s/o immigration and income...

welshgirl · November 2011

I saw this on the BBC today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15790806

frlcb · November 2011

I should probably keep my thoughts on this to myself

little red buttons · November 2011

Eh, I think this sounds pretty reasonable. If no one in your home has a job, and you are completely dependent on the state to support your family, I think it's probably wise to stop having kids after # 4.

frlcb · November 2011

little red buttons:
Eh, I think this sounds pretty reasonable. If no one in your home has a job, and you are completely dependent on the state to support your family, I think it's probably wise to stop having kids after # 4.

1000% agree with this.

NCV2 · November 2011

I agree.

Much like putting a cap at ?500 a week for people to get council housing. On TV they said it would be a hardship for people without wage earners with large families. Um well perhaps we have 2 to 3 problems here.

I wish I got ?500 a week for rent!

NCV2 · November 2011

little red buttons:
Eh, I think this sounds pretty reasonable. If no one in your home has a job, and you are completely dependent on the state to support your family, I think it's probably wise to stop having kids after # 4.

I know people who do have jobs that stop having kids b/c they can't afford them so I don't know why it should be different for people who are getting money from the gov't.

stever · November 2011

frlcb:
little red buttons:
Eh, I think this sounds pretty reasonable. If no one in your home has a job, and you are completely dependent on the state to support your family, I think it's probably wise to stop having kids after # 4.
1000% agree with this.

welshgirl · November 2011

NCV2:

little red buttons:
Eh, I think this sounds pretty reasonable. If no one in your home has a job, and you are completely dependent on the state to support your family, I think it's probably wise to stop having kids after # 4.

I know people who do have jobs that stop having kids b/c they can't afford them so I don't know why it should be different for people who are getting money from the gov't.

Exactly. Well said.

(But, to play devil's advocate - what about the children born, number 5 or 6, without additional benefits, and therefore increased risk of poverty? How do we deal with that situation?)

NCV2 · November 2011

welshgirl:
NCV2:

little red buttons:
Eh, I think this sounds pretty reasonable. If no one in your home has a job, and you are completely dependent on the state to support your family, I think it's probably wise to stop having kids after # 4.

I know people who do have jobs that stop having kids b/c they can't afford them so I don't know why it should be different for people who are getting money from the gov't.

Exactly. Well said.

(But, to play devil's advocate - what about the children born, number 5 or 6, without additional benefits, and therefore increased risk of poverty? How do we deal with that situation?)

I think the issue that needs to be addressed is why isn't the family working? Do they not have training? Lets get them training. Do they need child care?

How can we get the families out of this situation.

I also agree that the person bringing over a spouse should earn a certain amount so they don't end up falling back on the system.

The parts of immigration that have made me most angry, other than cost, has been how difficult at times it has been for me to work. I am in a profession which is needed in London, yet I needed to jump through hoops to get a new visa. Go home, wait, wait, pay more money, wait. If they had let me stay I would have worked where I was needed and PAID flippen' taxes!

Bananas0827 · November 2011

I think people who for whatever reason will not stop having kids when they know they cannot afford them need to have mandatory classes on prevention and birth control (classes teaching the basics of TTA, when to recognize signs of fertility etc). If that doesn't stop them, then sterilization may be an option. This may start a nanny state debate, but that's not my intention. It's just my opinion.

little red buttons · November 2011

Well this just took an awkward turn.

Not giving extra money to families who continue to have children but are unable or unwilling to support them? I can get behind that.

Mandatory sex ed classes and, if that doesn't work, sterilization? Um, no.

Bananas0827 · November 2011

little red buttons:

Well this just took an awkward turn.

Not giving extra money to families who continue to have children but are unable or unwilling to support them? I can get behind that.

Mandatory sex ed classes and, if that doesn't work, sterilization? Um, no.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me, I'm just saying this from experience with my family.

My cousin is on benefits, but will not use proper birth control or take sex ed classes on her own. She cannot afford the children she's already got, but uses abortion as birth control. Sterilization in her situation is the best option.

vrichardson · November 2011

Any time anyone mentions sterilization as an option of population control I cant help thinking of the hundreds of thousands of woman who have been sterilized by the Americn Government and by many other governments as part of the Eugenics movement. It worries me even more because the people who entertain thoughts of mandatory read coerced sterilization differ in class, race, education from those upon it has and will be inflicted upon. Reproductive freedom/choice is a right Best left to the individual, not society.

EnidFalcor · November 2011

welsh has a very valid point. Unfortunately I don't think it's the benefits that will always incentivize more children, and no matter what there will always be people who continue to grow their family despite not being able to pay for the costs. If most peopel agree that sterilization is not the answer (and for me, it's definitely not), then cutting off benefits is a very simplistic view of how to deal with it. The intent is to punish the paretns for irresponsiblity, but the result is increasing the liklihood of child hunger/poverty.

frlcb · November 2011

Yikes, I don't agree with sterilization at all. That is definitely going down a bad road.

