If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Forced sterilisation is a nasty step regardless of how much benefit they are claiming.
How else are you planning to stop them other than cut off benefit? Which means the kids also suffer.
I'm just pondering. I'm not a frothy-mouthed amateur surgeon poised to commence womb removal.
It immediately strikes me as a little odd that the family in question will be able to propagate - theoretically indefinitely - and that the public'll have to keep paying. I completely appreciate that taking the benefits away affects the kids, and that wouldn't be right. But i also think that the family should exercise some social responsibility.
You said you think "it would be remiss of us to say "fuck you, your problem". What kind of society is that?"
Do you think that anyone who does say that should be allowed to say it, and, if true to their word, be inactive ?
As I said earlier in the thread, if the words spoken on this forum are anything to go by, NO-ONE would be starving to death.
I can see what you mean, perhaps a social worker could suggest to them various methods of birth control, but if they are Catholic I doubt that would go down all that well.
P.S - the note at the bottom of your posts doesnt make sense, an atheist is someone who believes there are no gods at all, so you cant be one and believe in a god.
I feel a bit like I'm stepping on egg shells here, but: The fact that there's no apparent pressure being exerted on these people to reign in their propagation, doesn't really sit right with me.
P.S.: I know it's not a strictly accurate statement, but it was more the sentiment i wanted to convey.
As much as I disagree with the parents not working and claiming loads of benefits, I do think that it would be wrong to cut off their benefits.
Of course and I agree, much like them living in this rather nice house doesnt sit very well with many others - but other than feeling a bit uncomfortable what should be done?
I think measures to dissuade the family from expanding more would be beneficial to the existing children, the parents and ultimately the state - what those measures would be i'm not really sure. Family planning advice would be beneficial, though i can't imagine they haven't had that already.
I'm trying to be tactful here as this is obviously quite an emotive topic; I suspect many poster's backgrounds relate to large families, claiming benefits, or both.
I agree, the house is already going to be crowded so more kids would just make it worse and make it even more likely that the parents will continue on benefit (and thus setting an unfortunate example). But other than pointing this out and offering the usual free birth control, I dont see the State can really do anything.
Frankly I think the far more important thing this case highlights is that it is often better to live on benefit than it is to work - which is surely wrong.
You're close to stepping into the world of eugenics there and it's not nice.
What specifically do you think is wrong about the current system? I'm genuinely curious.
My gut reaction is this:
There is a figure, whatever it may be, which is what the family needs as an income in order to maintain a reasonable quality of life. For each subsequent child the family has, that figure increases. In a theoretical world with no benefits - not one i'm advocating btw - the wage earned by the parents would have to increase, probably quite significantly for each extra child, to maintain the standard of living - or else risk losing custody. By child number twelve the family would have to be raking in some serious cash to be self-supportive, as each new arrival would necessitate a pay-rise or promotion.
When you have a situation such as the one linked to in the original post, where neither parent works, having benefits divorces how much it costs to raise a child from what would be required be to earn the money - i'm not saying it's necessarily bad, but when you then ponder why they're better on benefits, it's because the actual figure it would cost to be self-supportive is massive. A figure probably that relatively few people earn.
I dont know what the solution is
Yeah I do know how expensive houses are. I also know that if you earn £100K+ you can afford to buy one. I earn 1/4 of that and can't afford shit.
</derail>
People with jobs do get extra cash for each child they have. It's called child support.
I don't know what the solution is either, and i'm not having a go, i just don't think the family in question has been particularly responsible, and i'm wondering if there are any legitimate and effective measure which could be implemented.
I should point out here that I dont understand fully the benefits system as it stands.
If this dad was to go out it seems he will only make an extra £50 or so for the full weeks work, this seems bonkers, surely the amount he gets in benefit should gradually decrease, so if he earnt £150 in a week his benefit should be cut by £50 and so on - I hope that makes sense.
yeah yu get child benefit which is about £15 for child 1 and then a tenner for each subsequent child. Thats not what I mean.
I think some working families can claim certain tax benefits, but im not sure if its means tested.
You don't get any benefits (except for child benefit and tax credits) if you work 16 hours or more in a week.
The same could be said of people choosing to have no children, would you also advocate state intrusion to 'encourage' people to have more children if it were required?
I'm not sure. Although I don't think that you've necessarily presented a direct comparison.
I'm not professing to have a definite opinion on this topic either. I'm just trying to expose myself to a view differing view points, while stating my initial reaction, in attempt to better understand the situation.
OK, hopefully you can see what I am driving at, whether its tax credit or benefit or whatever - it should gradually reduce as the person earns more, thus giving people an incentive.
I agree. There needs to be a system which reduces the amount of benefits you get, but not by a straight swap (eg for every extra £1 you earn you loose £1 in benefit doesn't work - you need something like for every extra £2 you earn you loose £1 in benefits).
I'm not an expert, but I think that what tax Credits try to do, trouble is it doesn't work as well as it should...
Agreed