This story just shows what a mess our welfare state is in.

[User removed 4]

I said 'it's part of a wider plan to demonise those on benefits'. That means anyone, 'scrounger' or not.

I have a disabled friend who has been called various names by ***** who read the extreme stories in the trashy media and are unable to seperate truth from fiction.

This story has some truth, but thanks to The Sun, much fiction. I'm sure the woman is taking folk for a ride, but the wider publicity means the salivating hoards of right wing ideologists will use it to crack another hammer to important parts of the welfare state.

Paranoid rubbish.

 

[Albumen]

Are you bitter about other people's success?

You complete fool.

 

[matthew]

Should be illegal to have that many kids let alone make the government support them

 

[piersa]

You complete fool.

 

[Albumen]

See? It's easy.

 

[Biscuit]

I see it as a question of personal responsibility. It's up to the individual to not have more children than they can afford. Of course there needs to be safeguards in place to stop people living on the streets and that's why a two child cap on Child Benefit makes sense to me. That would allow everyone the right to have children regardless of financial security but crucially stops people abusing the system.

 

[Nibble]

I see it as a question of personal responsibility. It's up to the individual to not have more children than they can afford. Of course there needs to be safeguards in place to stop people living on the streets and that's why a two child cap on Child Benefit makes sense to me. That would allow everyone the right to have children regardless of financial security but crucially stops people abusing the system.

It wouldn't work though. Effectively you may as well introduce Chinese law and limit every family to 2 children. What about the wife whose husband dies and is left to bring up 3 or 4 children who could afford it when the husband was alive and working. What about the beaten wife who leaves her abusive husband with her 3 kids? What about the single parent with 3 kids who gets made redundant? This is unfortunately typical Tory thinking, make themselves look good for their core votes (White, right leaning, educated, well paid) and if there is collateral damage then f*** them, we'll make them look like scroungers so nobody likes them anyway. A sad state of affairs, the Tory's are going to send this country back to the f***ing Victorian era.

 

[BigGully]

It wouldn't work though. Effectively you may as well introduce Chinese law and limit every family to 2 children. What about the wife whose husband dies and is left to bring up 3 or 4 children who could afford it when the husband was alive and working. What about the beaten wife who leaves her abusive husband with her 3 kids? What about the single parent with 3 kids who gets made redundant? This is unfortunately typical Tory thinking, make themselves look good for their core votes (White, right leaning, educated, well paid) and if there is collateral damage then f*** them, we'll make them look like scroungers so nobody likes them anyway. A sad state of affairs, the Tory's are going to send this country back to the f***ing Victorian era.

It needn't be so politicised.

Personal responsibility is a reasonable aspiration in everything we do, if this is so readily dismissed then you end up with a system that is seen as too accessible and unaccountable.

For most the dynamic of the workplace is difficult and the rewards negligible, claimants must be challenged and their merits assessed too.

The OP was about this woman with 11 children and the spend on her new house, I suspect from child 1 to child 11 the system did not have the tools to challenge or sanction and so it continued, it is replicated to a different scale throughout our society.

You cannot just 'spirit it away' the benefit question by using words like tories, daily mail, bankers, white, or victorian, its an issue that need some attention, whoever you vote for.

 

[Silk]

BBC News - Heather Frost may turn down offer of purpose built home

Makes me happy I pay tax to support people like this. Get a job you Pikey.

What's your solution? You don't think people who can't afford to buy a house should just live in a tent, I would guess? Let's hear your solution. I would rather her and her kids were housed than left on the streets, and there'd be absolutely no difference either way to the amount of tax you or I would be paying.

 

[BigGully]

What's your solution? You don't think people who can't afford to buy a house should just live in a tent, I would guess? Let's hear your solution. I would rather her and her kids were housed than left on the streets, and there'd be absolutely no difference either way to the amount of tax you or I would be paying.

Of course tax spend effects the amount of tax we pay, why wouldnt it.

 

[Silk]

Of course tax spend effects the amount of tax we pay, why wouldnt it.

