Reply to thread

Message

Benefits should be set at the point that you go one them. If a family with one child falls on hard times (it could happen to any one of here, no matter how successful) then benefits should be set at the one child level and not rise. If you have another child, then you have chosen to support that child at that income bracket, just like the rest of us. If I had a kid tommorrow my wage wouldn't rise, so why should yours?

The main thrust of my argument is differentiating between misfortune, and a situation willfully brought about. If I get made redundant tomorrow, I think I should be given help to keep me alive *in my present circumstance* until I get another job. That's why I pay NI/SS. If I choose to have kids in that time, tough doody to me. I'm in a hard time and I chose to make it harder - why is it anyone elses problem?

The benefits that are given should be given in exchange for actions that increase your chance of no longer needing benefits. To receive full benefits a person would have to increase their "employability". Of course employability needs to be defined, and options created for people to do this, but the money to do this has been gained from wiping out the more children = more benefits equation.

If we are to have a benefits system, it should be there for genuine people (who fall on hard times and work damn hard to pull themselves out of it). It should not be there for scum who will set out to abuse the system, but likewise it should not alienate these people before they get to this point. If we block the route of their abuse, perhaps there is a chance of remaining/becoming valuable members of society. Of course there will always be the dregs with a sense of entitlement, and quite frankly if they maneouver themselves into a position where they cannot live on the benefits they are given, then they can stay there.

It should also be completely clear that it is a "stop-gap" measure, as mentioned in the article someone posted. There needs to be a time limit on benefits, giving an incentive to sort one's life out.

To address the understandable liberal concern of the children of such families:

If society truly has a concern about the children of these families then take them away. I'd prefer my taxes to go to the upbringing of an innocent child than to maintaining a deceitful benefit fraudster. If they were going to the parents it would like not reach the children anyway.

<blockquote data-quote="stumblin" data-source="post: 605326" data-attributes="member: 1325">Benefits should be set at the point that you go one them. If a family with one child falls on hard times (it could happen to any one of here, no matter how successful) then benefits should be set at the one child level and not rise. If you have another child, then you have chosen to support that child at that income bracket, just like the rest of us. If I had a kid tommorrow my wage wouldn't rise, so why should yours?The main thrust of my argument is differentiating between misfortune, and a situation willfully brought about. If I get made redundant tomorrow, I think I should be given help to keep me alive *in my present circumstance* until I get another job. That's why I pay NI/SS. If I choose to have kids in that time, tough doody to me. I'm in a hard time and I chose to make it harder - why is it anyone elses problem?The benefits that are given should be given in exchange for actions that increase your chance of no longer needing benefits. To receive full benefits a person would have to increase their &quot;employability&quot;. Of course employability needs to be defined, and options created for people to do this, but the money to do this has been gained from wiping out the more children = more benefits equation.If we are to have a benefits system, it should be there for genuine people (who fall on hard times and work damn hard to pull themselves out of it). It should not be there for scum who will set out to abuse the system, but likewise it should not alienate these people before they get to this point. If we block the route of their abuse, perhaps there is a chance of remaining/becoming valuable members of society. Of course there will always be the dregs with a sense of entitlement, and quite frankly if they maneouver themselves into a position where they cannot live on the benefits they are given, then they can stay there.It should also be completely clear that it is a &quot;stop-gap&quot; measure, as mentioned in the article someone posted. There needs to be a time limit on benefits, giving an incentive to sort one's life out.To address the understandable liberal concern of the children of such families:If society truly has a concern about the children of these families then take them away. I'd prefer my taxes to go to the upbringing of an innocent child than to maintaining a deceitful benefit fraudster. If they were going to the parents it would like not reach the children anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="stumblin, post: 605326, member: 1325"] Benefits should be set at the point that you go one them. If a family with one child falls on hard times (it could happen to any one of here, no matter how successful) then benefits should be set at the one child level and not rise. If you have another child, then you have chosen to support that child at that income bracket, just like the rest of us. If I had a kid tommorrow my wage wouldn't rise, so why should yours? The main thrust of my argument is differentiating between misfortune, and a situation willfully brought about. If I get made redundant tomorrow, I think I should be given help to keep me alive *in my present circumstance* until I get another job. That's why I pay NI/SS. If I choose to have kids in that time, tough doody to me. I'm in a hard time and I chose to make it harder - why is it anyone elses problem? The benefits that are given should be given in exchange for actions that increase your chance of no longer needing benefits. To receive full benefits a person would have to increase their "employability". Of course employability needs to be defined, and options created for people to do this, but the money to do this has been gained from wiping out the more children = more benefits equation. If we are to have a benefits system, it should be there for genuine people (who fall on hard times and work damn hard to pull themselves out of it). It should not be there for scum who will set out to abuse the system, but likewise it should not alienate these people before they get to this point. If we block the route of their abuse, perhaps there is a chance of remaining/becoming valuable members of society. Of course there will always be the dregs with a sense of entitlement, and quite frankly if they maneouver themselves into a position where they cannot live on the benefits they are given, then they can stay there. It should also be completely clear that it is a "stop-gap" measure, as mentioned in the article someone posted. There needs to be a time limit on benefits, giving an incentive to sort one's life out. To address the understandable liberal concern of the children of such families: If society truly has a concern about the children of these families then take them away. I'd prefer my taxes to go to the upbringing of an innocent child than to maintaining a deceitful benefit fraudster. If they were going to the parents it would like not reach the children anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification