DDD social hot topic: House/Cash for Babies

DonDaddyD

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... house.html

Read in the paper today (not the Daily Mail) that a woman who has had 4/5 kids taken into care is planning on having another so that she can get a Council flat.

Is this right?

Should there be a law that actively prevents her from having another baby?

I firmly believe that you cannot and shouldn't attempt to dictate how many children a person should have. It's not for us to decide whether a person can or cannot afford to have another baby although the truth should be blindingly obvious.

While I think this case is an extreme, I do believe there are those who (arguably) irresponsibly and deliberately have children as a means of gaining financial support.

While there are job cuts and benefit cuts you could see a rise in people (women) doing this for extra financial support.

Should this be prevented and if so what would you do to prevent this?

And

In instances where parents are found to be good parents but have impractical housing or cannot sufficiently afford to raise their families, should they be upgraded given better homes or subsidised through taxes?

Clever Pun

hardly a 'hot topic' this kind of thing has been around for ages

kurako

Jeez. Have you seen the comments? The only way they could hate this woman more is if she was wearing lycra.

In other news, a large multi-national quietly managed to weasel their way out of a £6bn tax bill thanks to our caring sharing firm but fair coalition government..

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/artic ... _page_id=2

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

....

In instances where parents are found to be good parents but have impractical housing or cannot sufficiently afford to raise their families, should they be upgraded given better homes or subsidised through taxes?

Surely good parenting involves providing for their offspring

Therefore to be seeking state aid would surely mean they are failing to provide for at least some of the needs of their children.

Can a parent who fails to provide for the needs be considered a good parent.

The answer to the last question may differ if through accident/ disaster that was unavoidable they can currently no longer provide fully



[walks back from burning blue touch paper]

notsoblue

Its a loaded question, really. Why destroy an important social welfare service because a very small minority (inevitably) abuse it?

I guess you could make a case for getting rid of Jobseeker's Allowance because some people spend it all on booze or lottery tickets or (cheap) strippers.

W1

Kurako wrote:

Jeez. Have you seen the comments? The only way they could hate this woman more is if she was wearing lycra.

In other news, a large multi-national quietly managed to weasel their way out of a £6bn tax bill thanks to our caring sharing firm but fair coalition government..

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/artic ... _page_id=2

Or because HMRC didn't have enough confidence in their case to take it to court?

If not even HMRC seriously believe it's payable (and are able to prove it) then there's been no weaseling out of anything.

Still, good display put on by the commies.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

I firmly believe that you cannot and shouldn't attempt to dictate how many children a person should have. It's not for us to decide whether a person can or cannot afford to have another baby although the truth should be blindingly obvious.

Indeed. Let's not dictate whether people can have them or not. Let's just stop funding children after, say, the second. No limit on how many people can have, but a limit on how many the state should be obliged to pay for...

spen666

notsoblue wrote:

....

I guess you could make a case for getting rid of Jobseeker's Allowance because some people spend it all on booze or lottery tickets or (cheap) strippers.

Far simpler to get rid of the unemployed- anyone trying to claim any form of benefit will be automatically eliminated

DonDaddyD

I guess you could make a case for getting rid of Jobseeker's Allowance because some people spend it all on booze or lottery tickets or (cheap) strippers.

In some instances isn't jobseekers allowance witheld or aren't they making it the case for people who do abuse it?

wgwarburton

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I firmly believe that you cannot and shouldn't attempt to dictate how many children a person should have. It's not for us to decide whether a person can or cannot afford to have another baby although the truth should be blindingly obvious.

Indeed. Let's not dictate whether people can have them or not. Let's just stop funding children after, say, the second. No limit on how many people can have, but a limit on how many the state should be obliged to pay for...

The flaw I see in this is that you propose punishing the child for the sin of the parent(s).

Cheers,
W.

W1

WGWarburton wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I firmly believe that you cannot and shouldn't attempt to dictate how many children a person should have. It's not for us to decide whether a person can or cannot afford to have another baby although the truth should be blindingly obvious.

Indeed. Let's not dictate whether people can have them or not. Let's just stop funding children after, say, the second. No limit on how many people can have, but a limit on how many the state should be obliged to pay for...

The flaw I see in this is that you propose punishing the child for the sin of the parent(s).

Cheers,
W.

Righto, let's make it illegal to have more than two kids then?

It's an impossible situation, because you are right - it's not the kid's fault. But it's not the taxpayer's fault either of course.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

I guess you could make a case for getting rid of Jobseeker's Allowance because some people spend it all on booze or lottery tickets or (cheap) strippers.

In some instances isn't jobseekers allowance witheld or aren't they making it the case for people who do abuse it?

