Don't Expect Us To Pay Benefits For Unlimited Babies, Says Minister - Big Families Won't Be Supported On Welfare

[OnionTerror]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1318439/Jeremy-Hunt-Dont-expect-pay-benefits-unlimited-babies.html#

Cabinet minister was branded 'abhorrent' today after saying that the state should not provide limitless support to benefits claimants with large families.

Campaigners reacted with fury after the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt savaged the policy of sizeable handouts totalling more than the average household earns.

Mr Hunt claimed that the Government's proposed cap on benefits reflected the need for claimants to 'take responsibility' for their children.

But he denied that the new limit was a 'penalty' on large families.

'The number of children that you have is a choice and what we're saying is that if people are living on benefits, then they make choices but they also have to have responsibility for those choices,' he told Newsnight

'It's not going to be the role of the state to finance those choices.'

He added: 'You can have children but if you are going to ask for support that is more than the average wage that people earn, then we're saying no, the state shouldn't support that.

'That's not fair on working people who have to pay the taxes to pay those benefits.'

Mr Hunt also insisted that the Government was right to withdraw child benefit from families where one parent is a higher-rate taxpayer.

'If ever there was a week when the Conservative Party and the coalition demonstrated its commitment to fairness, it's this week when they removed child benefit from top rate taxpayers,' he said.

Mr Hunt remarks were today criticised by a number of experts and Labour politicians.

Alison Garnham, chief executive of Child Poverty Action Group, said: 'The bankers who are most to blame for this crisis are getting billions in bonuses again, yet it is children in poverty who are paying the price.

'Forcing children into destitution on the arbitrary basis of how many brothers and sisters they have is abhorrent.

'As families brace themselves to discover whether their jobs will survive the cuts, it is awful that those with larger families should face this extra anxiety.

'The numbers of very large families have declined tremendously over recent generations, so why pick on these few children and mark them out as deserving destitution?

'All children deserve to be valued and protected by the nation equally and it is a scandal that nearly four million already live in poverty.

'Families with children have already suffered the greatest burden of the cuts so far, but children do not have the broadest shoulders and it is time for the Government to back off and target those who do.'

Labour leader Ed Miliband told This Morning: 'People don't really want politicians coming along lecturing them about how many kids they should have.'

He also called the child benefit announcement this week a 'complete shambles' and said they had caused 'huge anxiety'.

'I don't think they should be messing around with it in the way they are... Changes have to be made, we have got to reduce the deficit but we have to do it in a way that's fair,' he said.

'All families need support. I am against the changes that the Government is making to child benefit.

'The way they have gone about them has caused huge anxiety, particularly for mums who are staying at home while maybe their husbands are going out to work.

'I will look at the changes the Government propose on welfare. We do need to get more people into work and I will look sympathetically at some of the changes that they are making.

'But when it comes to child benefit which has gone to all families for 60 years in this country - it was a legacy of the Second World War - I think it is really important to support families in this country and I think child benefit is a good way of doing it. I don't think, frankly, they should be messing around with it.'

Donald Hirsch, from Loughborough University's Centre for Research in Social Policy told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the statements marked 'quite a slippery slope'.

'It's a real simplification to divide people effectively into these undeserving poor or lifetime poor who we say "these are the choices you make and if you make them we're not going to support you," and people who are working.

'In the present system we do expect people to go out and look for work if they can and if they lose their jobs we think about their needs, not just some crude comparison with someone who is working on an average wage.'

Labour MP Kate Green, a former head of the Child Poverty Action Group, told the show that children should not be made to suffer because of changes in their parents' circumstances.

Ms Green, MP for Stretford and Urmston, said: 'I think it's unreasonable and very cruel.

'It's utterly wrong that children should suffer because of circumstances their parents experience.'

She added: 'It's absolutely wrong to go down the line of saying only rich people or better-off people should be parents.'

This week Chancellor George Osborne unveiled proposals for a maximum limit on the amount of benefits one family can claim.

He did not put a figure on the new welfare cap but said that - with the exception of the disabled - no family will receive more in benefits than the average family receives from going out to work.

Under explosive plans revealed earlier this week, child benefit allowance will be stripped from all families where at least one parent is a higher rate taxpayer from 2013.

At present, higher rate tax of 40 per cent is paid by anyone earning more than £43,875.

But figures analysed by the Mail yesterday revealed that the starting point will plunge by £1,500 to £42,375 in April.

And in a further blow, one of Britain’s leading tax experts forecast that higher rate tax could begin on a salary as low as £38,600 by 2015, though this claim was denied by the Treasury.

The Government has said that only 15 per cent of families – around 1.2million – who receive child benefit will be affected by the cut.

But in some core Tory areas this is already as high as 35 per cent, and will inevitably rise further.

