rural poverty

[Hoddy]

The government breaks its part of the deal by failing to ensure that ex-husbands contribute to their children's upkeep so there is little chance that they'll be able to get any money from a 'casual' father. Clearly there are plenty of men about who completely fail to appreciate that children are their responsibility too. As someone already said it takes two people to make a baby.

Hoddy

[Richard51]

It goes the other way too.  There are many fathers who would make much better parents than the mother but they are always overlooked.  Ditto there are absent mothers that are not contributing to their children.  It also seems that one parent can walk away from a family, set up a new home and their new income (i.e. the income of their new partner) is protected.  All incomes in the tangled web should be taken into account and there should be no presumption that the mother is a better parent.

I also think that those parents drawing income for disabled children should be more closely monitored.  I know at least two situations where the parent is withholding treatment / care from the child to preserve their (very substantial) disability benefits.

[Chancer]

[quote user="Gluestick"]

One project - brand new; local authority and the Guinness Trust - replaced very poor 1930s Jerry Built council housing with modern rows of excellent semi-detached houses and flats: I was staggered to learn from the demographics that the core adult unemployment level was circa 90%. [/quote]

The Guinness Trust housed me when I was 20, homeless and had been living in a tent for over 3 months, to say I was gratefull was an understatement as it was about this time of year and the cold spell had just kicked in.

It was a brand new estate like the one you mentioned, I was one of the few there that actually had a job, albeit an apprenticeship, I was surrounded by single mothers living on benefits, many younger than me. I was like a kid locked in a sweet shop I thought all my christmases had come at once [:D].

I was there for about 3 years before taking the plunge and getting on the bottom rung of the housing ladder, it certainly makes me appreciate what I have now and compassionate for those dont have the support that I then had, without which my life may well have taken a different direction.

[Richard51]

In this day and age everyone has the choice to be a parent or not, even more so by the time they have had two, whether they are male or female. The question is "why do people who plainly don't have the ability, in whatever sense, to support their offspring continue".  Lifestyle, aka financial incentives in the western world, must play some part. China has the right idea, and in the future I'm sure we will be singing to their tune given the greed that is currently endemic.

Mr R51

[just john]

Unfortunately R51 or should that be +2.5 some people don't think about tomorrow when it comes to progeny and like Nike says they just do it, even in China the rules are there to be broken, I don't like to think about American couples taking home adopted baby girls, (I've stayed in the  White_Swan_Hotel and witnessed this deplorable scene) while the left over ones are left on hillsides to sleep out for the last time, but it happens and I don't think that is the right idea either.

[Richard51]

Agreed JJ

NB only +2.5 if that equates to a girl and two boys.

?R51 and wearing a crash helmet

[cooperlola]

Even 36 years ago I had the choice not to have kids, which I exercised.[:D]

I agree that King Herrod and the Chinese aren't far wrong, R51.  However, my point earlier was simply that we cannot punnish the resulting kids just because their biological parents are irresponsible.  Once they are born, then society has a responsibility to support them because children in  these kinds of homes are so often the criminals and irresposible parents of the future.  Thus society, even for selfish reasons, cannot afford to abandon them.

But why we subsidise parenthood in wealthy families, or allow public health budgets to finance fertility treatments is beyond me.

I too will now don my crash helmet, Richard![:)]

[Quillan]

[quote user="cooperlola"]

Even 36 years ago I had the choice not to have kids, which I exercised.[:D]

I agree that King Herrod and the Chinese aren't far wrong, R51.  However, my point earlier was simply that we cannot punish the resulting kids just because their biological parents are irresponsible.  Once they are born, then society has a responsibility to support them because children in  these kinds of homes are so often the criminals and irresponsible parents of the future.  Thus society, even for selfish reasons, cannot afford to abandon them.

But why we subsidise parenthood in wealthy families, or allow public health budgets to finance fertility treatments is beyond me.

I too will now don my crash helmet, Richard![:)]

[/quote]

I have to say to me that's spot on.

You can remove these kids form dysfunctional families and give them to those that seek fertility treatment and kill two birds with one stone. The only problem I seem is that supporting the kids in their own home means giving the money to a responsible parent but there isn't one, it goes on booze and drugs instead.

