December 15th, 2011

Stop funding wasters

Posted in The Job - General by 200

I mean to post about a programme I heard on the radio on the way int work the other week.

I think it was Victoria Derbyshire’s slot on Radio Five and they were discussing government proposals to limit the amount of free cash they give to spongers families on benefits to an amount which stopped increasing at four children. I can’t remember which government mouthpiece was fronting the idea but he or she said that there was a limit to free money and if people wanted more than four children they should not expect the government (you an me) to pay for it.

I recall a woman with ten children on the phone saying√ā¬†things√ā¬†like ‘how dare the government dictate how many children she can have’ and ‘what’s next, a China-like law preventing people from having kids?’ She made the point that her husband had always been in employment and she was not subject to any additional government handouts, thus completely missing the point that the suggested initiative didn’t actually apply to her. As far as the initiative is concerned, she can have as many kids as she wants, as long as she pays for them.

There isn’t much I agree with the Conservative Party, usually on principle, but I have to agree on this one.

When Mrs Weeks and I decided to have children, we made the responsible decision that even if my wife gave up her job, which paid more than my police wages, to look after our children full time, we would still be able to bring a child or two into the world and fund them off the back of a single wage. When we had a second, we made the same decisions.

Of course, if you don’t have any wages, you don’t have to make the same careful decisions, because the government will fund the kids for you. And guess what, the more you have the more√ā¬†funding√ā¬†you’ll get, and here’s a bonus, the more kids you have the bigger the√ā¬†house√ā¬†you can have too.

So it’s like a bit of a breath of fresh air to think that someone is talking about putting a stop to the kiddy boom gravy train. Not that the people who are the biggest spongers in this department have the common sense to think about limiting their child-creating opportunities.

If you have loads of kids but pay for them through hard-earned wages, I’m not talking about you. If you are unemployed, watch Jeremy Kyle, smoke and drink, have kids who play truant, have several children each with a different father, are regular customers of the old bill, or just expect the tax-payer to fund your sorry life, I am talking about you.

You can skip to the end and leave a comment. Pinging is currently not allowed. RSS 2.0


  1. Brother Random says:

    An excellent idea that will save money directly and indirectly.

    It’s almost impossible to believe that a modern UK government could come up with it. Somone must have accidentally taken the suggestion box up to a minister rather than the normal one stuffed with tax money

    December 16th, 2011 at 07:57

  2. Mad Mick says:

    I have to admit that, at the outset I wholeheartedly agree. However, in the current economic climate, how do we sit with the loyal taxpayer who has five children that he has paid for for the last 12 years, suddenly finding himself out of work and in need of benefits? Do we only pay him for the first four children? After all it was his choice to have five? Not his choice to claim benefits though. Difficult one really.

    December 16th, 2011 at 08:06

  3. Lex Ferenda says:

    @ Mad Mick. I don’t think this needs to be a problem. What we need to deal with is the culture of unemployment and benefits that have infested this country.
    All long term unemployed should be on voluntary work programs every day so they are used to getting up in the morning and doing something constructive. This would put them in a far better position to gain employment, apart from making their miserable lives more worthwhile.
    If we have someone who has five children but they have always worked and then find themselves unemployed; I would be quite happy to pay them benefits for six months while they try and find another job. If after six months they have not, then they go on the voluntary work program or benefits stop or become limited.
    Personally I think telling people they can have four children at the states expense is still wholly irresponsible. Apart from being an overpopulated world, why should we encourage anyone to have children at the states expense. Mistakes can be made but I would stop benefits at two children. I would also stop child benefit after two children for everyone. If you want more you should pay for it. The state should not be doing anything to encourage large families.
    The most difficult problem is the young girls we have who are banging out children just before or just after they leave school and then get given houses and sit around on benefits. I know women like this who have never worked in their lives. We have got to get really tough with this culture. I would require anyone living wholly on benefits to take their children to a state nursery as soon as they are six months old and go to work or go on a voluntary work program.

    December 16th, 2011 at 11:31

  4. Tony Durham says:

    Bet Millibean and his mob are against it !

    December 16th, 2011 at 15:37

  5. Tony F says:

    Lex has it spot on.

    December 16th, 2011 at 18:23

  6. Oi says:

    I worked damnned hard for long hours to raise my children. I find it bloody well offensive that I have to pay to bring up some layabouts childrn as well.

    December 16th, 2011 at 23:19

  7. Headteacher says:

    I was waved at the other day by pupils of mine in the back of their Dad’s 2011 Volkswagen Toureg. He’s never worked a day in his life, owns this years model (which he replaces EVERY year), and owns a villa in Malta. I drive an 11 year old polo.

    December 24th, 2011 at 19:24

Leave a comment