Fair to complain?

thelawnet

DonDaddyD wrote:

I do not think these people living a life and claiming that which they are entitled to should be the subject of ridicule and complaint. If I'm entitled to claim a benefit I will be claiming it as is my right and I'm not going to be made to feel bad doing so, nor is it anyone's right to judge.

Their choices are entirely rational, but we can still question the policies that influenced them.

Also, if you choose to appear in the media complaining about not being able to feed 7 kids on the wages of part-time labour, it's reasonable to anticipate that you will be judged.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

I think the point of the matter is this.

Whether you like it or not we live in a Country that provides state benefits to those who qualify. "Child benefits" is one of them. Now I don't know about you lot but I like living in a society with these and I don't mind some of my salary going towards these things as there are clear benefits and for me those outweigh the negatives.

There are those, who work and receive benefits who were able to live within their means and who now cannot because either their particular benefit system has changed, the funding has been reduced and/or because the cost of living has gone up. You cannot criticise a family who worked out (pre-election) their finances which includes child benefits or housing benefits and are now complaining because it isn't enough and they cannot make the bills. It's a problem we all may face benefits or not. It is unrealistic to expect everyone to have the financial smarts to make a household budget robust enough to withstand some of the worst inflation we've seen in the past 20years. - To put that into perspective this is the first time in my lifetime such a thing has ever directly affected me.

I do not think these people living a life and claiming that which they are entitled to should be the subject of ridicule and complaint. If I'm entitled to claim a benefit I will be claiming it as is my right and I'm not going to be made to feel bad doing so, nor is it anyone's right to judge.

However many kids a person has is a personal choice. We do not get to decide how many another person 'should have' or if 'they can afford it'. Similarly if parents are unfit to raise those children, then we have, as a society, systems in place to protect those children.

Now seriously, I'm done.

+1 Some posts on this thread are just a hop, skip and a jump away from Victorian ideas about stopping the poor from breeding. I'd like to think we'd moved on a bit in the last century, but it seems not. that far.

rolf_f

DonDaddyD wrote:

You cannot criticise a family who worked out (pre-election) their finances which includes child benefits or housing benefits and are now complaining because it isn't enough and they cannot make the bills. It's a problem we all may face benefits or not. It is unrealistic to expect everyone to have the financial smarts to make a household budget robust enough to withstand some of the worst inflation we've seen in the past 20years. - To put that into perspective this is the first time in my lifetime such a thing has ever directly affected me.

Of course you can criticise a family for failing to plan for the future. However you should expect that people will behave that way - but that doesn't mean you can't criticise them. In this case, it wasn't that their budget planning wasn't enough to cope with the workst inflation in 20 years - it wasn't enough to cope with any change for the worst.

And what is this 'financial smarts' - gak! You aren't American. If you must use Americanisms, please, please try to avoid the truly ghastly ones. Please (I'm begging here!).

Cleat Eastwood

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I think the point of the matter is this.

Whether you like it or not we live in a Country that provides state benefits to those who qualify. "Child benefits" is one of them. Now I don't know about you lot but I like living in a society with these and I don't mind some of my salary going towards these things as there are clear benefits and for me those outweigh the negatives.

There are those, who work and receive benefits who were able to live within their means and who now cannot because either their particular benefit system has changed, the funding has been reduced and/or because the cost of living has gone up. You cannot criticise a family who worked out (pre-election) their finances which includes child benefits or housing benefits and are now complaining because it isn't enough and they cannot make the bills. It's a problem we all may face benefits or not. It is unrealistic to expect everyone to have the financial smarts to make a household budget robust enough to withstand some of the worst inflation we've seen in the past 20years. - To put that into perspective this is the first time in my lifetime such a thing has ever directly affected me.

I do not think these people living a life and claiming that which they are entitled to should be the subject of ridicule and complaint. If I'm entitled to claim a benefit I will be claiming it as is my right and I'm not going to be made to feel bad doing so, nor is it anyone's right to judge.

However many kids a person has is a personal choice. We do not get to decide how many another person 'should have' or if 'they can afford it'. Similarly if parents are unfit to raise those children, then we have, as a society, systems in place to protect those children.

Now seriously, I'm done.

+1 Some posts on this thread are just a hop, skip and a jump away from Victorian ideas about stopping the poor from breeding. I'd like to think we'd moved on a bit in the last century, but it seems not. that far.

+100 state benefits

Which is why I suggested peoples views of those on benefits are tainted by their own insecurities and jealousies.

Have to go now....gotta sign on for my 18 kids.

dhope

DonDaddyD wrote:

However many kids a person has is a personal choice. We do not get to decide how many another person 'should have' or if 'they can afford it'. Similarly if parents are unfit to raise those children, then we have, as a society, systems in place to protect those children.

It is a personal choice. Many can and will make a sh*t choice and their offspring may suffer as a result.
It's not our place to dictate how many kids they can have.
It's entirely our place to judge them based on their choices.

MrChuck

DonDaddyD wrote:

I do not think these people living a life and claiming that which they are entitled to should be the subject of ridicule and complaint. If I'm entitled to claim a benefit I will be claiming it as is my right and I'm not going to be made to feel bad doing so, nor is it anyone's right to judge.

It's a bit more nuanced than that though I think. As above, we have a beneifts system that we all pay into and if it came to it none of us should feel bad about claiming from it just as we're entitled to. And as has been pointed out, an awful lot of people who've done no more than is reasonable by getting a mortgage and having a couple of kids could easily find themselves in hot water if one or two things went wrong for them- they say most people are only 6 weeks away from the street after all.

And I'm sure nobody would suggest that you should be earning £X or have some sort of financial audit before you're allowed to have kids.

But there's all that, and then there's having 7 children on minimum wage*. Maybe that's where gaps start to open up in what people think is what's reasonable and what isn't, and between the letter and the spirit of what people are entitled to.

* Or certainly a pretty low one.

rick_chasey

thelawnet wrote:

So obviously you decide that the no-prospects, no-future option is more attractive as it leaves you with plenty of free time compared with working a full week for no more money.

The cynical on the right call this the client state, a deliberate policy to maintain a large pool of voters dependent on the state for survival and therefore a guaranteed source of votes come election time.

What's the alternative solution then?

It's all very well whinging but a) I think that you are all making out living off benefits is a higher quality of life than it actually is, and b) I can't see an alternative that is better than the current system, especially given how proportionally small cases like this actually are.

Sewinman

The most interesting thing about this story is that it is a good illustration of how inflation is much more damaging to the poor than the rich.

As the data today shows:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13757680

CyclingBantam

Rolf F wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Then what? Have children in poverty? Foster care homes are hardly havens for excellent upbringings.

The point is (IMO!) that it is wrong to have loads of kids and expect the state to pay for them but it is right that the state does pay for it.

+1 but Rick seems to be intent on taking the discussion in a different direction to the rest of us.

Come on Rick, what are you getting at?

rick_chasey

CyclingBantam wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Then what? Have children in poverty? Foster care homes are hardly havens for excellent upbringings.

The point is (IMO!) that it is wrong to have loads of kids and expect the state to pay for them but it is right that the state does pay for it.

+1 but Rick seems to be intent on taking the discussion in a different direction to the rest of us.

Come on Rick, what are you getting at?

Ah, I take issue with people hitting on the poor, disadvantaged, and those who need help, especially when what they're accused of doing happens pretty much across the spectrum in some form or other.

It's further salt into the wound when those that do it at the advantaged, rich end are doing it with much bigger numbers.

I feel I need to defend stuff like benefits - which are necessary to keep more people from falling off the edge.

mudcow007

im not against benefits or people that claim benefits

benefits are there to help people in times of need etc

but what grinds my gears are the people who actively seek to claim benefits instead of support themselves


that make sense?

airbusboy

DonDaddyD wrote:

There are some really nasty people coming out of the woodwork on this website at the moment.

airbusboy wrote:

' If you can't feed them, don't breed them'. .

Can you please explain why i am nasty?

I wouldn't class myself as nasty for merely pointing out the obvious. Benefits are there for a reason, people just take the p*ss out of the system. I have no problem with families claiming for 2-3 children if they need there salaries topping up, but 5,6,7..... that is a serious conscious decision to have that many, and so while making such a decision they should review there lifestyle, affordability, housing requirements and the NEEDS of the children they already have. Benefits are there to help/support in difficult times (lose a job etc), not to build a huge family upon.

My comments on the working families spending less time with there kids is spot on; the system is technically rewarding the people who have no intention of working allowing them to stay at home, enjoy bringing up there kids, and at the end of the day that's funded by you and me .........


