To be fair, if you can't afford to keep three or more kids, then why should the welfare state be expected to do it for you??

I'd love a Ferrari, but I can't afford it, so I don't buy myself one - The same thing should apply to having children.

Of course, there should be safeguards for people having triplets, or twins during a second pregnancy, but for people who insist on having children despite already struggling with what they already have, then there has to be some sort of deterrent put in place.

Top trolling.

Why would you assume that anyone would have three children when they cannot afford it, rather than that they have a family when they can afford it – and then something happens to change the situation they're in (redundancy, disability, illness etc etc)?

That's not a dig, BTW, but it does suggest the effectiveness of the coalition's rhetoric – ie the idea that the majority of those on benefits are 'scroungers', not simply people whose circumstances have changed through no fault of their own?

I agree with what you say - I totally agree that to make anything like this work fairly, then there has to be safeguards in place to assist those who find themselves in need of help, after finding themselves in a situation which they have had little control over.

However, if you let me use an example, next door to my parents-in-law are a young couple (both just past 21) who presently have two young children - In the two years they have lived in this house, neither has worked, thus, unless they have had a lottery win (which seems highly unlikely seeing as they are in a council house in Warrington), I would assume they receive some benefits.

Now, if in their present situation, they decided to have a third child, couldn't that be classed as being irresponsible and very badly planned??.... Why would the Welfare State be expected to pick up the bill in that situation?

Now, while I know rags like the Daily Mail like to exaggerate the number of occasions that this type of things occur, it can't be denied that it does happen and while it would be harsh on the children it would undoubtedly effect, there has to be some sort of deterrent to try and stop it happening.

There could always be an argument for more benefits.

If benefits were limited to three children some would say 'what about those with 4 children'.

If benefits were limited to four children some would say 'what about those with 5 children'.

There has to be a point where the state isn't responsible for people's children. Benefits are for temporary hardship and should not be relied on long term.

Continually saying 'what if' to determine welfare payments is unrealistic as every hypothetical situation can not be covered off.

A balance needs to be struck between what is fair in terms of a genuine safety net and to prevent abuse of the system.

Yes.



As you rightly say, it's the children that would suffer, though – and that would possibly have long-term, negative ramifications for society.

It's not a particularly easy situation, but that doesn't alter the massive imbalance in reporting.

We know about the lies of IDS, repeated in the likes of the [iMail[/i (as you say). The former has been caught out twice by the ONS for 'exaggerated' figures, while the latter had to publish a correction for publishing claims about benefits – it then blamed Conservative Central Office in print, saying it got the data from there.

Ipsos-Mori have put out research on perceptions v reality. It's quite revealing.

rlrl

Define "temporary hardship" and whilst doing so define how long "temporary" would be in terms of this hardship.

For instance would working tax credits (a state benefit) be classed as a "temporary hardship", or child tax credits (assuming that you understand how they are awarded), or the reasons why they are awarded in the first place, would these fall under the banner "temporary hardship" ?

Please stop referring to benefits, the correct term for what we offer the less advantaged is Social Security

He started it

Well, this would depend. It's a question which has a thousand more levels of complexity than the average muppet would ever comprehend. I'm not calling you a muppet, btw, although I would question whether you have thought this through.

The population is very quickly ageing, and we all (I think) know hat this is heading for disaster as we will not be able to pay for either the pensions or the health care of the burgeoning silver army. If I am ready to breed and raise an above-average number of young replacement worker drone, then surely I should be financially enouraged to do so so, as it make perfectly good economic sense?


A completely inappropriate example, as your Ferrari will never contribute a penny towards the economy.


So, make it a criminal offence to have children, and then within 20-30 years the country will be bankrupt beyond salvation.

Indirectly

Road Tax, Fuel Duty, tax from the money made by insurance companies, parking fines, Police penalties, M&S and Wild Bean Cafe taxes. Mechanics taxes, Ferrari taxes, Bridgestone taxes

Morr than those spongers

Economist David Blanchflower

Even our right-wing muppets should be able to follow this

David "there will be 4 million unemployed" Blanchflower.

Only the loony left listen to him.

Did you consider actually responding to the article?

And there are plenty of outstanding questions that you apparently remain either unable or unwilling to answer.