Benefits Street

[wasabi]

Are you actually defending your original post? Are you saying that forcibly injecting people against their will with contraception is a sensible and proportionate option against benefit dependency?

Nope.

[opel80uk]

It is more the whole if we don't allow people to immigrate due to population concerns, why do we not advocate population control via birth? Only a few people oppose contraception after all.
Have you not seen my first response post to the program? That I see it as a big argument that we must urgently increase funding for drug rehabilitation.

But drugs is just an effect of a much larger cause. Sex, crime, drugs, total benefit dependency….. it’s all a completely predictable outcome of pushing people to the margins of society, in areas that usually have massively high levels of unemployment and that are devoid of any meaningful government policies to help lift that area, and specifically those people out of that cycle. It would actually cost more to do that than it does to pay these people to live on benefits. Drug rehabilitation is commendable, and very necessary to improve the individuals quality of life, but unless all of the issues that surround living in poverty are addressed, it is effectively an Elastoplast, and will do nothing to help the children born into these types of situations to avoid falling into the same traps.

The point is that people are choosing to raise children without the means to support them. Those parents should be reminded that isn't right or acceptable.

My God, do you not realise how that makes you sound? Actually, you have a point. I think what you should do is come to the St Helier estate in South London and I’ll meet you and introduce you to my cleaner friend. We’d have to go there around 9pm ish, as that’s when they are both home after he finishes his second shift, and you can inform them that, because they are effectively benefit dependent and don’t earn enough on their own, that what they’ve done isn’t right or acceptable, because TheAnimus begrudges funding their kids (we won’t tell the kids that though). That, hopefully, should make them feel sufficiently humiliated enough to never dream of having anymore kids, should they be evil enough to ever consider it.

Have you watched the program?

Well I watched the first 20 minutes, but then I turned it over as I kept imaging the moral majority and the Daily Mail readership pleasuring themselves into an indignant frenzygasm while sneering at some of the least fortunate people in British society.

Should anyone be entitled to have children without any ability to care for them themselves?
Why are people suggesting that because I obviously think 'no' it means I'm either a child snatcher or eugenics enthusiast. We can just be grown up and ask people not to, there is a good convincing argument.

And there’s the crux of it, by ability what you actually mean is means to pay, as if children should be valued solely as a commodity or an expense or a burden, defined, like a lot of what you post about, by the bottom line, completely disregarding any other value they may bring to a particular person, relationship or even wider society, given the right opportunity. It’s that kind of attitude, that you give either knowingly or unknowingly, that may well answer your second question for you.

[TheAnimus]

But drugs is just an effect of a much larger cause. Sex, crime, drugs, total benefit dependency….. it’s all a completely predictable outcome of pushing people to the margins of society, in areas that usually have massively high levels of unemployment and that are devoid of any meaningful government policies to help lift that area, and specifically those people out of that cycle. It would actually cost more to do that than it does to pay these people to live on benefits. Drug rehabilitation is commendable, and very necessary to improve the individuals quality of life, but unless all of the issues that surround living in poverty are addressed, it is effectively an Elastoplast, and will do nothing to help the children born into these types of situations to avoid falling into the same traps.

If you had listened to the guy, you would know that wasn't the case. He like many addicts had a family, a job, children.

My God, do you not realise how that makes you sound? Actually, you have a point. I think what you should do is come to the St Helier estate in South London and I’ll meet you and introduce you to my cleaner friend. We’d have to go there around 9pm ish, as that’s when they are both home after he finishes his second shift, and you can inform them that, because they are effectively benefit dependent and don’t earn enough on their own, that what they’ve done isn’t right or acceptable, because TheAnimus begrudges funding their kids (we won’t tell the kids that though). That, hopefully, should make them feel sufficiently humiliated enough to never dream of having anymore kids, should they be evil enough to ever consider it.

They've had the children, so the horse has bolted so to speak. If they are planning to have more children then seriously what are they thinking.

Well I watched the first 20 minutes, but then I turned it over as I kept imaging the moral majority and the Daily Mail readership pleasuring themselves into an indignant frenzygasm while sneering at some of the least fortunate people in British society.