I

CiB

I agree with DDD; I was well into well thought out post on the subject but the power went off and it went away, and I can't be ar$ed to type it all again. Suffice to say that society is happy to pay out for families to have kids, we don't and never should differentiate between child #1 and child #12, and if a family takes a bit more advantage of that situation than others do, good for them.

I'm 1 of 6 BTW, so am naturally minded to side with big families. It shouldn't be encouraged but once a family gets to that size what can a govt reasonably do? Whatever your answer, think of it from the viewpoint of child #7, #8 or whatever. It's only money. People and esp little people, are more important than small amounts of govt spending.

CyclingBantam

spen666 wrote:

CyclingBantam wrote:

....
No I'm not saying you should save up the full amount. Don't be obtuse.

I am saying there is a balance between saving up naff all and saving up the full amount. The point is, by having 7 children (which is not neccessary) you are opening up to massive cost, like you clearly point out, despite having no way of paying the cost (there is no doubt that has happened in this case).

I don't have children however, I would bet pretty much anyone one here, when they did decide to have children, considered if they can provide for them or if they would have to live on food hand outs should things get any worse.

That is what is lacking in the case in point.

This family could afford until the economy too ka turn for the worst.

If you lost your job, could you afford to pay your mortgage still~?

No, well then by your logic you have been irresponsible and stupid in taking on a commitment you cannot afford.

There is a world of difference between been unemplyed and poping out kids every 9 months for the benefits you can claim and someone who as a result of a change in circumstances cannot afford their previously affordable expenses.

Someone on here suggested there is a recession every 7-12 years, well if that is true, most people have a risk of losing emplyment every 7-12 years and so to take your logic would be advised not to have children as they may no longer be able to afford them.

fortunately, not everyone is so materialistic and when bad times come, people adjust their lifestyles accordingly

The point you are intent on ignoring is that if I lost my job now, I could survive for a reasonable amount of time (reasonable being an amount of time I believe I could gain employment again, bearing in mind I could cope with a loss in income because I didn't max out my Mortgage and have overpaid etc). Me losing my job would also be the extreme.

The discussion and situation here is that is isn't something totally extreme that has happened. They still have the same income they always did, it is just the cost of living has risen. Because they have pushed themselves so close to the line (by having so many kids (and it is fair to assume their biggest single cost is their children)) they have no scope to absorb any change. They then are unable to suitably provide for their children (which they didn't need to have).

There are a lot of additional thinks that get thrown in to these discussions (usually by DDD ) that I want to be clear on.

Nobody has said there should be a limit on how many kids you can have.
Nobody has said you should earn £x per child
Nobody has said you should not provide benefits for people who can't provide for themeslves.

The main issue is putting yourself in a position where you can't then afford your own children through having too many of them.

gllewellyn

thelawnet wrote:

Also, if you choose to appear in the media complaining about not being able to feed 7 kids on the wages of part-time labour, it's reasonable to anticipate that you will be judged.

At no point in the article does it say that they work part-time...

The thing that shocked me about the article, is that I know the family in question...
Whilst I don't know the in's and out's of their finances (unlike thelawnet who apparently does), I do know that both parents work bloody hard.

I think it's worth pointing out that the facts from the article - they are not scrounging, they are not saying they should be receiving more state aid, they are not making any statement about their rights (or not) to have 7 kids, they are simply commenting on how the cost of living has been rising relative to incomes, and the effect that has on families.
The fact that they have 7 kids I think just means that they experience these hardships before many others. I'm sure there are many families with much fewer kids who are experiencing similar difficulties...

What I think is a much bigger issue is the families who choose to not work, knowing they can live off benefits (which is not the case here).

rick_chasey

mudcow007 wrote:

im not against benefits or people that claim benefits

benefits are there to help people in times of need etc

but what grinds my gears are the people who actively seek to claim benefits instead of support themselves


that make sense?

Yeah, I get it.

It's just, well, I hear and read a lot of sh!t about the same groups of people, scroungers, chavs, whatever, and yet the people who get up to similar sh!t elsewhere don't get the same abuse.

It's pretty easy to have a go at some poor (literally) person who can barely cope with themselves let alone a job, who have children as a way almost to find some love or devotion in an otherwise reasonably bleak life.

These people usually have a background of abuse in some form in their childhood, or other anti-social circumstances.