I've not heard about this. This is what Direct.gov.uk says...

To get Jobseeker's Allowance you must be:
- available for, capable and actively seeking work
- aged 18 or over but below State Pension age
- working less than 16 hours per week on average
- in Great Britain

My point still stands though, you can make a case for getting rid of any benefit by inflating the perception of how big the loopholes are or how many people abuse it.

Whats interesting to me though, is that its far worse in this society to be someone who has a baby to receive a council flat, than to be someone senior in the financial industry who exploits a tax loophole to essentially steal millions/billions from the government. Not making a value judgement, just think its interesting...

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Whats interesting to me though, is that its far worse in this society to be someone who has a baby to receive a council flat, than to be someone senior in the financial industry who exploits a tax loophole to essentially steal millions/billions from the government. Not making a value judgement, just think its interesting...

At the risk of repeating the 2010 national George Osbourne scalping championships, how are they "essentially" stealing money?

How much does the welfare state cost?

And not making a value judgement? - "receive" vs "steal"....hmm.

wgwarburton

W1 wrote:

...Righto, let's make it illegal to have more than two kids then?

It's an impossible situation, because you are right - it's not the kid's fault. But it's not the taxpayer's fault either of course.

Indeed. On the other hand- would it be reasonable to propose that someone who has all of their current children in care can expect to have any future offspring taken into care immediately, too?
If so, it may be possible to help them understand that this won't get them the council house they desire. At least that might remove the incentive.
(I havn't read the original article, though, maybe this isn't applicable/relevant.)

Cheers,
W.

W1

WGWarburton wrote:

W1 wrote:

...Righto, let's make it illegal to have more than two kids then?

It's an impossible situation, because you are right - it's not the kid's fault. But it's not the taxpayer's fault either of course.

Indeed. On the other hand- would it be reasonable to propose that someone who has all of their current children in care can expect to have any future offspring taken into care immediately, too?
If so, it may be possible to help them understand that this won't get them the council house they desire. At least that might remove the incentive.
(I havn't read the original article, though, maybe this isn't applicable/relevant.)

Cheers,
W.

Without wishing to make sweeping generalisations, the cost (short term and long term) of children in care probably makes putting them up in council houses a cheaper option.....

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

At the risk of repeating the 2010 national George Osbourne scalping championships, how are they "essentially" stealing money?

Well that has been discussed to death, and we didn't agree. Probably not worth getting into that again?

W1 wrote:

How much does the welfare state cost?

Well according to this article its £152bn. I suppose the relevant question here is how much of that is fraud. According to this article it was ~£900m in '08-'09. Another question would be how much of that is people having babies specifically for the purpose of claiming more benefit. There are no figures for that...

W1 wrote:

And not making a value judgement? - "receive" vs "steal"....hmm.

You got me there. Must have slipped out. Pretend that I said

"Whats interesting to me though, is that its far worse in this society to be someone who has a baby to receive a council flat, than to be someone senior in the financial industry who exploits a tax loophole to receive millions/billions in unintended tax relief from the government. Not making a value judgement, just think its interesting."

W1

notsoblue wrote:

You got me there. Must have slipped out. Pretend that I said

"Whats interesting to me though, is that its far worse in this society to be someone who has a baby to receive a council flat, than to be someone senior in the financial industry who exploits a tax loophole to receive steal millions/billions in unintended tax credit from the government. Not making a value judgement, just think its interesting."

Erm.....!

wgwarburton

W1 wrote:

...Without wishing to make sweeping generalisations, the cost (short term and long term) of children in care probably makes putting them up in council houses a cheaper option.....

That's almost certainly true. However, in many cases they will end up in care anyway, so you're just delaying intervention. The outcome for the child may well be better, depending on the quality of care that can be provided, and by removing the incentive to have more children you may reduce the scale of the problem.

Often, by the time a child is taken into care they have already cost the state very large amounts of money. There's a case for early intervention, especially in cases where the parent(s) have a track record of failure.

As ever, it's nigh on impossible to tell the difference between a "record of failure" and a spectacular mistake from which hard lessons have been learned.... and the people we are expecting to do so are generally the social workers who are working under ever increasing pressure and rising caseloads.

Cheers,
W.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

You got me there. Must have slipped out. Pretend that I said

"Whats interesting to me though, is that its far worse in this society to be someone who has a baby to receive a council flat, than to be someone senior in the financial industry who exploits a tax loophole to receive steal millions/billions in unintended tax credit from the government. Not making a value judgement, just think its interesting."

Erm.....!