Erm, so basically you are commenting on something without the context?

And there’s the crux of it, by ability what you actually mean is means to pay, as if children should be valued solely as a commodity or an expense or a burden, defined, like a lot of what you post about, by the bottom line, completely disregarding any other value they may bring to a particular person, relationship or even wider society, given the right opportunity. It’s that kind of attitude, that you give either knowingly or unknowingly, that may well answer your second question for you.

Because realistically someone has to do the productivity to provide for them.

That is before we even get on to the environmental impact of having above renewal rate of children in the first world.

[csgohan4]

But drugs is just an effect of a much larger cause. Sex, crime, drugs, total benefit dependency….. it’s all a completely predictable outcome of pushing people to the margins of society, in areas that usually have massively high levels of unemployment and that are devoid of any meaningful government policies to help lift that area, and specifically those people out of that cycle. It would actually cost more to do that than it does to pay these people to live on benefits. Drug rehabilitation is commendable, and very necessary to improve the individuals quality of life, but unless all of the issues that surround living in poverty are addressed, it is effectively an Elastoplast, and will do nothing to help the children born into these types of situations to avoid falling into the same traps.




My God, do you not realise how that makes you sound? Actually, you have a point. I think what you should do is come to the St Helier estate in South London and I’ll meet you and introduce you to my cleaner friend. We’d have to go there around 9pm ish, as that’s when they are both home after he finishes his second shift, and you can inform them that, because they are effectively benefit dependent and don’t earn enough on their own, that what they’ve done isn’t right or acceptable, because TheAnimus begrudges funding their kids (we won’t tell the kids that though). That, hopefully, should make them feel sufficiently humiliated enough to never dream of having anymore kids, should they be evil enough to ever consider it.



Well I watched the first 20 minutes, but then I turned it over as I kept imaging the moral majority and the Daily Mail readership pleasuring themselves into an indignant frenzygasm while sneering at some of the least fortunate people in British society.



And there’s the crux of it, by ability what you actually mean is means to pay, as if children should be valued solely as a commodity or an expense or a burden, defined, like a lot of what you post about, by the bottom line, completely disregarding any other value they may bring to a particular person, relationship or even wider society, given the right opportunity. It’s that kind of attitude, that you give either knowingly or unknowingly, that may well answer your second question for you.

I kind of see what your getting at, however if your on benefits and you have 2 children already, you want more children but your state funded, how can that make sense from an economical point of view?

I don't have any kids because I can't afford one yet, or maybe I should just pop a few out and hope for the best? is that the kind of irresponsible attitude your advocating?

Children shouldn't be regarded a commodity your right, but unfortunately they are and are used for benefits gains.

However on the other end they are brought into this world also by parents with no regards of whether they have thought about the repercussions of having a child and thinking about future education, consumables, commitment.

It is absolutely irresponsible of the parent to not think about it this and just have their 30 seconds of fun and hope for the best or think Joe public will fund their kids from Benefits so it's all right, ergo the long vicious cycle of generations of families on benefits

[kalniel]

ergo the long vicious cycle of generations of families on benefits

Which is such a minor problem in this country we should probably put our energies to more serious things.

[csgohan4]

Just to be clear I am not against benefits or any kind as Long as the recipients deserve them.

Unfortunately one size doesn't fit all, everyone has different circumstances and some people deserve more, some people less, to which the government fails to implement.

There is no clear answer in how to implement a common sensical/ Decent approach to having a better benefits system, but regardless not everyone who is on them is a sponge.

I think and believe in the idea of education playing a part in getting people off benefits early, especially those who are very young or thinking about benefits at a young age and staying on them. I think the government is going the right about it in this sense where when you start work your benefits don't stop automatically but is reduced and then stopped as soon as you work above a threshold.

[opel80uk]

If you had listened to the guy, you would know that wasn't the case. He like many addicts had a family, a job, children.

I’m not necessarily talking about that one person, but pumping money into drug rehabilitation without getting at the causes that allow drugs (and the rest) to get a foothold in those communities, and help further cement the poverty, is effectively resigning to the fact that all we can provide is short term solutions.

They've had the children, so the horse has bolted so to speak.