I think there needs to be a way to figure out why there are so many people not working in the UK getting these benefits. I feel like I always read stories about families with 8 kids and parents who don't work, and have no plans or intent to work, who sit around and smoke all day, eat takeaway and live on benefits. I realize these are not the norm, but it comes across that they are. Are there not rules in place to help these people find jobs?

EnidFalcor · November 2011

frlcb:

Yikes, I don't agree with sterilization at all. That is definitely going down a bad road.

I think there needs to be a way to figure out why there are so many people not working in the UK getting these benefits. I feel like I always read stories about families with 8 kids and parents who don't work, and have no plans or intent to work, who sit around and smoke all day, eat takeaway and live on benefits. I realize these are not the norm, but it comes across that they are. Are there not rules in place to help these people find jobs?

I'm glad you realize this, but lots of people don't. The two years I spent working in California in two very different sectors of human services, plus my 3 internships during my Master's painted a really, really grim picture of people who are on benfits of various kinds, hate it, struggle to get off, but are not rewarded fro their work. Making minimum wage ends up paying less (or at least doesn't have benefits, etc) in some cases than what they were eligible to receive from the gov't. The 'programs' in place to help encourage job skills or education level are often so poorly run and poorly funded it doesn't help the average person.

The idea that such a large number of people are just sitting around, living large on gov't money, plotting out more and more pregnancies, is so inaccurate in my experience.

frlcb · November 2011

EnidFalcor:
The idea that such a large number of people are just sitting around, living large on gov't money, plotting out more and more pregnancies, is so inaccurate in my experience.

Unfortunately the British press does not help in making people realize this is the case, which is partly why I think people on benefits in the UK get such a bad rap.

ILikePineapples · November 2011

I'd love a system where people could work for their community to get the benefits, or have a sliding scale of benefits, so if they did have to work for minimum wage, they would get some benefits that would bring them up to the income they'd get just on benefits (obviously those who have conditions which don't allow them to work would have a different system). This way the kids could see that working is a good thing, they can give back to their own community and perhaps people would feel better about themselves and families could get out of the benefits trap eventually.

welshgirl · November 2011

ILikePineapples:
I'd love a system where people could work for their community to get the benefits, or have a sliding scale of benefits, so if they did have to work for minimum wage, they would get some benefits that would bring them up to the income they'd get just on benefits (obviously those who have conditions which don't allow them to work would have a different system). This way the kids could see that working is a good thing, they can give back to their own community and perhaps people would feel better about themselves and families could get out of the benefits trap eventually.

I think that's a brilliant idea. I've thought for years that we should employ those on benefits (like job seekers allowance) to do the jobs that our local authorities are cutting back funding on, like litter picking up, cleaning up graffit, etc, etc. It just seems logical to me - like proving they're applying for jobs and not just sitting on their laurels, helping out the community, for maybe 10-20 hours a week, just seems common sense.

Tofumonkey · November 2011

little red buttons:
Eh, I think this sounds pretty reasonable. If no one in your home has a job, and you are completely dependent on the state to support your family, I think it's probably wise to stop having kids after # 4.

Like

Tofumonkey · November 2011

Absolutely. ?500/week for rent is ridiculous. I've got a 4 bedroom bungalow in Zone 2 on the central line and it's not even ?500/week for rent. If you are in council housing you need to expect to live in a smaller home in a less desirable area. If you want something better, get a job and pay for what you want yourself.

Tofumonkey · November 2011

welshgirl:
ILikePineapples:
I'd love a system where people could work for their community to get the benefits, or have a sliding scale of benefits, so if they did have to work for minimum wage, they would get some benefits that would bring them up to the income they'd get just on benefits (obviously those who have conditions which don't allow them to work would have a different system). This way the kids could see that working is a good thing, they can give back to their own community and perhaps people would feel better about themselves and families could get out of the benefits trap eventually.

I think that's a brilliant idea. I've thought for years that we should employ those on benefits (like job seekers allowance) to do the jobs that our local authorities are cutting back funding on, like litter picking up, cleaning up graffit, etc, etc. It just seems logical to me - like proving they're applying for jobs and not just sitting on their laurels, helping out the community, for maybe 10-20 hours a week, just seems common sense.

I agree with this, but think that it should be at least 20 hours/week of working for the community and 20 hours/week of looking for work. 10 hours isn't enough to motivate someone to look for something better.

s/o immigration and income...

Re: s/o immigration and income...

Choose Another Board

Search Boards