If you cant afford it, have a small family

[Huguenot]

I really can't believe that IV is trying to suggest that she had kids out of some altruistic desire to create a drone that could wipe my harris when I get old.

That is absolutely choice. At least your first argument was honest ;-)

KK, you're simply pursuing the argument that we've already rejected.

NO-ONE is dictating who should have children. NO-ONE is saying when you should have them. This is NOT a communist country (whatever the feck you mean by that, I suspect you mean totalitarian not communist).

Absolutely nuts argument, a straw man, whatever. It's hormones talking, not sense.

Do whatever you want, just don't ask everyone else to pay for them. I'll pay for their education, or for their forcible removal if you can't feed them, because that's a social investment. The rest of it is charity, not obligation.

[reggie]

Hey IV

I think you have proved that you can afford having a big family.

[Huguenot]

So long as someone else pays for them ;-)

[ImpetuousVrouw]

I was trying to say that I did support my own kids and am happy doing so. I highlighted ways in which I have managed to make a relatively small amount of money go a long way when I mentioned Freecycle and charity shops. I am happy with the really good quality things I can get free/cheaply in this way and do not think I would waste money on buying new stuff now even if my income was much higher. I had to rely on benefits for a short time when I was newly divorced, but that was not for long so no-one else has had to pay much for my children, thank you Hugo.

I was also trying to say that this small amount of money paid in benefits, in my view was an investment by society, as I was able to continue to look after my kids without ending up homeless or starving and they have managed to keep on track as a result. Now, partly as a result of society's investment in my children, but mostly as a result of my investment in time and energy, my children have grown up into useful, hardworking adults, which in turn means if all of your investments go belly up and you end up pennyless, , Hugo my hardworking children's taxes will hopefully ensure you don't end up homeless or starving.

I did not choose to have 4 children, but contraception is not always reliable and I think 2 abortions was enough, frankly. Now that contraception is more reliable, eg the injection or implants, I think there may be less women who have accidental pregnancies, but that was not the case when I was young.

I also did not expect to be in a position where I had to look after 4 children on my own, as none of us get married thinking that we will end up getting divorced, so no amount of draconian capping of benefits could have prevented my position, but as I said above, the investment by society in my children will be paid back 10 fold.

[Bellenden Belle]

I think IV is a really good example of how the benefit system can work to support people who find themselves in difficult circumstances. She's always worked, but needed a little help when she got divorced and her circumstances changed. It actually doesn't sound as if the number of children she had made a difference - she explains very eloquently how she cuts her cloth to make ends meet. And with her eldest child just finishing university it sounds as if she's done a bloody good job.

I think it's clear in my earlier postings that I think people need to take responsibility for their children. But that doesn't mean as a society we shouldn't also invest in our future generations.

[DJKillaQueen]

or for their forcible removal if you can't feed them

That's a ridiculous comment to make. People's circumstances change. And as IV pointed out she has both worked and at other time's found herself in need of state help. Are you suggesting H that the moment a person beomes unemployed (often through no fault of their own) the state should take away their kids if they can't feed them? Take them away from loving parents and put them into the cruel world of state children's homes which incidently cost more to run per child than giving benefit to the unemployed parent so that they can feed their child.

Even you must agree there's a distinction between the kind of parent that finds them self in that position and the large family where both parents have never worked and clearly are not taking any resposibility for their lives. Ant even in the latter, a reduced level of benefit per child would probably suffice as a disincentive.

[????]

Nice one IV.

I've thought long about this issue and have swung about on it and argued with the missus BUT, to David Carnell's and IV's shock I'm going to agree with them.

1) Kids are an assett for the future of our country, and if we don't have that as a starting point we'll we might as well give up

2) Benefits should be universal or they aren't 'benefits' but some form of graded income support and that is a very different kettle of fish in terms of measurement/status etc. The univerality of benefits should be mainatined, if child benefit shouldn't be a benefit then it shoiuld be removed in total and have to be a claimed benefit for those that need it. As others have pointed out, if benefits are means tetsed then shouldn't this apply to any state provision at a theoretical level? Health? Education? Higher income families will over contribute taxation in absolute terms over the next few years with higher NI, they already pay a higher tax rate on their income above the threshold and for those at the next level up this will be at 50%, so despite the lowest common denominator rhetoric they are doing their bit.

If we remove universal from this type of benefit we start becoming more divided and tax payers question the value of their contributions even further.

So Scrap it totally or keep it universal.

[Huguenot]

Sorry IV, I didn't mean to focus on your personal experiences and it must have sounded hurtful. I apologize, I was having a bit of fun with the argument, that's all.

I don't think the notion of child benefit as social investment stands up under scrutiny, but I also know I've argued from the other side on other threads.

You've clearly got great kids, but other people will have kids who are a net drain on society. Besides most of their tax investment will go on providing services for themselves.

Besides, it's clear to me that 99.99% of the benefits dervied from kids are derived by other family members, but if estimates of the cost of bringing up a chid being 200k are correct, then other people (the taxpayer) carry 15% of that cost through child benefit.