Ah, but you’re wrong. Because if we can make them realise how evil these two have been, it might just encourage them to see the error of their ways, and raise their children to understand that, if they don’t earn x amount of money (what is the formula for this, by the way?), then they don’t qualify, in the moral majority’s eyes at least, to have children. If there is a generation crisis as a result of this, what the hell, let’s fly it up the flagpole anyway.

Erm, so basically you are commenting on something without the context?

Oh, does the context of the programme change after the first 20 minutes?

Because realistically someone has to do the productivity to provide for them.

Yeah, people like me. And I would imagine numerous others who come from a working class background whose parents used the small amount of child benefit they got to supplement their income, and now whose children work, pay taxes, and contribute monetarily. Some, like me, have been fortunate enough to have never claimed benefits in their life, and others, like my Sister, who now pays 45% tax on some of her earnings. I know you are forever bleating on about how you are affected, of how you begrudge funding others, of how your tax is wasted and how that money taken from you impacts on your lifestyle, but there are many others who pay exactly the same and understand that it is a price worth paying if society is to benefit as a whole.

That is before we even get on to the environmental impact of having above renewal rate of children in the first world.

And an issue that affects all, regardless of class or ability to pay.

[opel80uk]

I kind of see what your getting at, however if your on benefits and you have 2 children already, you want more children but your state funded, how can that make sense from an economical point of view?

I don't have any kids because I can't afford one yet, or maybe I should just pop a few out and hope for the best? is that the kind of irresponsible attitude your advocating?

Of course I’m not advocating people having children they cannot afford, of course it doesn’t make sense from an economical view and, just for clarity, I also think it is irresponsible, but this idea that people are having children solely to claim benefits on a widespread scale is false, and is being used as device to cut the benefit bill. At the moment, in the UK, you get £13.40 a week extra per child after the £20.30 you get for the first, so let’s take a family with 4 children as an example – they get, on average £15 per week, per child. Let me tell you, as someone who has 2 children myself, that would not go anywhere near far enough for even the basics in childcare. So unless these parents are letting these kids run round without nappies, not buying formula to feed them, and not using basic hygiene standards to clean them, the idea that they are using this money to fund an particular lifestyle is a load of rubbish. And you’ve fallen for it.

It is absolutely irresponsible of the parent to not think about it this and just have their 30 seconds of fun and hope for the best or think Joe public will fund their kids from Benefits so it's all right, ergo the long vicious cycle of generations of families on benefits

But where you are wrong, if I am right in that you seem to propose that the UK should cut benefits to act as a deterrent to people having more children and becoming welfare dependent, is that your theory doesn’t hold up to any sort of scrutiny. What I would do if I were you is to have a look at fertility rates across the world, the welfare available in those countries and the economic situation of the people living in those countries, and the standard of living for those people. Once that’s done, if you can be bothered, is explain to me how Britain can buck that trend and halt fertility rates by pushing people further into poverty. I’d genuinely be very interested to hear that.

[csgohan4]

Of course I’m not advocating people having children they cannot afford, of course it doesn’t make sense from an economical view and, just for clarity, I also think it is irresponsible, but this idea that people are having children solely to claim benefits on a widespread scale is false, and is being used as device to cut the benefit bill. At the moment, in the UK, you get £13.40 a week extra per child after the £20.30 you get for the first, so let’s take a family with 4 children as an example – they get, on average £15 per week, per child. Let me tell you, as someone who has 2 children myself, that would not go anywhere near far enough for even the basics in childcare. So unless these parents are letting these kids run round without nappies, not buying formula to feed them, and not using basic hygiene standards to clean them, the idea that they are using this money to fund an particular lifestyle is a load of rubbish. And you’ve fallen for it.




But where you are wrong, if I am right in that you seem to propose that the UK should cut benefits to act as a deterrent to people having more children and becoming welfare dependent, is that your theory doesn’t hold up to any sort of scrutiny. What I would do if I were you is to have a look at fertility rates across the world, the welfare available in those countries and the economic situation of the people living in those countries, and the standard of living for those people. Once that’s done, if you can be bothered, is explain to me how Britain can buck that trend and halt fertility rates by pushing people further into poverty. I’d genuinely be very interested to hear that.

