Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
The system's there, so i don't blame her. The guy reasons that it's not in his family's interestes to work - they'll make more. He's actually being a pretty good provider eh!
You can see why people do it, but we need to bring this sort of thing to an end.
State support for your first two kids (exceptions made for twins, triplets obviously) then after that you're on your own.
to stop this shit from happening.
but I still don't blame the couple.
is more profitable to the nation than being one or two tax-payers ?
I genuinely believe people should be discouraged from having more than 3/4 kids. The world is filling up, and the population doubles around every 50 years.
And our international economic policies are pretty much guaranteed to ensure the third world can't afford to feed the population it has...
I'd say it's a very real consideration for us.
Apart from immigrants who are likely to leave and take their kids with them at some stage.
We need more children to pay for all the old people. The infrastructure can manage fine.
the birth rate is dropping
but so is the death rate
i was watching a lecture about things that allow life to flourish, and things that cause it to diminish - famine, poverty, war, natural disasters contraception etc
The lecturer pointed out that actually, if those things didn't happen of their own accord, we'd have to consider them anyway to stop the world filling up completely.
The IMF and the like don't encourage countries to develop their own industry and this means they can't afford to feed themselves. They could support a much larger population if they were industrialised (as I understand it).
but what I'm saying is, if industry is promoted and the world prospers, we're going to fill up. Completely. So is enforced contraception the worst way of dealing with that?
Obviously i'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm not about to give a eugenics lecture. OR AM I?
History has taught us that a society that is industrialised, highly technological and with a high standard of living tends not to have many kids.
that neatly answers my musings! Thank you indeed.
It's true that it's happened here in the first world. I have no idea if that means it would necessarily work out that way but it seems to be the way.
We've got people in this country who are third generation lifestyle benefit recipients.
Even in the unlikely event that all 8 of these children end up in full time employment, they're going to have to earn a hell of a lot just to cover the cost of subsidising their parents Waltons fantasy.
they're spending all this money so they're all paying VAT and all the shops who receive the cash are being taxed and even benefits are taxed aren't they?
and besides, they take care of 7 or 8 kids which if the kids were someone elses and they were employed to do they'd be earning a lot more than 42k a year
Supporting 10 people on 42k a year is pretty cheap
and they don't go on holiday
they stay in the UK and they consume
sounds like they're good for the economy
and she wants SIX MORE?
You could probably climb inside her.
considering the context of the story.
the interviewer has been a shit, if you read the text - clearly they thought they would be getting to put across a more 'it's tough' side of their life. Media love fick people to manipulate.
That photo has been arranged by the writer/'tographer very specifically.
given they'd had every opportunity to know what the fuck would happen, then people can be easily led by sympathetic seeming journalists out to do a vicious hatchet job. :D
are employed in public services or something.
While it's tempting to follow the Mail's line of disgust here I'm thinking that for a family that size the amount of money they're getting in benefits probably isn't that much and the whole 'cheaper not to work thing' is likely quite accurate, given what sort of wages you might reasonably expect to get from the majority of jobs.
That's higher than it was in many countries behind the Iron Curtain in the 70s and 80s. It's insane.
But if you look at it mathematically, they're probably being quite financially efficient at the whole reproduction thing. 2 adults raising six kids on £815 pounds per month. The OP perhaps wasn't far off the truth. It is almost a case of farming kids.
It's only the sense of entitlement of those wanting to have kids but not doing so cos they don't want to do it on a shoestring that means that this is something to resent.
</unconvincing Bammers effort>
It's a bit of a shocker, eh?
"'It's really hard,' said Mrs Davey, 29, who is seven months pregnant. 'We can't afford holidays and I don't want my kids living on a council estate and struggling like I have."
"'The price of living is going up but benefits are going down. My carer's allowance is only going up by 80p this year and petrol is so expensive now, I'm worried how we'll cope."
"Despite filing for bankruptcy 18 months ago after racking up £20,000 of debt on mail order catalogues they still insist on splashing out on four presents per child at birthdays and last Christmas spent £2,000 on gifts alone."
"She added: 'I don't feel bad about being subsidised by people who are working. I'm just working with the system that's there. 'If the government wants to give me money, I'm happy to take it. We get what we're entitled to."
"And she adds: 'I've always wanted a big family - no one can tell me how many kids I can have whether I'm working or not.'"
It's the apparent sense of entitlement that's REALLY FUCKING HARD to stomach. REALLY HARD.
The sense of entitlement may be there or it may be the result of presenting the interview in a very specific way and via very specific questions.
Or they may just be complete idiots who have no understanding of how the readership of the Mail will view them.
it's the gingerness
for apparent sense of entitlement see bank directors bonuses, MPs fraudulent expense claims, pharmaceutical fleecing of public health policy etc.
There's a black and hidden part of my heart that thinks that the Tories getting in might actually shake a few milkers-of-the-state into some acknowledgement of harsher realities.
And then I realise it's the Tories, and when all is said and done, I'd rather subsidise a few scroungers than bankroll swathes of already minted folk.
Stop having kids then, you stupid fucking bint.
£815 a WEEK.
find it so difficult to believe that maybe, just maybe, the people concerned genuinely are lazy, stupid, entitled cunts. It's pretty easy for me to think the people in these isolated case are just that AND retain respect and faith in our welfare system generally.
if he figured out the system offers him a way of being at home with his family and getting MORE money for doing so than driving to and from a meaningless office admin job every day
absolutely y that indeed.
Anschul's right though - for all that this lot aren't that smart "daily mail? piece about our kids and benefits? Yes please" (always assuming Paul Dacre didn't hand them a chunky brown envelope of course), it's the system that's at fault really, I'm sure if most people here found that they'd get more money not coming in to their admin job where they post on DiS and it posts their post before they've finished it, they'd stop.
I don't think he needed an abacus to figure out he was better off staying at home once wifey dropped their 5th or 6th sprog. You might be giving hime a bit too much credit.
I'm just pointing out that we have very little to go on except a story that perfectly fits the template for the paper in which it appears, and by its nature that forces us to question it.