Fair to complain?

CyclingBantam

I don't follow that at all JR.

What part is Garbage? It was a series of questions.

calonuk

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!

If the family were in receipt of Working tax credits then no there would be no free school meals.

t4tomo

I can't be bothered to read all this thread as I know there wil be some hysterical (and probably hysterically funny) argumnets on both sides, but putting aside whether 7 children is sensible or not, fair play to them for raising them without resorting to benefits as many others would have / do.

For clarity, this is no slur on you Jeremy, you're in a different situation and one the benefit system is there for. It those that are too lazy to get a job and/or choose not to because the welfare state pays a better living that annoys me.

CyclingBantam

t4tomo wrote:

I can't be bothered to read all this thread as I know there wil be some hysterical (and probably hysterically funny) argumnets on both sides, but putting aside whether 7 children is sensible or not, fair play to them for raising them without resorting to benefits as many others would have / do.

For clarity, this is no slur on you Jeremy, you're in a different situation and one the benefit system is there for. It those that are too lazy to get a job and/or choose not to because the welfare state pays a better living that annoys me.

In fairness there has been pretty reasoned debate on both sides (ignoring the accusations some have made of others despite others never actually having argued said accusation (i.e. Benefits shouldn't be provided to the needy).

rubertoe

"It those that are too lazy to get a job and/or choose not to because the welfare state pays a better living that annoys me."

I think that this is the crux.

people who work and do their upmost to bring up however many kids that they care to have to the best of their abilities rightly deserve the help that is being offered - also those that happen to find their circumstances change through no fault of their own, redundancy, death etc - also deserve the right of the benifits that are available to them

this family are clearly not the type that is being refered to in the quote - they are a victim of circumstance, that is partly their choosing (large family) but mostly out of their control, low intrest rates, high inflation rising fuel and food costs.

although i may not agree with their choices - we are all victims of the same circumstances (to some extent) that have contributed to their plight.

CyclingBantam

rubertoe wrote:

"It those that are too lazy to get a job and/or choose not to because the welfare state pays a better living that annoys me."

I think that this is the crux.

people who work and do their upmost to bring up however many kids that they care to have to the best of their abilities rightly deserve the help that is being offered - also those that happen to find their circumstances change through no fault of their own, redundancy, death etc - also deserve the right of the benifits that are available to them

this family are clearly not the type that is being refered to in the quote - they are a victim of circumstance, that is partly their choosing (large family) but mostly out of their control, low intrest rates, high inflation rising fuel and food costs.
although i may not agree with their choices - we are all victims of the same circumstances (to some extent) that have contributed to their plight.

The original discussion though was, is it reasonable to put yourself in that position in the first place? I agree we are all victims but I feel they have unfoairly put themselves and their children in a bad position.

thelawnet

gllewellyn wrote:

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...

It says that the mother is a dinner lady.

I found an advert for such a job:

http://liverpool.fish4jobs.co.uk/vacanc ... esults=226

"Part time 5 hours per week, Term time only
Required from 1st September 2011
Grade 1 £6.36 (per hour) "

It appears that they don't get paid holiday pay

http://www.askpay.co.uk/o2.php?id=810
so the work is either 5 hours per week for 36 weeks or 7.5 hours per week for 36 weeks.

Which is part-time by any standard. There is the cleaning work on top of that, but with two adults both doing it and 7 kids at home, it would be pretty much impossible to fit two full-time or full-time equivalent jobs in there.

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),

Benefits entitlements are a matter of public record. If you have 7 kids you are entitled to several tens of thousands of pounds, unless you earn substantially more than you would do working as a dinner lady and night-time cleaner.

I do know that both parents work bloody hard.

It makes sense for a family in this position to do 16 hours each per week, as that earns them £10kish, tax-free, plus another £2,400 in tax credits on-the-top. Having 7 kids no doubt that it is hard work.

Going beyond that is simply irrational, you face an effective tax rate of over 80% (tax credits, council tax benefit, NI, and income tax). Now if they are doing that, good fo rthem, but it's not rational to do so.

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).

They can realistically expect to earn £10k and get another £30k in benefits. By what definition is that not living off benefits?

There's a big difference between earning £25k a year and being entitled to a couple of thousand on top in child tax credit/benefit (having paid £6k in income tax in NI in the first place).

Dad and kids do look pretty hard though, so nuff 'spect there.

rjsterry

CyclingBantam wrote:

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.

Yeah, that was me. A bit over-emotive, but hey. In this particular example, they have an unusually high number of children, and everyone is assuming that that is the issue. I'm sure if we looked in, say, Surbiton, we could find a couple with only one child, who have experienced something similar. Without the headline-grabbing seven children, it's just an illustration of how damaging inflation is to people's standard of living. I'm sure some would say that they shouldn't have had even that one child, but as pointed out by spen666, if everyone waited until they could afford them, the birth rate would fall off a cliff.

