Government says problem families 'have too many children'

[Rob_1]

Precisely. Its total rubbish to say that you can somehow make a profit from having a child while you're reliant on benefits.

 

This is the usual garbage spouted by the ignorati

 

I think it's you that's ignorant, or maybe naive would be a better word.

 

It’s a little naive to think that all claimants spend the money they receive for their kids, on their kids.

 

Exactly, GrapeApe above seems to think all parents spend all their benefit money (and more) on buying their kids everything they need. If only that were the case then child neglect and poverty wouldn't exist in this country.

[Digsy]

Let's only pay benefits for the first two children then, and see how many people carry on having 4/5/6 kids.

 

That would be a silly solution, all you would do is double the problem overnight.

Both parents would just split up due to extreme poverty, each taking 2 children with them.

We're now minus another council house, and doubling the resources in dealing with them.

Not a smart idea really.

 

But lets go ahead with it anyway, so now that we're not paying them for more than two children, what do those children eat, wear, how do they get to school and afford school uniforms, are they not entitled to holidays either?

 

So when we soon realize that these families literally can't support the additional children, do we let them starve or do we intervene and remove them from the family?

 

If we remove them from the family expect the cost of raising that child to go up, does it also mean that people cannot foster more than two children?

Are you aware of the rewards to fostering and who pays those rewards?

Edited July 22, 2012 by Digsy

[Tradescanthia]

Stop blaming poverty on the poor. Blame poverty on the 1% of the population who own 90% of the world's resources.

 

There are enough resources on the planet to feed, cloth and house all 7 billion of us (just about). And for us all to live a comfortable lifestyle. Here's a clue: the poor aren't the ones hoarding all the wealth.

 

Having said that, overpopulation is the greatest threat currently facing humanity. There should be a limit on the amount of children people are allowed to have (regardless of income/wealth), globally.

 

One day this problem will have to be addressed on a global level, but in the meantime its the Tory Posh Boys blaming the poor for there own shortcomings.

If jobs are plenty then people can be 'encouraged to work'. No one will argue with that, but when jobs are in short supply and Goverment Treasury reciepts are low, thats when the Torys blame the poor.

Cameron and Co havent a clue.......only a hatred of the disadvantaged.

Full employment would cure a lot of ills, but we wont see it again.

[Ms Macbeth]

But it aint a different argument at all, is it really. Its all part of the same problem.

The people that instigated this mob mentality debate aren't to be talked about 'cos we're on a witch hunt and our target is.......... ill/disabled people with large families.

Instead of the £13tn: hoard hidden from taxman by global elite that has been and continues to be robbed from all of us across the globe.

 

Now relatively speaking these problem families with 1,2,3,<pick a number> too many kids only affect so small an area you'd need a superfine needle to prick it on an atlas.

Not to mention that nothing but evolution is to blame for them having so many kids.

 

Yet others can cause problems on a global scale, we'll overlook that, we'll not discuss it because they can afford as many kids as they like.

 

Stinks of Marmite if you ask me.

 

Everything that happens in the world could be said to be part of the same problem, however stopping the kind of behaviour witnessed by Eric_Collins (see above post) won't happen by getting rid of MPs. That kind of behaviour is just the tip of the iceberg. I remember this case, the yobs in question might have been different if they'd had a decent upbringing: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2112609/Family-mother-killed-daughter-committed-suicide-years-abuse-yobs-wins-figure-payout-police.html

 

I know large families who don't cause problems, just as I know kids from single parent homes who are a credit to their parents. Likewise, parents having an illness or disability doesn't mean their children aren't cared for. I'm realistic enough to know that it is hard bringing up children, especially with little money (been there and done it), and even more difficult in a non-functioning or violent relationship and where parents have drug or alcohol abuse issues.

 

However, I'm also realistic enough to know that parents who don't 'parent', ie don't put their children's needs high on their agenda need either help or sanctions. What we don't need is excuses with no solutions offered.

[kidley]

Precisely. Its total rubbish to say that you can somehow make a profit from having a child while you're reliant on benefits.

 

This is the usual garbage spouted by the ignorati

 

We have the best contraception in the world, Profit NO extra money yes.

[Digsy]

However, I'm also realistic enough to know that parents who don't 'parent', ie don't put their children's needs high on their agenda need either help or sanctions. What we don't need is excuses with no solutions offered.

 

Which includes the working class surely.

[pottedplant]

Let's only pay benefits for the first two children then, and see how many people carry on having 4/5/6 kids.

 

Have you actually thought that one through?

[pottedplant]

That would be a silly solution, all you would do is double the problem overnight.

Both parents would just split up due to extreme poverty, each taking 2 children with them.

We're now minus another council house, and doubling the resources in dealing with them.

Not a smart idea really.

 

But lets go ahead with it anyway, so now that we're not paying them for more than two children, what do those children eat, wear, how do they get to school and afford school uniforms, are they not entitled to holidays either?

 

So when we soon realize that these families literally can't support the additional children, do we let them starve or do we intervene and remove them from the family?

 

If we remove them from the family expect the cost of raising that child to go up, does it also mean that people cannot foster more than two children?

Are you aware of the rewards to fostering and who pays those rewards?

 

 

Well said that poster.

[MrSmith]

That would be a silly solution, all you would do is double the problem overnight.

Both parents would just split up due to extreme poverty, each taking 2 children with them.

We're now minus another council house, and doubling the resources in dealing with them.

Not a smart idea really.

 

But lets go ahead with it anyway, so now that we're not paying them for more than two children, what do those children eat, wear, how do they get to school and afford school uniforms, are they not entitled to holidays either?

 

So when we soon realize that these families literally can't support the additional children, do we let them starve or do we intervene and remove them from the family?

 

If we remove them from the family expect the cost of raising that child to go up, does it also mean that people cannot foster more than two children?

Are you aware of the rewards to fostering and who pays those rewards?

 

Financial help for the first two children would still mean two of them don't get support, so splitting up wouldn't make much sense.

[kidley]

That would be a silly solution, all you would do is double the problem overnight.

Both parents would just split up due to extreme poverty, each taking 2 children with them.

We're now minus another council house, and doubling the resources in dealing with them.

Not a smart idea really.

 

But lets go ahead with it anyway, so now that we're not paying them for more than two children, what do those children eat, wear, how do they get to school and afford school uniforms, are they not entitled to holidays either?

 

So when we soon realize that these families literally can't support the additional children, do we let them starve or do we intervene and remove them from the family?

 

 

 

If we remove them from the family expect the cost of raising that child to go up, does it also mean that people cannot foster more than two children?

Are you aware of the rewards to fostering and who pays those rewards?

 

 

1/double the problem overnight.

Both parents would just split up due to extreme poverty, each taking 2 children with them.

 

Ask Fathers4kids if this is correct.

 

2/We're now minus another council house, and doubling the resources in dealing with them.

Not a smart idea really.

 

In Sheffield theres one hell of a waiting list for council housers, there arnt any to have.

 

3/So when we soon realizbenevolente that these families literally can't support the additional children, do we let them starve or do we intervene and remove them from the family?

 

Great Briton is a benevolent country we don't let anybody starve all the family receive benefits to supply there basic needs, and we do not remove children from there families only in extreme conditions.

 

4If we remove them from the family expect the cost of raising that child to go up, does it also mean that people cannot foster more than two children?

Are you aware of the rewards to fostering and who pays those rewar.

 

non entity