Poll on tax payer funded children per household.

[

Here we go the liberial is off. Its simple life choice to make, can you afford to have kids before you want them..? (a) yes or (b) no.

To some extent I agree it is a life choice to have 3 children and the parents should be financially responsible.

However, this is a dangerous route you are suggesting because what happens if someone is in work has three children but then losses his or her job through no fault of their own, illness for example?

Do they become immediately branded as scroungers living off your taxes? The welfare state is there for a dam good reason and you never know one day you might be glad it’s there.

Daily Mail drivel.

well im sure he does but based on £38 a day for child care working 5 days a week every month would cost around £800 and thats for 1 child times that by one two or three, thats a lot of money. If you have your way your restricting who can have kids to the rich, which will gradually age our population and limit our working population with a similar problem to what China has right now. Tax credits and child benefit is more of an investment by the government because the better job the child gets the more the government will take in tax and makes its money back and more.
i dont think you can punish people for having children and we need to keep the population circle rotating (but you wouldnt have thought of that)
the bigger question would be is why is this country willing to give more benefits money to people than what they could ever earn, its a sweet deal.
id be more inclined to fight for liveable wages rather than attacking child benefit.

Here we go the liberial is off. Its simple life choice to make, can you afford to have kids before you want them..? (a) yes or (b) no.[/quote]

so because im liberal i must be wrong
so you would restrict children to the wealthy then, take away the working classes rights to have children good luck with that.
i dont suppose you will answer my points because i doubt you understand them but just in case ill point them out again

so you get what you want child benefit is eliminated and restricts the right to give birth to the rich only,
where is our working population going to come from?
how do you plan to prevent our population from ageing?
how do you plan on replacing our working population after restricting it? immigration? oh no thats right you dont like that either. So come on then what are your answers to the real situation?[/quote]

Its the namby pamby liberials supporting the weak human rights law have made this country the way it is today!!![/quote]

weak human rights laws?
i forget how idiotic you people are, your human rights are the reason why your free to spout all this shit without being punished and you will be the first to have your mouths sewn shut when you win your campaign to eliminate human rights.[/quote]

Yes weak human rights laws which have weaken the stance of parents, teachers, police and others in todays society has over the years made people not give a flying about anyone these days. Thanks Liberials for your support of weak human rights laws which has over the years made this happen.

[

Here we go the liberial is off. Its simple life choice to make, can you afford to have kids before you want them..? (a) yes or (b) no.

To some extent I agree it is a life choice to have 3 children and the parents should be financially responsible.

However, this is a dangerous route you are suggesting because what happens if someone is in work has three children but then losses his or her job through no fault of their own, illness for example?

Do they become immediately branded as scroungers living off your taxes? The welfare state is there for a dam good reason and you never know one day you might be glad it’s there.

I can fully understand the worry of what you are suggesting. However I'm sure that if this really was an issue which would araise because of the new laws then the Insurance Companies would then offer you protection against this. Even if its just an additional expense on your life insurance policy.

if' the government run a scheme for employers to dob in the workshy and they get rewarded for their actions then I would be lapping it up

Jeez

if' the government run a scheme for employers to dob in the workshy and they get rewarded for their actions then I would be lapping it up

Jeez

Sorry do you work in this industry too then..? Just checked my figures now and a total of 284 individuals have turned down some kind of work since 18th June. That is how bad the mindset is out there.

if' the government run a scheme for employers to dob in the workshy and they get rewarded for their actions then I would be lapping it up

Jeez

Sorry do you work in this industry too then..? Just checked my figures now and a total of 284 individuals have turned down some kind of work since 18th June. That is how bad the mindset is out there.

And are you suprised when most of the work being offered is agency work which means get paid shit money so the agency can make money off your back? Employment agencies are keeping wages down companies would be better off taking their own temps on and paying them an extra £1 or so an hour rather than putting everything through agencies.

[

Here we go the liberial is off. Its simple life choice to make, can you afford to have kids before you want them..? (a) yes or (b) no.

To some extent I agree it is a life choice to have 3 children and the parents should be financially responsible.

However, this is a dangerous route you are suggesting because what happens if someone is in work has three children but then losses his or her job through no fault of their own, illness for example?

Do they become immediately branded as scroungers living off your taxes? The welfare state is there for a dam good reason and you never know one day you might be glad it’s there.

I can fully understand the worry of what you are suggesting. However I'm sure that if this really was an issue which would araise because of the new laws then the Insurance Companies would then offer you protection against this. Even if its just an additional expense on your life insurance policy.