ETA: The inevitable conclusion of the argument that you should only have children when have exhaustively prepared for them financially (and my biggest issue with it), is that there is a 'right' number of children for a given income, and related circumstances. As the main earner in my household, I've taken out various forms of life, sickness and redundancy cover, but these and my pension - so I don't have to scrounge off my kids in years to come) all add up to a significant chunk of money each month. Given the cost of all this 'rainy day prevention', I'd guess that the 'right' number of children, under any objective and thorough calculation, for most of us* would be a big zero.

* Let's say those not paying higher rate tax for a simple threshold.

jeremyrundle

CyclingBantam wrote:

I don't follow that at all JR.

What part is Garbage? It was a series of questions.

Oh poor explanation again :!:

I was agreeing with the fact that it is garbage that people can't afford to live etc and moan about feeding their 7 children............

CyclingBantam

My point in the discussion, and the way the discussion went though was people should 'reasonably' be able to afford children before they had them. In this position, having 7 is totally unreasonable.

To be honest, I think we have all had our say and in general people seem to agree with each other but then the discussion fragments in to 101 diferent points. Was fun whilst it lasted though.

CyclingBantam

jeremyrundle wrote:

CyclingBantam wrote:

I don't follow that at all JR.

What part is Garbage? It was a series of questions.

Oh poor explanation again :!:

I was agreeing with the fact that it is garbage that people can't afford to live etc and moan about feeding their 7 children............

So you think that they shouldn't have 7 childern and then moan about affording to live? I think I am agreeing with you but I'm not sure!!

DonDaddyD

jeremyrundle wrote:

CyclingBantam wrote:

I don't follow that at all JR.

What part is Garbage? It was a series of questions.

Oh poor explanation again :!:

I was agreeing with the fact that it is garbage that people can't afford to live etc and moan about feeding their 7 children............

Yes but those are mostly the same people who think (either or a combination) that if you rely on benefits you shouldn't have 'x' number of children.

These are mostly the same people that believe they have a right to judge your decision to have three children given that you receive and rely on state benefits (irrespective of the circumstances).

These are mostly the very same people that would frown on you because you decided to have a third, knowing you would need more state benefits as oppose to stopping with the first or second (again irrespective of the circumstances).

Just saying...

thelawnet

rjsterry wrote:

Yeah, that was me. A bit over-emotive, but hey. In this particular example, they have an unusually high number of children, and everyone is assuming that that is the issue. I'm sure if we looked in, say, Surbiton, we could find a couple with only one child, who have experienced something similar. Without the headline-grabbing seven children, it's just an illustration of how damaging inflation is to people's standard of living. I'm sure some would say that they shouldn't have had even that one child, but as pointed out by spen666, if everyone waited until they could afford them, the birth rate would fall off a cliff.

The story just reads like BS tbh.

It was originally titled ''Going to bed hungry' - one family's struggle' which was absurd considering how much money they actually have.

It's quite possible they've made bad choices with their money, racked up debt, etc., but you can do that on any income level.

"I try to keep my husband well fed. I will have less. I've been hungry, I've gone to bed crying because I've been hungry. There are bad weeks and good weeks, but I just keep going."

Srsly? They make hundreds per week in benefits and they're going hungry? If so, they've made some VERY bad choices (and I don't just mean calling a child 'Mace').

"The boys just have to have shampoo. I make sure the girls get what they need with conditioner and I have what's left. If I have to have Fairy Liquid then so be it."

Talk about melodramatic. Fairy liquid costs £2.31/litre from Tesco.
http://www.tesco.com/groceries/Product/ ... =267442298

Tesco Value Shampoo is...... wait for it....... 22p/litre.

http://www.tesco.com/groceries/Product/ ... =256354822

Maybe an article about budgeting and careful shopping in the face of rising costs would have been more useful?

CyclingBantam

Who are you speaking on behalf of there DDD? Why don't you name the people who you are talking about?

jeremyrundle

On the matter of how many children to have, I see that all governments and that twit Gates is now trying to cure all ills so EVERYONE lives, don't get me wrong as a Dad, I wanted MY sons to live healthy lives, but, has anyone considered how we are going to feed a never ending population, China, 3rd world etc when the population outgrows the planets ability to feed us all.

Pity they don't do as much for birth control at the same time in these places and here where "kids" have babies they can't raise.

Even in China with strict control it is too late, perhaps we will all be expected to eat Soylent Green :evil:

So we all live longer, pensions can not support us, teachers etc are striking for more, the population expected to reach between 7.5 and 10.5 billion in the year 2050, we will end up killing each other for food, hey nothing new there in some places now.

thelawnet

jeremyrundle wrote:

On the matter of how many children to have, I see that all governments and that twit Gates is now trying to cure all ills so EVERYONE lives, don't get me wrong as a Dad, I wanted MY sons to live healthy lives,

It's all them damn furriners that are the problem eh what?

