But what happens when a person who is in work and has four children becomes unemployed? Should they pick their favourite two and feed them?

Two kids only? I will go along with that as long as if Mrs Chuk and I decide not to have kids can we sell our entitlement to someone who wants more than two?

I would feed the kids I thought would bring in the best return financially, strong lads t’ send down ‘pit and the more amiable young ladies to pass on in some sort of arranged marriage involving a dowry.

Your first two paragraphs seem to contradict each other imo. if it isnt a life of luxury, if it isnt an envious lifestyle, how is she taking the by having it? If it isnt an envious lifestyle or a life of luxury, how is the welfare state overly generous?

There seems to be a conflation in the reporting and understanding of these cases between the individual/couple who are the head of the family, the children themselves, and the family unit.

It gets sold as a workshy scrounger getting a free 6 bedroom house, whereas other people who work hard dont get a free 6 bedroom house. The obvious reason for that is that the people who are working hard, and in fact most scroungers, dont get a 6 bedroom house because realistically they have no need for it. If they did they would get help towards it.

It gets sold as this workshy baby machine getting tons of cash in benefits, when for the most part its the money needed to bring up children.

as for your point about child payments and the welfare state needing a limit for people like this, it wont make a difference, my grandma had 13 brothers and sisters when she was born back in the 1920's when there was next to nothing from the government for families like hers. Still families had lots of kids. We arent going to stop that happening, so the question we need to ask ourselves is whether we want to give her kids a good start in life, or we want them brought up in the conditions kids were years ago.

...and have to end up selling them all for scientific experiments.

Maybe it's the way I was brought up. I was always taught to "work hard, pay your way and stand your corner" - The whole idea of sitting on my backside surrounded by a house and posessions that have been paid for by the sweat of another man's brow is utterly abhorrent to me.

I don't hold others to my beliefs, but when people take the mickey it grates a bit. If everyone in the country decided they quite fancied having 11 kids, a house and a horse funded by the state, we'd be in a right mess. As I say I don't mind carrying the unfortunate, those unable to work, pensioners etc but people who "opt out" of paying their share and then expect the rest of the country to pick up their tab.

Since 2008 I've spent far more subsidising the lifestyle of the greedy fekkers who screwed the world economy. Maybe we should demand that they get paid in vouchers as well?

No, plenty of state pension recipients are capable of work, and I didn't realise it was supposed to be a disincentive I thought it was supposed to ensure benefits were spent on appropriate things. If a state pension isn't being spent on basic things like food, heating etc then surely it's not necessary.

Sush you, everyone on the dole is a workshy scrounging baby machine who lays in bed till three, watches sky sports on a zazillion inch plasma, drinks Stella and smokes tabs as much as they want and run around with the latest tech gadgets, all paid for by taxpayers.

Taxpayers like the owner of The Daily Mail, ah. France and Bermuda you say? Bugger.

No, state pension cannot be used as an alternative lifestyle choice to working so not an issue. The woman we have been discussing is clearly spending the (extortionate amount of) money she receives for her childrens welfare, on luxury items - and being given a 400k house to live in I might add. A man could work his hands to the bone all his life and not be able to afford that.

Of course it can. If £70 a week JSA can be used as an alternative lifestyle choice then why can't £104 a week pension be? Other people slave away and provide for a pension themselves whilst others just rely upon the state pension? Surely the state pension is there to provide the basics for people who reach a certain age? If pensioners are spending their benefits on M&S products, garden centres and tour holidays then surely that is just as much a waste of taxpayers money as frivolously wasting money on children through child benefit?

The difference is that old folk are not in a position to earn money themselves. I don't care what they spend theirs on - most of them have earned it anway, through years of putting into the system. If they haven't then it's just £34 extra on top of JSA they will have been receiving anyway.

Really? You sure about that?

Really? So pensioners can't work or receive income on investments?
Most people on JSA and other benefits have paid into the system too. If its not going on basics why are taxpayers funding pensioners lavish lifestyles?

I don't know any pensioner who doesn't buy food, or pay for heating. Do you?

Is that it, then? A pensioner is to be provided with nothing except sufficient for the basics of food, heating "etc" until they die? Subsistence kind of thing? Perhaps a temperature regulator with a maximum of say 60F should be compulsorily fitted, and vouchers for calories of no more than 2000 a day food should be obligatory.

A radio costs a penny or two a day electric to run. Is that a basic thing, or should their pension leave them unable to afford the luxury?

Can they have an extra pound per month above subsistence / basics, so they may share a glass of stout, or is that OTT for the public purse?