I am also not saying everyone that has children when in lieu of benefits is doing it for more money, however if they cannot make a sensible decision themselves, there has to be a deterrant to make parents think about this side more clearly, like benefit caps for X amount of children for example. Or attending parenting, benefit/ family planning classes as mandatory.

To which the latter I am more keen on, education or lack of seems to be key difference in those who want to work and those that can't be bothered or know you had to take care of kids and actually spend money on them.

You yourself has mentioned indirectly there is finite resources of for an almost chronic issue, more benefit claimers than can be supported. Hence this system will not be sustainable in the long run. It will almost certainly continue the cynicism among tax payers and hence more scrutiny in making the system more streamline and limit it to those that 'really' need the state help.

the question comes to what cost should we as tax payers be willing to pay to support those less fortunate than us? Should be have the French System where the super rich pay eye watering taxes? Not forgetting how they got their money from, we all started from zero and worked our way up.

What is a reasonable amount? I have no problem supporting those that deserve to be supported and where possible help them back to work.

Ultimately it boils down to education from a young age to equip these young people to excel and maximise their potential, baring in mind no one is born equal in terms of ability to which Boris Johnson said this and got burned for this comment.

I really hate all this political correctness out there, when it is a fact of life. Not everyone is going to be a nuclear scientist and work for the United Nations or a successful banker for goodness sake, accept it and realise everyone has their own individual gifts be it at work or in family.

[Praxis]

Of course I’m not advocating people having children they cannot afford, of course it doesn’t make sense from an economical view and, just for clarity, I also think it is irresponsible, but this idea that people are having children solely to claim benefits on a widespread scale is false, and is being used as device to cut the benefit bill. At the moment, in the UK, you get £13.40 a week extra per child after the £20.30 you get for the first, so let’s take a family with 4 children as an example – they get, on average £15 per week, per child. Let me tell you, as someone who has 2 children myself, that would not go anywhere near far enough for even the basics in childcare. So unless these parents are letting these kids run round without nappies, not buying formula to feed them, and not using basic hygiene standards to clean them, the idea that they are using this money to fund an particular lifestyle is a load of rubbish. And you’ve fallen for it.




But where you are wrong, if I am right in that you seem to propose that the UK should cut benefits to act as a deterrent to people having more children and becoming welfare dependent, is that your theory doesn’t hold up to any sort of scrutiny. What I would do if I were you is to have a look at fertility rates across the world, the welfare available in those countries and the economic situation of the people living in those countries, and the standard of living for those people. Once that’s done, if you can be bothered, is explain to me how Britain can buck that trend and halt fertility rates by pushing people further into poverty. I’d genuinely be very interested to hear that.

Irresponsible as it is to have those children, sometimes it happens. A point was made earlier in the post that people used to have 10 - 15 children... People managed back then because a working man could afford land and didn't have to pay taxes and pay for permits to put up a house. Food was something you bought, caught and grew. Cant do that anymore. If you want to sell things you need to have a license and you have to claim the income.

Also, if you look at life being a little better per child you have because it isnt as expensive ratio wise the higher you go due to benefit increase then it is safe to say some people wouldnt take that route with a little bit of a better living. Maybe a little more money and a better living condition would make people say yeah there are more aspects of my life I can be proud about and I want to try harder. That one girl was talking about needing 30000 a year to consider getting a full time position. If it is above the economical norm for wages and she is on welfare she is saying she needs a job to have a better life to make it worth it. Why work all the time and still have just what I have and I wont do any better. Allowing people to feel like people makes them act like people. Just as if someone says thank you u are likely to help them again just because there was appreciation and respect.

Lastly, you can take away what little they have but then it will be a discussion about all the homeless people there are instead of the poor people that cant really change their current situation. Other documentaries showed that people get passed up because job banks arent taking the needs seriously. Fungi (Fun Guy?)is on meds and probably burnt for life up stairs. But he knows he wants to be better. Just doesn't have a way of doing it. At least he tries to keep busy.

So Good Points!!

