[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by bobnot

Which then gives you the choice of how the people that are poor are dealt with let their kids die in poverty and arrest and sterilise the parents or maybe just take the kids away and put them in a big home.
Or i suppose the kids could be put to sleep like unwanted puppies seeing as its all for a better society and the parents jailed (put into work camps).
Which is it to be?

Or we do nothing and and let the situation become similar to countries in Asia where the state doesn't give a sh*t about children and we end up with vast numbers of children living rough, robbing and stealing food to survive or working 16 Hrs day for 10 Rupees and open to all kinds of sexual exploitation or worse. A whole generation of children roaming in packs, feral with no future at all.

Tough choice I agree...!!!!

[billy123]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Or we do nothing and and let the situation become similar to countries in Asia where the state doesn't give a sh*t about children and we end up with vast numbers of children living rough, robbing and stealing food to survive or working 16 Hrs day for 10 Rupees and open to all kinds of sexual exploitation or worse. A whole generation of children roaming in packs, feral with no future at all.

Tough choice I agree...!!!!

By doing this you instantly become a state that doesnt give a sh*t about children that condems them to death.

What about the millions of people already in poverty?

What about the people working for companys that have more than 2 children that are made redundant? (not to mention the pension funds that collapse along with it)

Ian Duncan Smith father of four born into money is the douche that has suggested this to a thinktank.

You still forgot to mention what punishment you think would be best for the kids and parents i presume its death due by malnutrition from your reply.

Where is the proof of these baby farms the rich are so paranoid of when having 10 kids entitles you to a little over £100 it hardly sounds lucrative does it?

Work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith has four children. As a wealthy man, perhaps it is fortunate that he has no need to rely on child benefit to feed them.

IDS wants to see child benefit capped at two children per family, believing that there is a booming industry of 'baby farming', where families are deliberately having children in order to milk riches from the public purse.

At present, all parents with young children are given benefit worth £20.30 a week for the first child and £13.40 for each subsequent child.

Lurid headlines about workshy families living in luxury paint a picture that few social workers who engage with them would recognise. In June, Eric Pickles trumpeted a £450m crackdown on a group of 'problem' or 'troubled' households said to cost the taxpayer £9bn. Social workers reacted strongly at the time to the notion of 'trouble-shooters' being sent in to households to 'eyeball' families. The report that this policy was based on, authored by 'Troubled Families Tsar' Louise Casey has subsequently faced claims of unethical inaccuracy by lecturer Nick Bailey, and pressure from the Full Fact organisation has led to both The Sun and The Daily Mail having to run corrections on the story.

Think about how much food you could put in a shopping basket for £13.40. That's before you even think about buying clothes or anything else that a child might need. Even if a family had ten children, that would still only be just over £100 per week extra, which doesn't go very far when you have multiple mouths to feed.

The reality is that child poverty is on the rise in the UK. The Child Poverty Action Group is currently predicting that child poverty will rise to 4.2 million by 2020. The Eye of the Storm report, published jointly by the Children's Society, Action for Children and the NSPCC,warned in July that the number of children living in vulnerable families in Britain is likely to rise to over one million by 2015. Six out of ten of these poor children are living with a working parent, another statistic that the government chooses not to publicise when it aims its sight on 'troubled' families.

BASW has previously warned about the dangers of bringing back Victorian notions of the deserving and undeserving poor, and this is yet another example, spreading the myth that people deliberately have children in order to fund an alternative lifestyle.

Bridget Robb, acting chief executive of the British Association of Social Workers, is keen to point out that far from the workshy stereotype; many families are forced to claim benefits because of the impact of the recession.

"Political rhetoric is frequently targeting the poorest and most vulnerable. The traditional working class, without work, are increasingly being described by politicians almost as if they have no place in our society", she says.

"Where is the government's evidence base for claiming that people are deliberately having children in order to claim more benefits? Conservatives may be seeing their stance as a potential vote winner, but it simply is not a picture that we recognise. Our members are seeing more and more children and families sliding into poverty, and all more cuts will do is put more strain on public services that are already at breaking point."

Ms Robb also feels that by relying on rhetoric rather than evidence, the government is potentially placing children at risk, as there are numerous different types of families in society, and many people are likely to find themselves in family units with multiple children that they hadn't planned for.