Of course some people can afford life insurance, but I doubt someone earning the minimum wage with 3 children to support would have enough funds leftover to buy expensive life and illness cover.

To be honest with you AM the Government are already hounding the unemployed. Many thousands are giving up the dole to work for a living and many more would love to join them but there simply isn't the work out there.

As Jonny said if this policy is to become law then there has to be fairness in the system by giving the low paid a decent income to live on so they can provide for their children without slipping into poverty.

[

Here we go the liberial is off. Its simple life choice to make, can you afford to have kids before you want them..? (a) yes or (b) no.

To some extent I agree it is a life choice to have 3 children and the parents should be financially responsible.

However, this is a dangerous route you are suggesting because what happens if someone is in work has three children but then losses his or her job through no fault of their own, illness for example?

Do they become immediately branded as scroungers living off your taxes? The welfare state is there for a dam good reason and you never know one day you might be glad it’s there.

I can fully understand the worry of what you are suggesting. However I'm sure that if this really was an issue which would araise because of the new laws then the Insurance Companies would then offer you protection against this. Even if its just an additional expense on your life insurance policy.

oh im with you its a money making scheme youre after
so all this look after the tax payer is a load of crap
you just want to know how you can make your next quick buck
the americanisation of our country where the rich get richer and the poor just get screwed around
id love to see how well you would survive in your eutopia where its dog eat dog and no one will ever care about you and id love to see what you would do if you failed. Would you shrug your shoulders saying this is what i deserve this is my place in society or would you go kicking and screaming 'its not fair'

if' the government run a scheme for employers to dob in the workshy and they get rewarded for their actions then I would be lapping it up

Jeez

Sorry do you work in this industry too then..? Just checked my figures now and a total of 284 individuals have turned down some kind of work since 18th June. That is how bad the mindset is out there.

No I don't work in your kind of industry. I have never been in favour of anyone but me getting income from my employer. You people running agencies need to have a good hard look at the monies passed on to agency workers. As a coded welder I need work occassionally , but I've never worked for less than 10 an hour but I've never claimed any benefit other than the old child benefit.
You are a failed library board member or summat (i did ask earlier in thread) , and now you want people to join your agency and do manual labour so that you can profit from them WHILST bemoaning that others are getting something for nothing ? Unbelievable !

if' the government run a scheme for employers to dob in the workshy and they get rewarded for their actions then I would be lapping it up

Jeez

Sorry do you work in this industry too then..? Just checked my figures now and a total of 284 individuals have turned down some kind of work since 18th June. That is how bad the mindset is out there.

And are you suprised when most of the work being offered is agency work which means get paid shit money so the agency can make money off your back? Employment agencies are keeping wages down companies would be better off taking their own temps on and paying them an extra £1 or so an hour rather than putting everything through agencies.

And you know that for a fact do you..? think again sunshine because many of my agency workers actually earn more than premenant members of staff at the sites. Two of the main reasons these days that companies are using agencies is because (a) they have 60 days to pay on invoice so it helps keep the cash flow going because the banks dont help them and (b) because the amount of cost a HR department has on a company these days. Why pay someone a good wage to interview people (who many wont get past the interview stage) when an outside company will do it free of charge until the person starts working..?

Unfortunately the old myths of recruitment agencies are just that MYTHS

if' the government run a scheme for employers to dob in the workshy and they get rewarded for their actions then I would be lapping it up

Jeez

Sorry do you work in this industry too then..? Just checked my figures now and a total of 284 individuals have turned down some kind of work since 18th June. That is how bad the mindset is out there.

No I don't work in your kind of industry. I have never been in favour of anyone but me getting income from my employer. You people running agencies need to have a good hard look at the monies passed on to agency workers. As a coded welder I need work occassionally , but I've never worked for less than 10 an hour but I've never claimed any benefit other than the old child benefit.
You are a failed library board member or summat (i did ask earlier in thread) , and now you want people to join your agency and do manual labour so that you can profit from them WHILST bemoaning that others are getting something for nothing ? Unbelievable !

So would you see your family go without food because you wouldn't accept a job for £9.99 per hour..?

if' the government run a scheme for employers to dob in the workshy and they get rewarded for their actions then I would be lapping it up

Jeez

Sorry do you work in this industry too then..? Just checked my figures now and a total of 284 individuals have turned down some kind of work since 18th June. That is how bad the mindset is out there.

And are you suprised when most of the work being offered is agency work which means get paid shit money so the agency can make money off your back? Employment agencies are keeping wages down companies would be better off taking their own temps on and paying them an extra £1 or so an hour rather than putting everything through agencies.

And you know that for a fact do you..? think again sunshine because many of my agency workers actually earn more than premenant members of staff at the sites. Two of the main reasons these days that companies are using agencies is because (a) they have 60 days to pay on invoice so it helps keep the cash flow going because the banks dont help them and (b) because the amount of cost a HR department has on a company these days. Why pay someone a good wage to interview people (who many wont get past the interview stage) when an outside company will do it free of charge until the person starts working..?

Unfortunately the old myths of recruitment agencies are just that MYTHS

so how much do you charge for the temp to permanent employment fee?

if' the government run a scheme for employers to dob in the workshy and they get rewarded for their actions then I would be lapping it up

Jeez

Sorry do you work in this industry too then..? Just checked my figures now and a total of 284 individuals have turned down some kind of work since 18th June. That is how bad the mindset is out there.

And are you suprised when most of the work being offered is agency work which means get paid shit money so the agency can make money off your back? Employment agencies are keeping wages down companies would be better off taking their own temps on and paying them an extra £1 or so an hour rather than putting everything through agencies.

And you know that for a fact do you..? think again sunshine because many of my agency workers actually earn more than premenant members of staff at the sites. Two of the main reasons these days that companies are using agencies is because (a) they have 60 days to pay on invoice so it helps keep the cash flow going because the banks dont help them and (b) because the amount of cost a HR department has on a company these days. Why pay someone a good wage to interview people (who many wont get past the interview stage) when an outside company will do it free of charge until the person starts working..?

Unfortunately the old myths of recruitment agencies are just that MYTHS

I am all too familiar with the PARASITES that are recruitment agencies as I do most of my work through them. I am fortunate in my profession that I make enough money not to give a toss what the agent is making but its usually anywhere between 10% and 20%.

Agencies dont do anything for nothing and you well know it there is a premium that you charge that detracts from the wages these people could be earning from their employer or that could be used to pay their permanent employees a decent wage.

As for 60 days on invoice my agencies are on 30 days from date of invoice maximum and the one I am working for currently pay weekly. If its temporary manual work can really see you doing a thorough interview , what does it consist of "can you use a shovel?".

Your excuses and your point and very much like you .......pathetic

Last edited by djwayne on Tue Jun 26, 2012 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I've got 3 kids, Im pretty much classed as a stay at home dad, I work every Tuesday fitting as many of the blinds I sold on the previous weekends. Luckily I can keep my earnings to a bear minimum and still claim the £660 tax credits each month plus child benefit.
If I worked full time it would cost £38 per day for our youngest for a child kinder until next year when they could start school.
I started working at 17 and it's only now in the past 12months I've decided to do things this way.

I'm sorry but that comment is why people are pissed off with it all. Surely it was your decision to have 3 children then you should bloody pay for them!!! Why should I pay for your life decisions..? Keeping your earnings to a bear minimum so that you can get a further £660 plus child benefit!!!

We may be going for a forth.. Well it's either this or I go full time then pay £38 per day for child care for 1 child then claim that back through working tax credits. The only difference is I will be paying tax myself, I would not be better off. At least now I don't have to rush out for work, I can feed them, take them to school, pick them up and obviously run after the 2 year old.

if' the government run a scheme for employers to dob in the workshy and they get rewarded for their actions then I would be lapping it up

Jeez

Sorry do you work in this industry too then..? Just checked my figures now and a total of 284 individuals have turned down some kind of work since 18th June. That is how bad the mindset is out there.

And are you suprised when most of the work being offered is agency work which means get paid shit money so the agency can make money off your back? Employment agencies are keeping wages down companies would be better off taking their own temps on and paying them an extra £1 or so an hour rather than putting everything through agencies.

And you know that for a fact do you..? think again sunshine because many of my agency workers actually earn more than premenant members of staff at the sites. Two of the main reasons these days that companies are using agencies is because (a) they have 60 days to pay on invoice so it helps keep the cash flow going because the banks dont help them and (b) because the amount of cost a HR department has on a company these days. Why pay someone a good wage to interview people (who many wont get past the interview stage) when an outside company will do it free of charge until the person starts working..?

Unfortunately the old myths of recruitment agencies are just that MYTHS

Port Talbot steelworks , a welder for the day , 10.75 an hour , treated like shit , told by them "we hate using contractors and agencies are really a last resort , but they really are cheap" , I was working for a company called MII (not agency). This guy is mad. His agency workers earn more for 2 days a week but get f**k all for the other days of the week.