That's the worst investment in the world.

On the divorce thing, I don't think your ex hubbie gets to walk away from his financial burden because he gets divorced. I appreciate that the 'family' unit is supporting two households, but that's not the primary investment, the kids are. If he doesn't carry his fair share then he should go to jail, or be burned at the stake or something.

There's absolutely no validity in an argument that runs 'I got divorced, my costs have gone up so everyone else has to pay'. (That's taking the mickey out of him, not you).

[zeban]

IV you sound like an amzing person and parent. My mum also found herself in a similar situation and there are 5 of us kids. I have to say the only thing I feel I missed out on as a child was a decent father figure- funny how the people with most extreme views on this subject are men! Perhaps if you put your energy into teaching boys how to be men these things might not always happen. Alas Hugenut, sorry Huguenot, I'm not sure you're grown up enough to do a good job of that anyway.

No one knows what the future can bring. Life hardly ever works out as one big plan, but that's often the beauty of it.

[Huguenot]

Very romantic zeban, a dream indeed.

However, just because you've had a father-figure crisis, it doesn't mean the tax payer should pay you for it. No amount of 20 quids a week is going to free you from your torment.

DJKQ, I don't think that kids should be taken away, that was hyperbole to demonstrate a point. I think that if you get unemployed you should explore every other avenue first before you turn to state aid. That means immediate family members, friends, neighbours, even to the point of giving up your house and moving back in with mum and dad.

I think if the 'social unit' paid the price, rather than strangers you've never met (the taxpayer), we'd have a whole new concept of responsibility.

I don't know whether anyone else will 'get' that. The UK in general has an 'entitlements' problem because they don't realise whose money it is.

[zeban]

Huguenot it's not a dream actually, some of us can see beyond the whole 'I have a plan and it's going to work out that way.' I'm not tormented by not having a father thank you very much, the extra support would have been nice but quite frankly my mother's taught me so much that makes me proud of who I am today, independent, yes independent not a dependent, strong, empathetic, caring, everything that I'd like to instill in my children some day.

I'd say you're the one living in a dream world. People talk from real personal experiences and all you can do is say yes well you're the exception but 'some people..' blah blah blah. How do you know IV is an exception, or I'm an exception? How do you know some people do this or some people do that? Because you read it in the Daily Mail? Why don't you get out there I mean really get out there. And until you can provide me with names and experiences of people then I think it's pointless you having such a ridiculously stereotyped opinion of people.

Another dreamworld scenario: put fathers in prison who don't pay child maintenance, you do realise there would never be enough space right?

God forbid something happens to you Huguenot because I honestly don't think you'ld have the strength, from what I've heard from you so far, to come through it.

[zeban]

My guess is Huguenot, your 'big plan' didn't quite work out the way you expected. Perhaps it all turned out to be a big disappointment. That would definitely explain your resentment. People do things differently. You can do things differently. It takes guts to swallow your pride and ego.

[????]

Hugenot I thought you'd be able to do a decent cost benefit analysis. If kids are a poor future investment for the UK let's scrap them and import all our future labour and tax payers...mmmmm

[DJKillaQueen]

The probelm is H that in this country Mum Dad, siblings are struggling to make ends meet too (and Mum and Dad already are helping out their children, especially with regards to first time buyers).

But you gave a very interesting discussion on the different attitudes in Singapore on this in the 'equality' thread in the drawing room and I found many of those points very interesting. It would take a massive cultural shift in the UK to get anywhere near to that though. And we are all so locked into the high cost of living here and our economy depends on us living beyond our means too so it's not a simple thing to address. Family can only support each other if they have the means to do so.

I agree with Zeban that you sometimes think every counter example to your arguement is the 'exception'. I'm afraid it's not. One of the reasons why I have such strong views on poverty and unequal opportunity is because I see examples of how that holds people back every day....and these are not irresposible people, with poor attitudes...there are people are trapped in a layer of society they will never get out of without some investment.

Job creation for example is one of those things that comes from people starting businesses, or existing companies expanding. Why aren't we facilitating that? All governments have been bad in this country at investment in that respect...in the belief it is always the job of banks to lend. You only have to look at how little help the LTU actually get for example to see that. The government is not helping people to help themselves (and the banks aren't interested in the unemployed for obvious reasons). And until we change that in a dedicated manner, we'll continue to have at least five people unemployed for every job vacancy. You just can't wrtie off millions of people's lives like that.......but that is what the UK economy and government do.

In America, backruptcy lasts for one year. Henry Ford went bankrupt three times before he got into car manufactering. He'd never have got off the ground in the UK.

Anyway going off topic there...... :)

[Huguenot]

I can't find the reference to 'some people' zeban, so I can't clarify what I could have meant. If you can tell me where I said it then I'll do my best.

I also can't find where I stereotyped people, so if you could highlight that, I shall also attempt to make amends.

To be honest, I think you're just making stuff up. You've probably rehearsed this complaint in your head a hundred times and now you're just sticking it down online regardless of its relevance. You're inventing what I 'could' have said in order to justify your position.