Oops, it still got through! Was posted in haste, edited now :P

tailwindhome

I have 4 kids

If someone could tell me how I could run them at a profit I'd be grateful

Ta

Sc00bs

TWH, paper-rounds, coal mines, chimney sweepers, shoe-shine boys/girls - loadsa ways!

Oh and a final thought - ALWAYS make 'em earn their pocket monies! (bikes/cars cleaned is my fave!).

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I firmly believe that you cannot and shouldn't attempt to dictate how many children a person should have. It's not for us to decide whether a person can or cannot afford to have another baby although the truth should be blindingly obvious.

Indeed. Let's not dictate whether people can have them or not. Let's just stop funding children after, say, the second. No limit on how many people can have, but a limit on how many the state should be obliged to pay for...

The flaw I see in this is that you propose punishing the child for the sin of the parent(s).

Cheers,
W.

Righto, let's make it illegal to have more than two kids then?

It's an impossible situation, because you are right - it's not the kid's fault. But it's not the taxpayer's fault either of course.

I think W makes a very important point. But I would imagine that many wouldn't see it so much as a flaw, but as an irrelevant (and unfortunate) consequence.

Do we really want to live in a society where more children are ending up destitute just because of an accident of birth? Isn't it worth putting up with a few annoying fraudsters to prevent this?

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I firmly believe that you cannot and shouldn't attempt to dictate how many children a person should have. It's not for us to decide whether a person can or cannot afford to have another baby although the truth should be blindingly obvious.

Indeed. Let's not dictate whether people can have them or not. Let's just stop funding children after, say, the second. No limit on how many people can have, but a limit on how many the state should be obliged to pay for...

The flaw I see in this is that you propose punishing the child for the sin of the parent(s).

Cheers,
W.

Righto, let's make it illegal to have more than two kids then?

It's an impossible situation, because you are right - it's not the kid's fault. But it's not the taxpayer's fault either of course.

I think W makes a very important point. But I would imagine that many wouldn't see it so much as a flaw, but as an irrelevant (and unfortunate) consequence.

Do we really want to live in a society where more children are ending up destitute just because of an accident of birth? Isn't it worth putting up with a few annoying fraudsters to prevent this?

What's the difference between a fraudster and someone who just fails to consider the financial burden of a child because the state will help pick up the tab? I think there are a few of the former and plenty of the latter. And really it's the latter that are the biggest issue. Do we really want to be in a position whereby working people who take financial responsibility for themselves decide they can't afford children, and only those living off the state do? I can see a possible flaw in the long term plan....

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

What's the difference between a fraudster and someone who just fails to consider the financial burden of a child because the state will help pick up the tab? I think there are a few of the former and plenty of the latter. And really it's the latter that are the biggest issue.

Well the difference is a new human life. And it *is* a big issue. But what can you do without enforcing a limit on how many children a family can have based on their ability to provide for them?

W1 wrote:

Do we really want to be in a position whereby working people who take financial responsibility for themselves decide they can't afford children, and only those living off the state do? I can see a possible flaw in the long term plan....

Well thats just never going to be the case.... What will be the case is that some people that delay, or decide not to have kids for financial reasons will be indirectly subsidising some people that have children specifically so they can get more off the state. But then thats the price we pay for social security *and* the freedom of choice to have as many or as few children as we would like.

unixnerd

You can be banned from keeping animals in this country but not banned from having children. I've seen too many kids with hopeless parents who put all the load (financial and otherwise) onto relatives and grand-parents, it's just not fair. And of course their kids suffer too. You should need a licence to have kids.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

What's the difference between a fraudster and someone who just fails to consider the financial burden of a child because the state will help pick up the tab? I think there are a few of the former and plenty of the latter. And really it's the latter that are the biggest issue.

Well the difference is a new human life. And it *is* a big issue. But what can you do without enforcing a limit on how many children a family can have based on their ability to provide for them?

W1 wrote:

Do we really want to be in a position whereby working people who take financial responsibility for themselves decide they can't afford children, and only those living off the state do? I can see a possible flaw in the long term plan....

Well thats just never going to be the case.... What will be the case is that some people that delay, or decide not to have kids for financial reasons will be indirectly subsidising some people that have children specifically so they can get more off the state. But then thats the price we pay for social security *and* the freedom of choice to have as many or as few children as we would like.

I meant a fraudster in the context of someone who deliberately has children to get a bigger house, rather than someone who is "tax efficient"...

And if those who work but can't afford to have children don't do so, it's not completely absurd to consider that in a few generations there could be a imbalance between children brought up with a good work ethic and those who know their rights and what benefits they're entitled to, but don't work. There are already instances of generations of families who never work.