Remind me when we last experienced a tax cut then, sonny. The public sector is being slashed to hell, and as a result, you've seen a tax reduction I've missed, have you?

 

[sten_super]

Remind me when we last experienced a tax cut then, sonny. The public sector is being slashed to hell, and as a result, you've seen a tax reduction I've missed, have you?

HM Revenue Customs: Income tax rates and Allowances 2012-13 and 2013-14

For 2013-14, the main rates of income tax will be the 20 per cent basic rate, the 40 per cent higher rate and the additional rate will be reduced from 50% to 45%.

Since the coalition came into power they've also increased the personal allowance, while the basic rate of income tax was cut in 2008(?).

I accept that these are much more to do with politics than book balancing - but that's hardly surprising when, despite the cuts to the public sector, the UK government is still spending far more than it's able to raise in revenues, is it?

Do you really not believe that, in the long term at least, there's some link between itemised expenditure and taxation levels?

 

[Silk]

Do you really not believe that, in the long term at least, there's some link between itemised expenditure and taxation levels?

That wasn't actually what I said was it? Of course there's a link. In general though, as you hinted at, tax cuts are usually made to appeal to certain groups of voters, normally just before an election, and always I suggest balanced by an increase elsewhere.

 

[User removed 4]

That wasn't actually what I said was it? Of course there's a link. In general though, as you hinted at, tax cuts are usually made to appeal to certain groups of voters, normally just before an election, and always I suggest balanced by an increase elsewhere.

No, what you said was " Remind me when we last experienced a tax cut then, sonny ", and sten_super posted a link showing when we did.

 

[sten_super]

That wasn't actually what I said was it? Of course there's a link. In general though, as you hinted at, tax cuts are usually made to appeal to certain groups of voters, normally just before an election, and always I suggest balanced by an increase elsewhere.

This was what you originally said;

there'd be absolutely no difference either way to the amount of tax you or I would be paying.

So if there is a link, as you now acknowledge, your original statement doesn't really hold up, IMHO. At the very least, there would be a shift between who pays the tax burden, one which some portions of society will benefit from. I certainly personally benefited from the increase in personal allowance, as I'm not a higher rate tax payer (the lowering of the boundary for which, I seem to remember, was the move made to balance the books).

 

[Biscuit]

It wouldn't work though. Effectively you may as well introduce Chinese law and limit every family to 2 children. What about the wife whose husband dies and is left to bring up 3 or 4 children who could afford it when the husband was alive and working. What about the beaten wife who leaves her abusive husband with her 3 kids? What about the single parent with 3 kids who gets made redundant? This is unfortunately typical Tory thinking, make themselves look good for their core votes (White, right leaning, educated, well paid) and if there is collateral damage then f*** them, we'll make them look like scroungers so nobody likes them anyway. A sad state of affairs, the Tory's are going to send this country back to the f***ing Victorian era.

Some good examples there of why this would need grey areas. But surely more state support could be provided if a 'change of circumstance' in the vein you mention occurs. I see no reason why common sense shouldn't be able to prevail.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

So how would a mother and with six children survive then?
Or someone who had six and lost their job?

It would not be retrospective.
This may be a genuine claim.

Anyone making a decision on their family size needs to factor in all potential situations. There must be a limit as to how much the state is going to support large families or the country will go totally skint and no-one will get any support at all.

 

[BigGully]

That wasn't actually what I said was it? Of course there's a link. In general though, as you hinted at, tax cuts are usually made to appeal to certain groups of voters, normally just before an election, and always I suggest balanced by an increase elsewhere.

Oi Silky you silly person.

You have just contradicted your original reply, but at least you are learning.

 

[Nottseagull]

I am not sure your example of either 11 children to one mother....

Has it been stated anywhere how many fathers are involved (or has nobody dared to ask?)

 

[Stat Brother]

Has it been stated anywhere how many fathers are involved (or has nobody dared to ask?)

She doesn't come across as the type who has many repeat 'offenders'.