I've got 3 kids, Im pretty much classed as a stay at home dad, I work every Tuesday fitting as many of the blinds I sold on the previous weekends. Luckily I can keep my earnings to a bear minimum and still claim the £660 tax credits each month plus child benefit.
If I worked full time it would cost £38 per day for our youngest for a child kinder until next year when they could start school.
I started working at 17 and it's only now in the past 12months I've decided to do things this way.

I'm sorry but that comment is why people are pissed off with it all. Surely it was your decision to have 3 children then you should bloody pay for them!!! Why should I pay for your life decisions..? Keeping your earnings to a bear minimum so that you can get a further £660 plus child benefit!!!

We may be going for a forth.. Well it's either this or I go full time then pay £38 per day for child care for 1 child then claim that back through working tax credits. The only difference is I will be paying tax myself, I would not be better off. At least now I don't have to rush out for work, I can feed them, take them to school, pick them up and obviously run after the 2 year old.

By school my 12 year old goes to cowbridge, the 5 year old is in full time school in Bridgend. The baby ob stays with me. He won't be in full time till sept next year. My wife works full time. We have a mortgage etc. If I worked full time who would do school run etc. Its different to how many parents grew up, 1 parent worked the other didn't that was how it was, now most parents work to be able to afford things. If we both worked we couldnt afford to pay for child care etc, if we could then we would probably have no income left each month.

if' the government run a scheme for employers to dob in the workshy and they get rewarded for their actions then I would be lapping it up

Jeez

Sorry do you work in this industry too then..? Just checked my figures now and a total of 284 individuals have turned down some kind of work since 18th June. That is how bad the mindset is out there.

No I don't work in your kind of industry. I have never been in favour of anyone but me getting income from my employer. You people running agencies need to have a good hard look at the monies passed on to agency workers. As a coded welder I need work occassionally , but I've never worked for less than 10 an hour but I've never claimed any benefit other than the old child benefit.
You are a failed library board member or summat (i did ask earlier in thread) , and now you want people to join your agency and do manual labour so that you can profit from them WHILST bemoaning that others are getting something for nothing ? Unbelievable !

So would you see your family go without food because you wouldn't accept a job for £9.99 per hour..?

Never been the case , but I would live off my savings before I'd let a lazy tw*t in an Agency benefit from my hard graft , AND a coded welder for 9.99 , you having a laff ? You may get a welder for that , but never a coded one !

if' the government run a scheme for employers to dob in the workshy and they get rewarded for their actions then I would be lapping it up

Jeez

Sorry do you work in this industry too then..? Just checked my figures now and a total of 284 individuals have turned down some kind of work since 18th June. That is how bad the mindset is out there.

Maybe they've turned it down coz of shit wages !!!!!!!!

The guy angry man bemoans that others aren't "getting out there , getting jobs" AND he runs an agency and wants others to work so he can have a small income ??????????
Isn't that like benefits ? Some work , pay taxes , those in need are take out of the system ? HE is obviously the one in need here , poor chap can't pay his credit card bill this month

Where does this leave the countless families that already have more than 3 children?, up shit creek without a paddle. Yet another Government initiative that again targets the poorer families, it's not enough that they are already reducing the rate of most benefits as of 2013 so most families will struggle anyway, but to cut of needed funds for families with over 3 children that will already be on their ass is appauling.

All i hear is the Government talking about the "workshy" population, the f*cking prime minister has never been to a job centre in his life. I went to the job centre yesterday and even my job adviser said there is nothing out there at the moment regarding employment. The economy has stalled and we are still a country in recession.

This draconian Government will have a lot to answer for, taxing the poor and convincing the middle class that it's in their best interests to support these ideas is nothing but shocking. The poor get poorer while the middle class are too busy looking down at the poor to realise they are getting shafted too while the rich stay rich, same old tories

It's not a case of just being able to afford them when you have them

Circumstances change over the course of a Childs life. I've been made redundant twice since my 12 year olds been born, the last time 2 years ago, that's when we decided to do things this way, if my parents were alive then they would help look aft them, if you have no other option then this is all you can do.

I'm sure he'll retract his statements later.
He has had a bit of an embarrassing time here , as we 've all seen.
Take his retractions well , he's big enough to have taken onboard the posts he embarrassed himself in.
Don't ask for apologies , they were actually his thoughts/beliefs before he asked for general opinion.

He runs an agency , but on the funny side (no oifence angry guy) , he doesn't seem to know the difference between a welder and a coded welder

What peopel are afraid to say is taht this is a Muslim issue not a British one.

Even Baroness Warsi admitted that Pakistani and Bangledeshi families deliberately have many children to claim more benefits.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14909062

Indian families limit the amount because they want them to get education- This is not an issue amongst Muslims.