The fresh revelations will be a crushing disappointment for cash-strapped families who had believed they had escaped the hugely controversial clampdown.

[leicestersq]

Ms Green, MP for Stretford and Urmston, said: 'I think it's unreasonable and very cruel.

'It's utterly wrong that children should suffer because of circumstances their parents experience.'

This has put the fear of God into women who seem to think that the way to financial success is by blackmailing the state and ex-husbands to paying them as much money as possible by threatening poverty against their own children. If that threat is ignored, I doubt very much the children will be worse off, perhaps they will be a lot better off. Being used in this sort of blackmail never encourages much self confidence.

[miko]

Will they have the guts?

We did not get into this situation where by the more you breed the more you get over night , it has taken maybe 40 years + . They will not just stop it over night .

However bit by bit they could get the situation sorted it might take two decades. The way to do it is say and make it plain clear we will pay for the first two and house you for the first two after that no more extra money or bigger houses.

Those large families already here will still get what they have been getting but as the children of those familiys grow to adulthood and stop being a burden on the state the next generation , the kids not yet born will be told no more than two kids paid for by the state.

That is the only way I can see it happen . They could also freeze any benefits that the big familiys are getting from now on , so as time goes by bit by bit they get a little less in real terms.

[OnionTerror]

Will they have the guts?

We did not get into this situation where by the more you breed the more you get over night , it has taken maybe 40 years + . They will not just stop it over night .

However bit by bit they could get the situation sorted it might take two decades. The way to do it is say and make it plain clear we will pay for the first two and house you for the first two after that no more extra money or bigger houses.

Those large families already here will still get what they have been getting but as the children of those familiys grow to adulthood and stop being a burden on the state the next generation , the kids not yet born will be told no more than two kids paid for by the state.

That is the only way I can see it happen . They could also freeze any benefits that the big familiys are getting from now on , so as time goes by bit by bit they get a little less in real terms.

The kids "affected" already exist...If parent(s) can't afford to look after them / feed them, etc..Will they be taken into care?

[juvenal]

Krusty's got four kids at home, and Beeney five - let's hope they can handle this bad news.

[exiges]

It's not by accident that the UK has the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe.

Sure there are plenty of people with "too many" kids who will suffer, but by drawing a line in the sand and saying "no more" will halt the rot and make people think twice in future.

[miko]

The kids "affected" already exist...If parent(s) can't afford to look after them / feed them, etc..Will they be taken into care?

If you read what i said my idear is NOT to stop the money for those already here , but let it be know that in future the state will only pay for the first two. The ones already here will still get their money . Once those already here have grown up maximum of 18 years we can have a stiuation where the state only pays for the first two.

No need to be taking anyone into care.

[OnionTerror]

If you read what i said my idear is NOT to stop the money for those already here , but let it be know that in future the state will only pay for the first two. The ones already here will still get their money . Once those already here have grown up maximum of 18 years we can have a stiuation where the state only pays for the first two.

No need to be taking anyone into care.

..or put this this way...you limit it to two children, but they carry on having children anyway..what do you do?

Edited October 7, 2010 by Dave Beans

[miko]

It's not by accident that the UK has the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe.

Sure there are plenty of people with "too many" kids who will suffer, but by drawing a line in the sand and saying "no more" will halt the rot and make people think twice in future.

We have the highest amount of single parents in Europe and housing included pay the most in benefits. The country with the second highest pays the second most benefits and the country with the third highest pays the third highest benefits. This goes on right down the line each country comes in the same place for the amount of single parents as it does for the amount given in benefits. Right down to Italy who gives nothing and has the least . I think that speaks voloums.

[miko]

..or put this this way...you limit it to two children, but they carry on having children anyway..what do you do?

Pay for the first two.

[maxdiver]

If his views are abhorrent - In a past life I must have been a Nazi who did it because he believed in it and loved it, not because I'm followed orders.

It's funny how the traditional Left-Right news papers are in total disarray with this current economic crisis.

You'd have trouble distinguishing between the Mail/Guardian/Times/Telegraph on any number of issues.

[OnionTerror]

Pay for the first two.

.and what would happen to child three/four etc?

[leicestersq]

Pay for the first two.

That is two too many.

If the principle is that you pay for your own kids, then the limit should be zero.

And the taxpayer would save a fortune on adminstering child benefit.

[miko]

.and what would happen to child three/four etc?

The parents can work or not have them. My parents chose to have four kids my dad worked to pay for us.

[SarahBell]

I heard an interview on R4 this morning where some soft-tw&t gave the "what if someone lost their job and they had three kids..."

well imo the ones who want to work will go and find work again sooner or later.

Those who want to sit on their arses and have have never worked need sorting out.

in the tabloids recently there have been horrific examples of 11+ kids on benefits. It's just not on.