The money saved I think good go to the more deserving like single parents where the other has died unexpectedly.

[just john]

Personally I've had enough of the nanny state, people should be able to decide whatever size of family they want for themselves without hinderance or excessive support. Perhaps if society explained to people intent on large families that support is not there for more than say two. This is the nub of the problem. 100 years ago large families were about surving death rates, mostly overcome; while in communist non social support state China, large families are about family support in sickness and old age. In Coops' version her responsibility to herself is perhaps laudable, however how crazy is it that afterwards she would, through the state, support any number of someone else's? In a Herodian version perhaps once two children are born into social support the Mother could be informed that she qualifies for sterilisation, but no further state support. How quickly would some large families cease then?

[idun]

Save the planet, get the population down.

Make it an obscene choice to have more than 2 kids, (multiple births the exception), even if people can afford them, the planet cannot afford them. ie Blair and Cameron, lousy hypocrites of politians going on about carbon footprints and then breeding. It is not just the poor that breed.

No one should be keeping someone else's kids, not feeding, clothing and lodging them. (orphans are an exception ofcourse)

[NormanH]

[quote user="idun"]Save the planet, get the population down.

Make it an obscene choice to have more than 2 kids, (multiple births the exception), even if people can afford them, the planet cannot afford them. ie Blair and Cameron, lousy hypocrites of politians going on about carbon footprints and then breeding. It is not just the poor that breed.

No one should be keeping someone else's kids, not feeding, clothing and lodging them. (orphans are an exception ofcourse)[/quote]

How many children has the Queen had?

[woolybanana]

Your point being?

[cooperlola]

Don't get me wrong, I can't stand kids and would be very happy in a planet completely devoid of them.  But I do not see how we can possibly punish them for the sins of their parents.  Better that said parents go shoeless and food-less than their hapless offspring.

And I certainly think it is irresponsible of "example" families like the Windsors and the Blairs to bang out large families, regardless.  They should set an example and stop at 2 (or preferably not have any at all - there are loads of other branches of the family who could - in the case of the  royals - do their jobs and for whose weddings the poor old UK taxpayers could foot the bill.)

[woolybanana]

As said earlier, the financial incentive to have big families should be removed, as should the ability to get bigger housing and other breeders perks.

[just john]

[quote user="cooperlola"] Don't get me wrong, I can't stand kids and would be very happy in a planet completely devoid of them.  But I do not see how we can possibly punish them for the sins of their parents.  Better that said parents go shoeless and food-less than their hapless offspring. And I certainly think it is irresponsible of "example" families like the Windsors and the Blairs to bang out large families, regardless.  They should set an example and stop at 2 (or preferably not have any at all - there are loads of other branches of the family who could - in the case of the  royals - do their jobs and for whose weddings the poor old UK taxpayers could foot the bill.)[/quote]

unfortunately the result of that would be that responsible people would not survive and the globe would be overpopulated by the less err . . . responsible

As for the Windsors well as previously stated ''the cost benefit analysis, according to the Beeb they cost £37m, and earn around £250m''

Much more importantly for me they are the Maginot Line against President Miliband, or the ilk

 

[Frederick]

[quote user="just john "]

[quote user="cooperlola"] Don't get me wrong, I can't stand kids and would be very happy in a planet completely devoid of them.  But I do not see how we can possibly punish them for the sins of their parents.  Better that said parents go shoeless and food-less than their hapless offspring. And I certainly think it is irresponsible of "example" families like the Windsors and the Blairs to bang out large families, regardless.  They should set an example and stop at 2 (or preferably not have any at all - there are loads of other branches of the family who could - in the case of the  royals - do their jobs and for whose weddings the poor old UK taxpayers could foot the bill.)[/quote]

unfortunately the result of that would be that responsible people would not survive and the globe would be overpopulated by the less err . . . responsible

As for the Windsors well as previously stated ''the cost benefit analysis, according to the Beeb they cost £37m, and earn around £250m''

Much more importantly for me they are the Maginot Line against President Miliband, or the ilk

 

So you will give the Queen a  grant for a new boiler then ?   .... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11403544

 

 

 

[/quote]

[Frederick]

[quote user="just john "]