Why not start a charity to kill children in Africa instead of saving them? You could then repopulate the dark continent with Rundles.

but, has anyone considered how we are going to feed a never ending population, China, 3rd world etc when the population outgrows the planets ability to feed us all.

I believe they have considered that, yes. What is your background in agriculture?

rolf_f

jeremyrundle wrote:

So we all live longer, pensions can not support us, teachers etc are striking for more, the population expected to reach between 7.5 and 10.5 billion in the year 2050, we will end up killing each other for food, hey nothing new there in some places now.

Don't worry about it - in the West at least, very few of us are really poor. No matter what happens with the pensions, we'll still live twice as long on average as a lot of people in, for example Swaziland where the average life expectancy is less than 40. Why I get rather annoyed at people complaining about our overseas aid spend and claiming that there is greater need at home. There isn't.

UndercoverElephant

jeremyrundle wrote:

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.

Really, aren't you the owner and proprietor of the website http://www.sirpatricmooresales.co.uk/ ? Don't you constantly boast about how expensive your bikes are?

Must have been a different Jeremy Rundle, then, because you always swore you'd never lie. Right? :roll:

jamesco

jeremyrundle wrote:

On the matter of how many children to have, I see that all governments and that twit Gates is now trying to cure all ills so EVERYONE lives, don't get me wrong as a Dad, I wanted MY sons to live healthy lives, but, has anyone considered how we are going to feed a never ending population, China, 3rd world etc when the population outgrows the planets ability to feed us all.

Pity they don't do as much for birth control at the same time in these places and here where "kids" have babies they can't raise.

Even in China with strict control it is too late, perhaps we will all be expected to eat Soylent Green :evil:

So we all live longer, pensions can not support us, teachers etc are striking for more, the population expected to reach between 7.5 and 10.5 billion in the year 2050, we will end up killing each other for food, hey nothing new there in some places now.

So many wrong-headed things said, where to start?

If you want tax-funded pensions to continue, an ever-increasing working population will help this.

Population replacement is about 2.1 children per family; you've got 3, so it's the pot calling the kettle black.

Care to point out where in the world people are killing each other for food?

You think you're making more of a contribution to "feed[ing] a never ending population" than 3rd world farmers?

Man, now I see why people call you a troll..

DonDaddyD

jeremyrundle wrote:

On the matter of how many children to have, I see that all governments and that twit Gates is now trying to cure all ills so EVERYONE lives, don't get me wrong as a Dad, I wanted MY sons to live healthy lives, but, has anyone considered how we are going to feed a never ending population, China, 3rd world etc when the population outgrows the planets ability to feed us all.

You see this pisses me off.

You harp on about "China" and the "Third World" in a thread where you've just admitted to relying quite heavily on handouts to provide for you and your three children.

By your logic (not mine), if you believe feeding these Countries with their increasing populations is a problem then can you not see, under your own logic, that you may also be contributing to that problem here?

Now, there are those who clearly think by and large you are part of the problem. I personally don't have an issue with your circumstances and think we should do more for people in your situation and the disabled. But what I absolutely will not abide is sitting here reading you spout to claiming, quite heavily, on benefits and then having a go at another Country with it's own population problems, as though somehow you aren't contributing to growing problem over here.

Dude you are a hypocrite and so full of yourself it's not even funny.

rick_chasey

CyclingBantam wrote:

My point in the discussion, and the way the discussion went though was people should 'reasonably' be able to afford children before they had them. In this position, having 7 is totally unreasonable.

The assumption there though is that if you are too poor to have children, you shouldn't, which, for me anyway, is not appropriate, since you're denying someone a human right.

The solution is not to 'have children' but to sort the poor out in the first place so such a choice doesn't have to occur.

Unfortunately the consensus, as all the chav/scrounger bashing suggests, is that the general public is keener on helping those who can already help themselves, rather than helping those who need help.

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

The assumption there though is that if you are too poor to have children, you shouldn't, which, for me anyway, is not appropriate, since you're denying someone a human right.

What is a human right? Of course it maybe a human right to have children but it isn't a human right to expect others to pay for them. If society chooses to help out in that way it is a good thing IMO but I'd be pretty piffed off with anyone who claimed they had a human right to state handouts to support large families.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

jeremyrundle wrote:

On the matter of how many children to have, I see that all governments and that twit Gates is now trying to cure all ills so EVERYONE lives, don't get me wrong as a Dad, I wanted MY sons to live healthy lives, but, has anyone considered how we are going to feed a never ending population, China, 3rd world etc when the population outgrows the planets ability to feed us all.