Clearly the humour of my putting absentee fathers in jail or burning them at the stake was lost on you. That is a considerable tragedy for someone as clear minded as yourself.

As for wishing that something should never happen to me, I think we both know that what you really meant was that you hoped something would happen to me, so I should be 'taught a lesson'. I suspect that shows a repressed aggression that you should try and address. I think you'll struggle to deliver your ambitions with your children unless they understand there isn't a clenched fist behind it.

Look zeban, whatever bonkers wierdness is going on inside your head, I'm not suggesting people don't need help or deserve help, I'm just suggesting that having kids doesn't entitle you to charge other people for them.

If people need help, the anonymous tax payer should be the last possible resort, not a be treated as just another source of income as a reward for getting yourself up the duff.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

Hugo - he never worked much and was always self-employed when he did, so was able to say he only earned a pittance and there was nothing much the CSA could do. I couldn't work due to health and mental breakdown, but as soon as I was able I got my sh!t back together and got on with it.

I could have claimed disability benefits, but I had no intention of staying on benefits, so didn't bother. All of those who want to cut back the safety nets of state benefits, better make sure they have their own cast-iron private safety nets, because many of us are only a few paycheques away from homelessness and destitution.

[DJKillaQueen]

not a be treated as just another source of income as a reward for getting yourself up the duff.

But that is the not case for the overwhelming majority of people that have children H. You are being completely disrespectful to the majority of parents. I take it you have no children (apologies if I am wrong) but you may feel different if you did.

[Huguenot]

DJKQ, I've simply never talked about an exception have I? It's not and never has been a part of my argument. You're doing the same thing as zeban here, putting words in my mouth,

Likewise with your empassioned plea for social renewal. I don't deny that people need help and support, I don't deny that the government could do a better job. You're responding to an argument I haven't made on this 'child bearing' thread.

All I've said is that I can't see a reason why suuport should be offered on the grounds that you've had a kid.

Quids, if your argument is that child benefit is an incentive payment on a long term social investment then to be honest, I'd like you to make the case, rather than have me attempt to refute an argument I've never heard.

[DJKillaQueen]

because many of us are only a few paycheques away from the homelessness and destitution.

Exactly. And I find the lack of compassion for those that do fall on difficult times by some dismaying. I thought we'd evolved from that a long time ago.

[Huguenot]

There's plenty of compassion, DJKQ, plenty of desire for support etc.

However, you're letting your desire to show 'compassion' overwhelm your attitude to child benefit.

There's no compassion in child benefit, it's simply calculated against how many children you have.

Since there's no compassion in the system, you can't argue to retain child benefit on the grounds of compassion.

[DJKillaQueen]

I've simply never talked about an exception have I?

Fair enough, I conceed that.

All I've said is that I can't see a reason why suuport should be offered on the grounds that you've had a kid.

No but you have said that people who need help should look elsewhere, including 'friends' before turning to the state. This just isn't realistic. We live in a country were a 30K salary isn't enough to meet the living costs of a family..esp in London and most people don't earn anything like that. Ok so people cut costs...but we have an economy that depends on debt and people spending money so we are in a self defeating system really.

Now I agree that it is probably sensible to means test all benefits. But there's only so much that can be taken away. We have a burden beause we have so many unemployed and sick and no jobs for them to do. We further have a third of the workforce in need of some kind of benefit (usually HB ) to make ends meet. Unless we address THAT inbalance in our economy, taking away a payment from 15% of families is going to do little to change anything for the better.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

I think, letting Hugo off the hook, paying someone ?20 odd quid a week for pushing out a sprog no matter what they earn may be a bit random and not much use really.

People seem to be very attached to child benefit, but it's not really enough to make much of a difference because the amount is so low. Not sure I'm brave enough to say that it might be a good idea to raise it a lot and means test it! But then it would stigmatise it, so maybe not.

[DJKillaQueen]

However, you're letting your desire to show 'compassion' overwhelm your attitude to child benefit.

If you read my posts, I am in favour of reforming CB so that those that need it most, get it. I have also argued that it should be reduced with each child as a disincentive for those few that have never worked and do take no responsibility but I also make the point that the majority of parents do NOT fall into this catagory. So please tell me just what is wrong with my attitude there?

You on the other hand have a view that only if people exhaust the goodwill of their families and friends should they be given state support. That's just niaively unrealistic and I've given reasons why.

[Huguenot]

I'm saying that because your belief is that 85%* of the people in this country are so poor that they need payments from taxpayers.

This just doesn't work.

Taxation is there to pay for social services - education, health, security. If you're saying that 85% of people can't afford this then the nation simply doesn't work. You cannot expect to tax the top 15% to the extent that they pay for everyone else.

*Calculated from here: "taking away a payment from 15% of families is going to do little to change anything for the better"

[DJKillaQueen]

Yes the government says that only 15% of recipients will be affected, not me. I haven't actually given a view on what I think the cut off point should be, responding only to the idea that benefit should not be given for children at all with a view that it should be means tested.