From their background, they've never had a chance, and a little state relief is all they have from falling through the cracks into proper unsupported homelessness or criminality.

Sure there are exceptions, but this generalisation is closer to the truth than the "cyncical wanker scroungers" generalisation.

mudcow007

gllewellyn wrote:

At no point in the article does it say that they work part-time...

The thing that shocked me about the article, is that I know the family in question...
Whilst I don't know the in's and out's of their finances (unlike thelawnet who apparently does), I do know that both parents work bloody hard.

I think it's worth pointing out that the facts from the article - they are not scrounging, they are not saying they should be receiving more state aid, they are not making any statement about their rights (or not) to have 7 kids, they are simply commenting on how the cost of living has been rising relative to incomes, and the effect that has on families.
The fact that they have 7 kids I think just means that they experience these hardships before many others. I'm sure there are many families with much fewer kids who are experiencing similar difficulties...

What I think is a much bigger issue is the families who choose to not work, knowing they can live off benefits (which is not the case here).

i dont think this discussion is about that specific family TBH, i think its rather about having X amount of kids and being able to provide for them an not just relying on benefits

CyclingBantam

Rick Chasey wrote:

CyclingBantam wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Then what? Have children in poverty? Foster care homes are hardly havens for excellent upbringings.

The point is (IMO!) that it is wrong to have loads of kids and expect the state to pay for them but it is right that the state does pay for it.

+1 but Rick seems to be intent on taking the discussion in a different direction to the rest of us.

Come on Rick, what are you getting at?

Ah, I take issue with people hitting on the poor, disadvantaged, and those who need help, especially when what they're accused of doing happens pretty much across the spectrum in some form or other.

It's further salt into the wound when those that do it at the advantaged, rich end are doing it with much bigger numbers.

I feel I need to defend stuff like benefits - which are necessary to keep more people from falling off the edge.

I think that is a very noble and just thing to fight for Rick. I do feel though that almost everyone is probably in agreement here though. There are a few posters who have been trying to take comments out of context though (see the Victorian accusations a few posts up).

My understanding of the discussion (and the beauty of it is that we all see and read things differently) is around should people be putting themselves and more so their children in to a position that was in fact un aviodable. There seems little doubt that if this family had 1 child they wouldn't be in this position.

mudcow007

oh come on now, lets all kiss an make up

rick_chasey

CyclingBantam wrote:

I think that is a very noble and just thing to fight for Rick. .

The left fight is a noble one.

CyclingBantam

CiB wrote:

I agree with DDD; I was well into well thought out post on the subject but the power went off and it went away, and I can't be ar$ed to type it all again. Suffice to say that society is happy to pay out for families to have kids, we don't and never should differentiate between child #1 and child #12, and if a family takes a bit more advantage of that situation than others do, good for them.

I'm 1 of 6 BTW, so am naturally minded to side with big families. It shouldn't be encouraged but once a family gets to that size what can a govt reasonably do? Whatever your answer, think of it from the viewpoint of child #7, #8 or whatever. It's only money. People and esp little people, are more important than small amounts of govt spending.

Just so I am clear, and I am not trying to be funny, are you saying, when having children people shouldn't consider if they will be able to financially support them in the future? I believe that is what the discussion is about.

thelawnet

Rick Chasey wrote:

thelawnet wrote:

So obviously you decide that the no-prospects, no-future option is more attractive as it leaves you with plenty of free time compared with working a full week for no more money.

The cynical on the right call this the client state, a deliberate policy to maintain a large pool of voters dependent on the state for survival and therefore a guaranteed source of votes come election time.

What's the alternative solution then?

It's all very well whinging but a) I think that you are all making out living off benefits is a higher quality of life than it actually is, and b) I can't see an alternative that is better than the current system, especially given how proportionally small cases like this actually are.

I personally think it's a horrible quality of life, but as with everything these things are relative. How many people in the world are living on $1/day for them it would be a dream. These days you are poor in the UK if you don't have a car, TV and washing machine, 50 years ago these things would have been great luxuries, but people weren't necessarily unhappy.

Anyway, the problem is actually a large one. I used to work in Islington, there is a lot of work around there, it's in zone 1, lots of low-paid work as well as high-paid too, but 45.2% of kids live in workless households. There is no shortage of multimillion pound houses in Islington, in fact many of them are provided to said workless households as half of all Islington's housing stock is social rented. When you're looking at £1m to buy a house you live in for free, working just isn't attractive at all.

