]

@IAN. wrote:

how do i get a job with the council?

One comment on the Telegraph piece said “Labour used it as an employment exchange for the terminally useless” so that’s probably an indicator.

[TF_AnthonywatersParticipant]

You will never stop people banging sprogs out and getting lucked after by our welfare systems If they were refused welfare they would just go stealing as a means to an end and probably cause us honest folks more heartache I think its best just to treat them as the Second class citizens that they are there a pack of scroungers !

[TF_Gary]

Rob, that’s a cracking story. I think I am going to have to start buying the Telegraph rather than the Times. The Times seems to churn out such garbage these days.

[Author]

Posts