Poll on tax payer funded children per household.

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?

Well in many countries in Europe you have help off the state for only 12 months!!!!

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?

Well in many countries in Europe you have help off the state for only 12 months!!!!

thats not answering the question is it
if by your reckoning people can survive by using life insurance policies, so thats their money out of their own pocket on top of the tax they have to pay how long would the reassurance last?
also how many people can realistically afford a life insurance policy?
my view is your still victimising the poor however you look at it.

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?

Well in many countries in Europe you have help off the state for only 12 months!!!!

There is absolutely no way an insurance company would give you cover against illness/redundancy etc for an extra £5 p/m.

The premiums for protecting anyone who had a no fault loss of employment to the standard of living provided by the state i.e. £111 p/w (for a couple) + housing benefit + free school dinners etc. would be easily three figures per month IMO.

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?

Well in many countries in Europe you have help off the state for only 12 months!!!!

There is absolutely no way an insurance company would give you cover against illness/redundancy etc for an extra £5 p/m.

The premiums for protecting anyone who had a no fault loss of employment to the standard of living provided by the state i.e. £111 p/w (for a couple) + housing benefit + free school dinners etc. would be easily three figures per month IMO.

just shows he doesnt know what hes talking about and no concept of reality
he moans about people who use the benefit system and how its not fair on taxpayers, but i bet hed be the first guy on the benefits line if things go wrong saying 'I pay my taxes I deserve these benefits' sad really if you think about it

i think it should be two maximum

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?

Well in many countries in Europe you have help off the state for only 12 months!!!!

There is absolutely no way an insurance company would give you cover against illness/redundancy etc for an extra £5 p/m.

The premiums for protecting anyone who had a no fault loss of employment to the standard of living provided by the state i.e. £111 p/w (for a couple) + housing benefit + free school dinners etc. would be easily three figures per month IMO.

just shows he doesnt know what hes talking about and no concept of reality
he moans about people who use the benefit system and how its not fair on taxpayers, but i bet hed be the first guy on the benefits line if things go wrong saying 'I pay my taxes I deserve these benefits' sad really if you think about it

Personally I would rather go without than be on benefits. I take pride that I work very hard and would do absolutely anything to ensure the bills get paid and the roof stays over my families head.

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?

Well in many countries in Europe you have help off the state for only 12 months!!!!

There is absolutely no way an insurance company would give you cover against illness/redundancy etc for an extra £5 p/m.

The premiums for protecting anyone who had a no fault loss of employment to the standard of living provided by the state i.e. £111 p/w (for a couple) + housing benefit + free school dinners etc. would be easily three figures per month IMO.

just shows he doesnt know what hes talking about and no concept of reality
he moans about people who use the benefit system and how its not fair on taxpayers, but i bet hed be the first guy on the benefits line if things go wrong saying 'I pay my taxes I deserve these benefits' sad really if you think about it

Personally I would rather go without than be on benefits. I take pride that I work very hard and would do absolutely anything to ensure the bills get paid and the roof stays over my families head.

brave words
have you got kids or any kind of family?
are you happy to watch them starve when theres no food on the table?
watch them go cold when your heating has been cut off?
all because of your pride, because your so stupid not to take the benefits youve already paid for?
try life in the real world and see what happens
its easy to say these things when youve got money a lot harder to put them into practice.

just shows he doesnt know what hes talking about and no concept of reality
he moans about people who use the benefit system and how its not fair on taxpayers, but i bet hed be the first guy on the benefits line if things go wrong saying 'I pay my taxes I deserve these benefits' sad really if you think about it

I absolutely agree Jonny. Whenever these threads appear they always come from those who are well off and have no real concept of being poor.

It is true that benefit claimants (& and those whose income is below £16k P/A) get extra money for each child they have, but amazingly children do cost money (yes Angry Man you do have to feed and clothe them) so no benefit claimant is ‘making money’ from having extra children.

Living on benefits is not the sugar-coated lifestyle some have portrayed and if Angry Man really thinks it is then he should chuck his job in and go on the dole.

I'm a tax payer (not much admittedly) but I don't begrudge what I pay because I know that I get a safe society in return. Tax £'s can always be spent better, but basically we have a brilliant standard of living in this country and being assured of that is far better than moaning about paying a couple of extra quid on your tax bill.

Personally I would rather go without than be on benefits. I take pride that I work very hard and would do absolutely anything to ensure the bills get paid and the roof stays over my families head.

That is absolute rubbish. If you had no job, no income and nowhere to turn you would claim benefits.

I don't doubt you do work long hours, but it does piss me off when someone who doesn't do hard physical graft uses the phrase 'I work very hard'

There is a huge difference between office work and manual labour, where working life is always cut short because of the toll their efforts have on their bodies. But of course they then become the lazy benefit scroungers in later life which couldn't be further from the truth.

Angry man you replies are almost vomit inducing "I would rather go without than claim benefits" smacks of someone who has never had to struggle.

I did to put myself through university and get where I am now but believe me the hardest words you will ever hear are "Daddy I am hungry" when you can't do f**k all about it. I did my best and have fought and worked hard to make ends meet.

I am lucky things turned out for the better and I now do rather well but i would never look down my nose at someone on benefits having a fair crack at doing their best.

You on the other hand have obviously never had to struggle so cannot empathise with people who may not be as fortunate as you such as your electorate.

If you believe these strnge ideas you hve will work write a manifesto and put it to the voters, oh almost forgot you did that already and were resoundingly told to f**k off

Would you condone state sterilisation of the unemployed? Or those with 3+ children?

People can have as many children as they want as long as they are prepared to pay for them.

I would support sterilisation at birth and with the option of reversing the sterilisation when people are old enough to take personal responsibility of their children and much of that revolves around the financial aspect of having children.

You've got to be kidding me. The only people who should be sterilized are paedophiles, mass murderers and rapists!

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.

Yes but that is a genuine case. When you are an only parent due to either Bereavement or a partner has walked out and left. That is what the benefits are there for.
And why should your ex Wife get away without paying for your Kids in the same way a Bloke would be hunted down by the CSA.
Respect to you though Chief.

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.

Yes but that is a genuine case. When you are an only parent due to either Bereavement or a partner has walked out and left. That is what the benefits are there for.
And why should your ex Wife get away without paying for your Kids in the same way a Bloke would be hunted down by the CSA.
Respect to you though Chief.

but mr brown doesnt give any leeway in exceptional cases and will label this man the same as any other person on benefits.
i feel mr brown is scaremongering and stigmatising the benefits system. He feels that anyone on benefits is a lazy workshy person and stigmatises anyone using the benefits system for genuine reasons.
Mr Browns argument is idiotic and ill thought out. He would rather see people starve than looked after and create a closed dog eat dog society where people are restricted to the amount of children they can have and work or die proposal, something the benefits system prevents and eliminates abject poverty where people who have nothing have little or no chance of succeeding in life.