You see this pisses me off.

You harp on about "China" and the "Third World" in a thread where you've just admitted to relying quite heavily on handouts to provide for you and your three children.

By your logic (not mine), if you believe feeding these Countries with their increasing populations is a problem then can you not see, under your own logic, that you may also be contributing to that problem here?

Now, there are those who clearly think by and large you are part of the problem. I personally don't have an issue with your circumstances and think we should do more for people in your situation and the disabled. But what I absolutely will not abide is sitting here reading you spout to claiming, quite heavily, on benefits and then having a go at another Country with it's own population problems, as though somehow you aren't contributing to growing problem over here.

Dude you are a hypocrite and so full of yourself it's not even funny.

I wonder where those £9 helmetcams are made.

rubertoe

Those who need help should definatly be helped - there is no doubt about that - and there should be no restriction on whom and who shouldnt have children or how many.

people who abuse the system, by refusal or un willingness to work when they are capable of doing so are the ones who generally get on peoples nerves.

rick_chasey

Rolf F wrote:

[t I'd be pretty piffed off with anyone who claimed they had a human right to state handouts to support large families.

That's not how the logic goes. It goes like this: I have a child. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, I can't support that child, so I need state support.

The state provides the bare minimum to avoid poverty for the child.

No issue with that.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

CyclingBantam wrote:

My point in the discussion, and the way the discussion went though was people should 'reasonably' be able to afford children before they had them. In this position, having 7 is totally unreasonable.

The assumption there though is that if you are too poor to have children, you shouldn't, which, for me anyway, is not appropriate, since you're denying someone a human right.

The solution is not to 'have children' but to sort the poor out in the first place so such a choice doesn't have to occur.

Unfortunately the consensus, as all the chav/scrounger bashing suggests, is that the general public is keener on helping those who can already help themselves, rather than helping those who need help.

+1. You must stick out like a sore thumb where you work.

CyclingBantam

Rick Chasey wrote:

CyclingBantam wrote:

My point in the discussion, and the way the discussion went though was people should 'reasonably' be able to afford children before they had them. In this position, having 7 is totally unreasonable.

The assumption there though is that if you are too poor to have children, you shouldn't, which, for me anyway, is not appropriate, since you're denying someone a human right.

The solution is not to 'have children' but to sort the poor out in the first place so such a choice doesn't have to occur.

Unfortunately the consensus, as all the chav/scrounger bashing suggests, is that the general public is keener on helping those who can already help themselves, rather than helping those who need help.

If you can't afford children I don't think you should have them. I can't see anyone could reasonably suggest you should.

That is a very different thing to saying you CAN'T have them though. I think everyone should make their own choice.

DonDaddyD

DDD wrote:

..those are mostly the same people who think (either or a combination) that if you rely on benefits you shouldn't have 'x' number of children.

CyclingBantam wrote:

Who are you speaking on behalf of there DDD? Why don't you name the people who you are talking about?

Jeremyrundle wrote:

as a SINGLE father on benefits raising THREE disabled sons for eighteen years...

...as a person whos only income is carers allowance

CyclingBantam wrote:

If you can't afford children I don't think you should have them.

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

[t I'd be pretty piffed off with anyone who claimed they had a human right to state handouts to support large families.

That's not how the logic goes. It goes like this: I have a child. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, I can't support that child, so I need state support.

The state provides the bare minimum to avoid poverty for the child.

No issue with that.

You are missing my point. I'm not saying that the state shouldn't provide the support (I believe it should; I wouldn't want to live in a society that didn't) - what I am saying is that it is entirely misguided to say that you have a human right for the state to provide that support. If you are in that position. Rather than claiming that as a human right, you should be bloody grateful for the support you get.

Just as an aside, this reminds me of an idiot girl interviewed on TV. Never had a job or anything, never even tried. Lived on state support and never once earned a single penny of her own. She complained that her views weren't listened to. After all she did, as she said, pay taxes through the cigarettes she bought.........

CiB

CyclingBantam wrote:

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.

Err - yes I am. Unless your crystal ball is better than mine, there's no way that you can safely claim at some point that you're financially ok for the next 18 years or so.

As a general principle I don't have a problem with the occasional family being larger than 'normal parameters', and in this case the concencus seems to be that they did their best but things have gone a little bit further out of their control than they expected. Well it has for a large number of other people / families / businesses too lately. I don't see any reason to punish the children for it, indirectly.

All you can do when you have kids is to hope that the current situation remains at least as favourable for as long as they're dependent. And if it goes pear-shaped, let's hope that society as a whole isn't mean spritied enough to force such people to resort to begging & theft to support themselves. We're better than that as a country.

Have to go - power cuts to terrible things to our system here.