A line has to be drawn and yes it'll be sodding crap for them until they get a job and then they realise what a stupid idea it was to keep popping out kids.

[miko]

That is two too many.

If the principle is that you pay for your own kids, then the limit should be zero.

And the taxpayer would save a fortune on adminstering child benefit.

We have saftey nets and two children paid for by the state , plus a better standard of living for those that work i.e. make work pay is a step in the right direction .

As i said in a previous post we did not get here overnight and we are not going to sort it out overnight.

I would not like to see us go from one extrem to another like U.S.A. and see mothers and children on the streets.

[OnionTerror]

The parents can work or not have them. My parents chose to have four kids my dad worked to pay for us.

So do you sterilise each parent after two?...isn't that the only way you actually physically stop them having kids?

Not everyone will play by the rules..no matter what the rules are....many will have loads of kids no matter what the obstacles are..

[SarahBell]

So do you sterilise each parent after two?...isn't that the only way you actually physically stop them having kids?

I'd do it before.

Licence reproduction.

But probably needs to be done worldwide.

Edited October 7, 2010 by SarahBell

[miko]

So do you sterilise each parent after two?...isn't that the only way you actually physically stop them having kids?

Not everyone will play by the rules..no matter what the rules are....many will have loads of kids no matter what the obstacles are..

So what do you want Dave we just carry on paying come what may ?

Where I used to work many of the men there will be loosing their child benefits for their two or three kids as they earn over £45k . But for those that don't work and just breed we just keep throwing money at them.?

Yes there will always be exceptions and some will carry on and have more than two kids. So shoud the rest of society the tax payer be blackmailed by these peole ?

Murder carries a life sentance but some people still commit muder even it the obstacles are years and years in prison. We don't stop sending people to prison for murder or punishing people for offences even if the majority play by the rules due to the penalties.

People have rights and responsibilities no one is forced to have children , if they choose to have them then don't expect others to pay for ever and a day.

[hilltop]

The price of everything and the value of nothing.

Far from achieving liberation, women have become work slaves and the family an archane concept.

Abortion is not a moral decision but an economic imperative.

Children are on the one hand, cossetted and priviledged, on the other feared and resented.

This is a messed up society, not just because of economic imbalance, but because we have lost any common ground around which to build agreement.

You might help yourself by making kids poorer, but I do not agree with it.

[realignoramus]

I would not like to see us go from one extreme to another like U.S.A. and see mothers and children on the streets.

Isn't this now government policy for the "Undeserving Poor". What an awful expression!

Sadly our new leaders are the ones who decide who is undeserving, so just keep your fingers crossed that you do not fall on hard times - you just might find the safety net has been taken away. Awful!

[miko]

Isn't this now government policy for the "Undeserving Poor". What an awful expression!

Sadly our new leaders are the ones who decide who is undeserving, so just keep your fingers crossed that you do not fall on hard times - you just might find the safety net has been taken away. Awful!

I have fallen on hard times a few years back and without kids and owing my own home there was very little saftey net . There never has been for people without dependent kids.

What we have right now is the state blackmailed by people just breeding.

[northwestsmith2]

There's no need to set a number of children. If they are getting the average income in benefits it's up to the parents.

If you can't care for your kids then the state already has to take over, you don't get a cash payment for failing as a parent.

[OnionTerror]

So what do you want Dave we just carry on paying come what may ?

Where I used to work many of the men there will be loosing their child benefits for their two or three kids as they earn over £45k . But for those that don't work and just breed we just keep throwing money at them.?

Yes there will always be exceptions and some will carry on and have more than two kids. So shoud the rest of society the tax payer be blackmailed by these peole ?

Murder carries a life sentance but some people still commit muder even it the obstacles are years and years in prison. We don't stop sending people to prison for murder or punishing people for offences even if the majority play by the rules due to the penalties.

People have rights and responsibilities no one is forced to have children , if they choose to have them then don't expect others to pay for ever and a day.

I personally don't think its right that ppl on long term benefit keep on churning kids out one after another without thinking of the consequences.

However say there's 3 million families claiming income support (I don't know the exact figure, but use this as an example), say you put off 85% from having more kids, but the other 15% still decide to have more than two kids...what happens to those "extra" kids once they are born, and the family can't afford to look after it?

[concerned_money]

If you read what i said my idear is NOT to stop the money for those already here , but let it be know that in future the state will only pay for the first two. The ones already here will still get their money . Once those already here have grown up maximum of 18 years we can have a stiuation where the state only pays for the first two.

No need to be taking anyone into care.

the state should pay for the first two & the house eh ?

well I don'y think the state should pay anything beyond a bedsit & basic food for any individual.

I don't appreciate having 1000quid/month every month for the next 20 year stolen from my pay packet to support some slag who got beans blown up her muff just to have a babba !

can't afford it, terminate it - tough