Fair play there are load of inigenous Brits who hav e kids and dont care about working to keep them and they should be courtailed as well.

Three is about right --then it should be pay for the rest yourself.

Also people who have not been on this country for more than 5 tears and paid tax should get F/ All.

What peopel are afraid to say is taht this is a Muslim issue not a British one.

Even Baroness Warsi admitted that Pakistani and Bangledeshi families deliberately have many children to claim more benefits.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14909062

Indian families limit the amount because they want them to get education- This is not an issue amongst Muslims.

Fair play there are load of inigenous Brits who hav e kids and dont care about working to keep them and they should be courtailed as well.

Three is about right --then it should be pay for the rest yourself.

Also people who have not been on this country for more than 5 tears and paid tax should get F/ All.

Most people who can't afford any more kids they don't have them. On welfare it should be two maximum. Have any more and the state does not pay. I am fed up paying for more and more kids so they can have a bigger Fooking house.
Scroungers the bloody lot of em. The welfare is for people who can't genuinely work through illness and for those laid off and are actively looking for work.( There but the grace of god,) but those that choose not to work EVER!! And then have kids to get a decent house.......Scum.

So what about me and others in my situation then.... I had a very good job, that paid really well and could easily support myself, my wife, and the three children we decided to have... Unfortunately my wife decided to walk out on us leaving me with no alternative other than to resign as my job was far from conducive to raising a family with regards the hours I worked, and how far from home I could be required to be, often overnight, plus with the rising costs of childcare it was just not viable.

I therefore was left with little choice other than to rely on the state to support us.... let me add that I have used the time constructively as I have been studying for a degree in English language and literature for the past four years so that I can pursue a career in teaching, a job far more child friendly when it comes to the hours I will work.... so should the government and more specifically the benefit system be there to support me or should I be expected to fend for myself?

People are going on about individual situations then 'if' there was an option on your life insurance that said for example 'pay an extra £5 per month and we would cover you for your 4th, 5th, 6th child if you lost your job or become ill then surely that reasurrance would put peoples minds to rest.

Most people who can't afford any more kids they don't have them. On welfare it should be two maximum. Have any more and the state does not pay. I am fed up paying for more and more kids so they can have a bigger Fooking house.
Scroungers the bloody lot of em. The welfare is for people who can't genuinely work through illness and for those laid off and are actively looking for work.( There but the grace of god,) but those that choose not to work EVER!! And then have kids to get a decent house.......Scum.

So what about me and others in my situation then.... I had a very good job, that paid really well and could easily support myself, my wife, and the three children we decided to have... Unfortunately my wife decided to walk out on us leaving me with no alternative other than to resign as my job was far from conducive to raising a family with regards the hours I worked, and how far from home I could be required to be, often overnight, plus with the rising costs of childcare it was just not viable.

I therefore was left with little choice other than to rely on the state to support us.... let me add that I have used the time constructively as I have been studying for a degree in English language and literature for the past four years so that I can pursue a career in teaching, a job far more child friendly when it comes to the hours I will work.... so should the government and more specifically the benefit system be there to support me or should I be expected to fend for myself?

this is the big issue and one mr brown fails to recognise.
mr brown feels the only reason you would ever want a 3rd child is to scrounge off the government and to get a bigger house.
he also fails to recognise that people can lose their jobs through no fault of their own.
i agree that people choosing to give birth to children for their own financial gain is wrong and something needs to be done about it, but his views fail to recognise people in your situation and leaves you with some very controversial choices, either let all your children lose out equally, let one child suffer or you could always find a baby box and put your youngest in there.

People are going on about individual situations then 'if' there was an option on your life insurance that said for example 'pay an extra £5 per month and we would cover you for your 4th, 5th, 6th child if you lost your job or become ill then surely that reasurrance would put peoples minds to rest.

Because your post was a generalisation of the population and to be frank complete bollocks.

I have 3 children and pay more than enough tax to the government so are you now suggesting that I pay an insurance company to cover me in case of hard times as well as the thousands I contribute in taxes?

Your whole argument is flawed and the whole reason it was posted was to generate a reaction. Unfortunately for you most of the posters on here and your electorate don't agree with your ridiculous ramblings and you have been made to look foolish yet again.

People are going on about individual situations then 'if' there was an option on your life insurance that said for example 'pay an extra £5 per month and we would cover you for your 4th, 5th, 6th child if you lost your job or become ill then surely that reasurrance would put peoples minds to rest.

assuming you can afford that extra £5 a month or a life insurance policy in the first place, and how long does this reassurance last?
the rest of your life?
10 years?
5 years?
1 year?
6 months?