"When people forge new relationships, both partners will often have children already, where will a cap on child benefit leave such families? Kinship carers, where a relative in a child's wider family choose to foster them, are also likely to lose out. The more children you have, the more they cost, so it is not as if the household income increases in real terms. This is yet another attack on low income families, and it will be the children who will bear the brunt of it. All this policy will do is punish children for being born," she concludes.

Social workers report that the recession is putting families under increasing pressure. The number of children being referred for care proceedings has reached record levels, and the NSPCC has seen an 80% surge in calls on neglect in the last 18 months. Food bank charity the Trussell Trust recently said that it has fed almost 110,000 people since April, compared with a total of 128,697 people during the whole of the financial year of 2011/12. We know from our members that demand for social care services is increasing. In our recent survey, 54% of the 1,100 UK social workers questioned said their caseloads were "unmanageable".

These are the statistics that should most concern the government, but it does not suit their political aims. Just as its 'troubled families' initiative lumped together outdated and inaccurate statistics about people who have ticked boxes such as having previously claimed disability benefit or having had mental health problems, and equated them to a 120,000 person strong threat to society, so too we now have these claims about families with more than two children being on the make.

When IDS talks of people 'cutting their cloth' according to their circumstances, he forgets that many people will have planned their families before the recession, when they could afford them, and will be no longer able to afford them without state assistance when they have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. What are such families supposed to do with these 'extra' children now?

Iain Duncan Smith has four children. He is lucky that he comes from a privileged background that equipped him to live a privileged adult life in turn. Not everyone is so fortunate, and who decides how many children are enough?

The government should instead focus on easily accessible family planning services, supported by good GPs and health care staff, and on helping poor children to escape poverty, rather than demonising large families.

We don't currently live in a country that practices population control, and the poor children that the government seeks to punish simply for existing are already here and a part of our society. We can't send them back, nor should we wish them away

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/hayl...?utm_hp_ref=uk

Still waiting for suggestions on how to punish those that dont comply but im not expecting an answer any time soon.
Not thinking through your own position on something is nieve.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by bobnot

By doing this you instantly become a state that doesnt give a sh*t about children that condems them to death.

What about the millions of people already in poverty?

What about the people working for companys that have more than 2 children that are made redundant? (not to mention the pension funds that collapse along with it)

Ian Duncan Smith father of four born into money is the douche that has suggested this to a thinktank.

You still forgot to mention what punishment you think would be best for the kids and parents i presume its death due by malnutrition from your reply.

Where is the proof of these baby farms the rich are so paranoid of when having 10 kids entitles you to a little over £100 it hardly sounds lucrative does it?



http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/hayl...?utm_hp_ref=uk

This is a difficult subject to discuss because as you point out there are many ways to end up with a large family and no means to support them.

I think our country does care as it has a welfare system that is the envy of the world, however the purse is not bottomless and a large proportion of the welfare budget comes from the taxation of the working masses. By allowing the benefit system to be so over complicated and open to abuse, the Govt is creating more problems for itself. In a deep recession more people lose their jobs and claim benefits and the tax take reduces causing the Govt to borrow more money and so on... This is why the Govt is looking to find ways of tightening up on some areas by introducing Welfare reform. The Child Benefit allowance for every child is a clear target as is the OAP Heating allowance as these benefits are paid to all.

Personally I don't think this particular change will happen mainly for the reasons you have stated ie it brings in parallels with Eugenics and right wing political doctrines and in the event it would not save that much money in the grand scheme of things.

I think the Govt should look at the real criminals ie Banks and Utility Companies who are allowed to make Billions of pounds of Profit and the global companies who trade in this country (ie Starbucks) but use legal loopholes to avoid paying billions in Tax.....!!!!

[billy123]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

This is a difficult subject to discuss because as you point out there are many ways to end up with a large family and no means to support them.

I think our country does care as it has a welfare system that is the envy of the world, however the purse is not bottomless and a large proportion of the welfare budget comes from the taxation of the working masses. By allowing the benefit system to be so over complicated and open to abuse, the Govt is creating more problems for itself. In a deep recession more people lose their jobs and claim benefits and the tax take reduces causing the Govt to borrow more money and so on... This is why the Govt is looking to find ways of tightening up on some areas by introducing Welfare reform. The Child Benefit allowance for every child is a clear target as is the OAP Heating allowance as these benefits are paid to all.

Personally I don't think this particular change will happen mainly for the reasons you have stated ie it brings in parallels with Eugenics and right wing political doctrines and in the event it would not save that much money in the grand scheme of things.

I think the Govt should look at the real criminals ie Banks and Utility Companies who are allowed to make Billions of pounds of Profit and the global companies who trade in this country (ie Starbucks) but use legal loopholes to avoid paying billions in Tax.....!!!!

Thanks Nedusa i appreciate your abiity to take in the very real comparisons that can be drawn from history rather than just attack someone for not being in agreement with you.
I cant see past the slippery slope that that kind of idea ultimately leads to something that amounts to discrimination.
There is no way on this earth that anything like this could ever be implemented without condemning the 5 million children estimated to be in poverty in the uk already to death thats what it effectively would do.

The conservatives do what it says on the tin they conserve what they have and to hell with everyone else.
This isnt the answer the way forward is to rebuild domestic industry by getting out of the damn EU and becoming self sustaing kicking the dirty bankers out of the corporate giants beds and stopping these vile corporations from funding political partys that in turn leads to them funding them in return for tax cuts.

Looking at things like only 2 kids per family is beyond stupid in my eyes when we the public were originally thought to have let the banks have £1.162 trillion of our tax money but still the penny pinching from the poor goes on.
(source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-credit-crunch)

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

This is a difficult subject to discuss because as you point out there are many ways to end up with a large family and no means to support them.

I think our country does care as it has a welfare system that is the envy of the world, however the purse is not bottomless and a large proportion of the welfare budget comes from the taxation of the working masses. By allowing the benefit system to be so over complicated and open to abuse, the Govt is creating more problems for itself. In a deep recession more people lose their jobs and claim benefits and the tax take reduces causing the Govt to borrow more money and so on... This is why the Govt is looking to find ways of tightening up on some areas by introducing Welfare reform. The Child Benefit allowance for every child is a clear target as is the OAP Heating allowance as these benefits are paid to all.

Personally I don't think this particular change will happen mainly for the reasons you have stated ie it brings in parallels with Eugenics and right wing political doctrines and in the event it would not save that much money in the grand scheme of things.

I think the Govt should look at the real criminals ie Banks and Utility Companies who are allowed to make Billions of pounds of Profit and the global companies who trade in this country (ie Starbucks) but use legal loopholes to avoid paying billions in Tax.....!!!!

There is talk about hitting pensioners with cuts recently. That will NEVER happen. It would be political suicide and all politicians damn well know it as pensioners make up the majorty of voters. This is why while saving small amounts by sanctioning as many peoples as possible, shifting disabled off disability benefits onto JSA and the likes, capping child benefit at 2 kids(which would save 200m...nothing in the grand scheme of things really), pensioners (which make up over half of the total welfare budget) have been left well alone.

Its not about saving money, its about setting groups against each other to detract from the real problems...such as tax evasion, and an utter lack of jobs. you can throw as many sanctions and cuts at people as you like but that still will not create the jobs that they need.

Tbh if the government were serious about saving money, they would start by getting rid of the ridiculous private companies such as a4e and igneus that are supposed to help people back into work but dont. Scandal a few days ago about this, one workprovider company was found to have 4/100 people on their books back into work in a year...whereas if these jobseekers had been looking for work on their own, more would have been back into work according to ther governments figures, so the provider actually hindered search for employment, not helped. They would also scrap ATOS who they pay 400m (I think it is) a year for doing a check box test to get people off disability benefits. They say this is to save money that is lost due to fraud. Their own research again, says fraud in disability benefits is 0.7%. Pretty sure this doesnt amount to anywhere near the 400m they are paying ATOS, or the subsequent costs of sucessful appeals against their decisions (42%, rising to 70% if represented). The word of a GP/hospital consultant should be enough. Yes there will still be a couple slip through the net, but there ALWAYS will be a small amount of fraud, in any system.