Jay dubbleU

Time we went back to Victorian values - then we could classify people as the Deserving Poor and the Undeserving Poor and treat them accordingling - and while we're at it what about reviving the Workhouse ?

Sewinman

Do they not give kids school lunch vouchers any more?

It mentions they had to be pulled out of school. When I was at school the poor kids got free lunches. We also all got free milk...until Maggie Thatcher the milk snatcher stole it from us. That's the common denominator - Tory governments!

dhope

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Time we went back to Victorian values - then we could classify people as the Deserving Poor and the Undeserving Poor and treat them accordingling - and while we're at it what about reviving the Workhouse ?

Absolutely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFNs2mOkKzc

rick_chasey

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Time we went back to Victorian values - then we could classify people as the Deserving Poor and the Undeserving Poor and treat them accordingling - and while we're at it what about reviving the Workhouse ?

Quite.

jeremyrundle

CyclingBantam wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13765820

Just read this story and, whilst I really do feel for them struggling for food, I feel a little angry that the parents have put themselves in this position.

Is it reasonable to have Seven children then complain you struggle to feed them when prices of food etc go up? Whatever happened to thinking ahead and considering is it reasonable to actually have 7 children. Can you reasonably afford/provide for them.

I really don't like it when people get themselves in positions where they can't support themselves through little foresight. I guess it also riles me a little that they have had seven kids. Is that really socially responsible?

I'm not always angry, honest.

GARBAGE, as a SINGLE father on benefits raising THREE disabled sons for eighteen years we have NEVER gone without, I don't smoke drink or gamble, I may watch the pennies but save for bills and buy good food, most who complain I see smoking, have credit cards and countless children, I have NO debt, my sons come first, and always will, we do NOT live in luxury but are comfortable thank you. I fully agree with the writer of this.

I remember one program, John Prescott asked an out of work "poor" single mum, four children, and under 19 :? , "how do you class yourself ? "Middle class" she replied, "I aint working class, I aint got no job", That one comment says it all :evil: :!:

dhope

jeremyrundle wrote:

CyclingBantam wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13765820

Just read this story and, whilst I really do feel for them struggling for food, I feel a little angry that the parents have put themselves in this position.

Is it reasonable to have Seven children then complain you struggle to feed them when prices of food etc go up? Whatever happened to thinking ahead and considering is it reasonable to actually have 7 children. Can you reasonably afford/provide for them.

I really don't like it when people get themselves in positions where they can't support themselves through little foresight. I guess it also riles me a little that they have had seven kids. Is that really socially responsible?

I'm not always angry, honest.

GARBAGE, as a SINGLE father on benefits raising THREE disabled sons for eighteen years we have NEVER gone without, I don't smoke drink or gamble, I may watch the pennies but save for bills and buy good food, most who complain I see smoking, have credit cards and countless children, I have NO debt, my sons come first, and always will, we do NOT live in luxury but are comfortable thank you. I fully agree with the writer of this.

I remember one program, John Prescott asked an out of work "poor" single mum, four children, and under 19 :? , "how do uou class yourself ? "Middle class" she replied, "I aint working class, I aint got no job", That one comment says it all :evil: :!:

Hey JR, welcome to the party, what took you so long
(I think this thread has jumped the shark)

jeremyrundle

Sewinman wrote:

Do they not give kids school lunch vouchers any more?

It mentions they had to be pulled out of school. When I was at school the poor kids got free lunches. We also all got free milk...until Maggie Thatcher the milk snatcher stole it from us. That's the common denominator - Tory governments!

100% correct again, as a person whos only income is carers allowance and thanks to working people paying tax my income support, all three of my disabled sons have always had free school meals and help with travel and school clothes, and I NEVER fail to APPRCIATE the help I receive from the tax payers.

Thank you to all of you helping my sons as you have.

Sewinman

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Time we went back to Victorian values - then we could classify people as the Deserving Poor and the Undeserving Poor and treat them accordingling - and while we're at it what about reviving the Workhouse ?

Far too charitable :roll: - it is time we went back to some Darwinian evolution. Let the kids have 3 meals between the 7 of them and let them fight it out amongst themselves. Only the strong (or rich) should survive.

Joke.