[quote user="cooperlola"] Don't get me wrong, I can't stand kids and would be very happy in a planet completely devoid of them.  But I do not see how we can possibly punish them for the sins of their parents.  Better that said parents go shoeless and food-less than their hapless offspring. And I certainly think it is irresponsible of "example" families like the Windsors and the Blairs to bang out large families, regardless.  They should set an example and stop at 2 (or preferably not have any at all - there are loads of other branches of the family who could - in the case of the  royals - do their jobs and for whose weddings the poor old UK taxpayers could foot the bill.)[/quote]

unfortunately the result of that would be that responsible people would not survive and the globe would be overpopulated by the less err . . . responsible

As for the Windsors well as previously stated ''the cost benefit analysis, according to the Beeb they cost £37m, and earn around £250m''

Much more importantly for me they are the Maginot Line against President Miliband, or the ilk

 

So you will give the Queen a  grant for a new boiler then ?   .... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11403544

 

 

 

[/quote]

[crossy67]

[quote user="idun"]Save the planet, get the population down.

Make it an obscene choice to have more than 2 kids, (multiple births the exception), even if people can afford them, the planet cannot afford them. ie Blair and Cameron, lousy hypocrites of politians going on about carbon footprints and then breeding. It is not just the poor that breed.

No one should be keeping someone else's kids, not feeding, clothing and lodging them. (orphans are an exception of course)[/quote]

This is the one biggest p155 take of the modern world.  I have no children and never will yet I am made to feel like a murderer by the likes of GMYV (give me the vallium) for forgetting to unplug my phone charger then the next segment is applauding Ms Doleite for having 12 children.  My carbon footprint stops when I do, it won't go on for millennia growing exponentially.

Any way, back on topic.

Poverty is relevant.  If someone doesn't have access to a new laptop every other year does this make them poor?  I was very poor as a child and it wasn't the lack of money that I remember of my childhood.

[DraytonBoy]

One of the things our eldest said to us many times when we first came over was 'what's the point of moving here if we're going to be poor'. It took a few visits to her French friends to realise that she had no real idea of what poor was and the demands for a new mobile etc promptly stopped.

[Russethouse]

Some of you with no children are living in Cloud cuckoo land if you think that the £20 for the first and less for second, third and fourth children is enough of an incentive to make you want to procreate or the lack of it prevent you if you want to........[8-)][8-)]

[Pommier]

But if you look at Income Support rates, an unemployed teenager gets £51.85 a week, but if she's got 2 small children that goes up to over £140 a week plus rent, council tax etc.

Not a lot of money but maybe an incentive? I don't know, but it doesn't seem right that she would be allowed to be in this situation with no compulsory training or education to try and improve her lot (and more to the point the children's lots!)

[Quillan]

[quote user="Russethouse"]
Some of you with no children are living in Cloud cuckoo land if you think that the £20 for the first and less for second, third and fourth children is enough of an incentive to make you want to procreate or the lack of it prevent you if you want to........[8-)][8-)]

[/quote]

Well your right with regards to child benefit allowance but that's not the only one you will get.

If you are working (or one member of the family are) you will get an extra £73.27 per week

You also get a childcare benefit, working or not of £175.00 per week

The Child Tax credit is worth 54.72 per week

And of course your child benefit allowance of £20 per week

This makes a total of around £303 per week for the first child after that you get a lift of around 25% per child.

If you are not employed then you will loose some of these benefits but then you get different ones that nullify the loss and increase your effective income.

Have a look at the HM Revenue and Customs website for a more detailed breakdown.

[Hoddy]

There's something wrong here Q. Are you seriously trying to tell me that my hard-working single parent daughter gets £303 from the government each week for the first of her children with an additional amount for the second ?

Hoddy

[Patf]

From another source (which I'm sure is correct) :

An unemployed couple in the UK  with 5 children - £900+ per week

                                                             £45,000 per year

Equivalent to some £50,000 pa gross pay.

[Russethouse]

I'm glad you said that Hoddy - I look at the family next door, four( lovely )children, Mum works part time to fit with school hours, Dad has a semi skilled manual job, I guess they get tax credit and family allowance but I think thats about it.... if they got the sort of amount Q mentions they'd be living somewhere more upscale !