Missed this one - on benefits & proud

[amcdonald]

How is this a solution? If they keep having kids who keep being taken away, they might still have loads of kids and now the state is still having to look after them, only now we have a proliferation of orphanages.

As the problem is people having kids as a cash cow, if theres no financial incentive to have kids there would be less planned pregnancies

With a lack of children available for adoption you've have a win win

[d000hg]

As the problem is people having kids as a cash cow, if theres no financial incentive to have kids there would be less planned pregnancies

Based on what facts?

Anyway, how is it a cash cow that the more children you have, the more money you get? You get more money because you need more money. So they're not having 10 kids actively in search of a reward, they are doing it because of lack of penalty.

If kids were taken away, they would still not be paying for the kids so maybe they'd carry on just the same.

[SimonMac]

I watched it last night, and then watched twitter explode

There are some who see it as a legitimate lifestyle choice and want everything handed to them on a plate (one woman wanted £500 a week in her pocket AFTER paying all bills etc before she would accept a job, doesn't matter if she cleaning toilets or anything as long as it pays her what she wants) its easy to focus on the lowest common denominator in any socio-economic group, one of the daughters were derided for accepting what was classed as a demeaning job.

Stories like this are the worst case scenario, there are lots of people who do work hard and have benefits to top up to a living wage

[amcdonald]

Based on what facts?

Anyway, how is it a cash cow that the more children you have, the more money you get? You get more money because you need more money. So they're not having 10 kids actively in search of a reward, they are doing it because of lack of penalty.

If kids were taken away, they would still not be paying for the kids so maybe they'd carry on just the same.

So you think cases like this have nothing to do with using children as a cash cow ?

[d000hg]

So you think cases like this have nothing to do with using children as a cash cow ?

Really? You're citing an unprecedented case (the judge's words not mine) of parents burning their children to death, "in an attempt to frame Philpott's ex" to justify your arguments in a totally different matter?

So, to your answer your question, no I don't.

[vetran]

Really? You're citing an unprecedented case (the judge's words not mine) of parents burning their children to death, "in an attempt to frame Philpott's ex" to justify your arguments in a totally different matter?

So, to your answer your question, no I don't.

I think he was suggesting Phillpot was the vile conclusion to breeding for benefits. That he had so little concern for them except as a cash cow he was willing to put them at risk, also he had so few morals he was willing to breed wherever possible to increase his benefit take.Not the example I would have chosen but it is illustrative.

There were plenty of examples last night.

[original PM]

could you argue that anyone who is willing to rely on benefits in whatever form rather than working for a living is always going to be a '2nd rate' citizen as they are continually expecting for some one else to pay for everything

and they are willing to break the law n rob stuff when they do not get their own way?

or do we feel we cannot tar them all with the same brush?

[d000hg]

It depends how you're defining "willing to rely on benefits". I don't think you can treat the same way people who are not pressured to work and take the easy route, and those who deliberately set out to play the system.

I'm not sure we can really criticise either too much because finding a way to provide for oneself is all those who take benefits are doing. "pride" and "not accepting charity" seem to have no absolute moral value, we're just back with Cameron's "it's only right we all pay our fair share" kind of argument. If you find a way to provide for your family, good on you.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

It depends how you're defining "willing to rely on benefits". I don't think you can treat the same way people who are not pressured to work and take the easy route, and those who deliberately set out to play the system.

I'm not sure can really criticise either too much because finding a way to provide for oneself is all those who take jobs are doing. "pride" and "not accepting charity" seem to have no absolute moral value, we're just back with Cameron's "it's only right we all pay our fair share" kind of argument. If you find a way to provide for your family, good on you.

Could you elaborate???

[d000hg]

Some random mis-typing happened...