[Praxis]

I also think that if it were more like the french an people didn't have billions of dollars they aren't using then maybe things would be a little better. No I am not talking about everyone gets the same but you shouldnt pay less taxes because you are rich. Also if people are making that much extra then cost of living is overpriced. Being taxed from production to consumption doesnt help either. Things get taxed multiple times so government and suppliers are all getting a share of the individual. Although that convo is something for a different day haha.

[opel80uk]

I am also not saying everyone that has children when in lieu of benefits is doing it for more money, however if they cannot make a sensible decision themselves, there has to be a deterrant to make parents think about this side more clearly, like benefit caps for X amount of children for example.

Ok, and like I said, have a look at fertility rates across the world. You will see that the highest rates are amongst the most impoverished people, in places where there is no welfare system. So if that doesn’t work there, what makes you think it will work there? Numerous studies have shown that there is a direct correlation between poverty and population growth, not just in 3rd world countries, but in 1st world countries too (look up data from the States and the UK), so the idea that by somehow cutting child benefit is going to lower child rates amongst that group is nonsense at best, and dangerous at worst, as it would actually lead to an increase. Unless you can show me a scintilla of evidence that by making people poorer it would lead to them having less children, I can only assume that what you actually mean is that you want to punitively punish the parents, and by extension the child, for being irresponsible.

You yourself has mentioned indirectly there is finite resources of for an almost chronic issue, more benefit claimers than can be supported. Hence this system will not be sustainable in the long run. It will almost certainly continue the cynicism among tax payers and hence more scrutiny in making the system more streamline and limit it to those that 'really' need the state help.

I never said anything of the sort. The system is perfectly sustainable in the long run, provided you can get enough people off being completely dependent on benefits and into employment where they can contribute to the tax take. Making them poorer is not the answer to that.

[Macman]

The amount of folk I see who cannot work because they are bloody lazy and bugger off because the going gets tough.

Another example are single mums (who had one night stands after getting rat a*sed on a night out) as a result of this, they get the rent paid for them amongst other.

I'm sorry, but too often you hear people abusing the system and there is fine examples of it happening in my street. Those stuck on benefits, I'm glad it's getting cut, it's the children who I feel sorry for because when a child is born the family/individual SHOULD already be prepared financially.

To put it simple, todays society is too soft on this topic. We should be taking a tougher stance and clamping down on these muppets taking advantage. I've worked since I was 14, I pay my way and don't claim a penny from the state (I have hearing loss and epilepsy, don't make any excuses not to work).

[opel80uk]

The amount of folk I see who cannot work because they are bloody lazy and bugger off because the going gets tough.

Another example are single mums (who had one night stands after getting rat a*sed on a night out) as a result of this, they get the rent paid for them amongst other.

I'm sorry, but too often you hear people abusing the system and there is fine examples of it happening in my street. Those stuck on benefits, I'm glad it's getting cut, it's the children who I feel sorry for because when a child is born the family/individual SHOULD already be prepared financially.

To put it simple, todays society is too soft on this topic. We should be taking a tougher stance and clamping down on these muppets taking advantage. I've worked since I was 14, I pay my way and don't claim a penny from the state (I have hearing loss and epilepsy, don't make any excuses not to work).

Now I actually appreciate this post. At least you seem to accept that what is being proposed is punitive, and are not trying to dress it up as somehow helping these kinds of people like others are. I completely disagree with you as a) it will lead to further child poverty, b) it ultimately punishes the wrong the person (the child) and c) Evidence shows there’s a direct correlation between poverty and an increase in population, but don’t let that get in the way of teaching these bloody spongers a bloody good lesson!

[wasabi]

Evidence shows there’s a direct correlation between poverty and an increase in population,!

All you're doing by transferring money from earners to the unemployed is to pretend they aren't a financial burden on everyone.

Which is why the unemployed should be required to take contraceptives in return for the free money they receive.

[opel80uk]

All you're doing by transferring money from earners to the unemployed is to pretend they aren't a financial burden on everyone.

Most people on benefits are working. If you are specifically talking about the unemployed then…..

Which is why the unemployed should be required to take contraceptives in return for the free money they receive.

What would the repercussions be for such a person not taking the contraception?