For example why should we (tax payers) pay for people on low income or no income to have children? I notice that alot of people on benefits seem to have hoards of children, where people on high incomes have maybe 2 or 3 children.
Is it right that are hard earned cash goes to pay for the dole bludgers kids?
2007-01-05 22:18:32 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
yes there is too many council estates with mothers that have more than 4 kids .
they sponge of sociaty and put nothing back
2007-01-05 22:22:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I believe that people should be limited as to how many children they have, particularly if they are on a low income; and particularly when they sponge off of us hard working tax payers in order to do so. The paradox is, that people on benefits seem to have more children in order to get more money. How many more reprobates are going to be bred? It is crazy!
It should be our human right to have children, however, we must be able to prove that we have the means to do so; not only from a financial aspect, but we must also show that we possess the mental abilities to nurture children.
Our country has declined in the respect that we have taken away the discipline for our children. Children need to have rights and must be protected, however, they have too many rights and know it. All of this political correctness, diversity and nanny culture, has put us on a down ward spiral to disaster!
We should emulate the Japanese, (or is it the Chinese?) government's ethos where they willingly pay for the first child but no more.
2007-01-05 22:43:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Oh absolutely.I would love a Ferrari but as I can't afford one I have to live without.I am fed up having to subsidise other people's kids. Fair enough give a child allowance for the first and possibly second child but to allow some people to have 5,6,or more children AND pay them to do it( some spongers get in excess of £30,000 a year.) Throwing money at them every time they get another sprog only encourages them to carry on.So that the children would n't go without I would give vouchers for food/clothes etc instead of money.Most of these chavs spend OUR money on booze and ciggies.
If you can afford to keep a child..fine,if you can't...durex make great products.
2007-01-05 22:45:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I completely agree if people choose not to work and choose to have loads of kids just to get more money. But you have to think of those who have not chosen to be on benefits. What about the women who have been in a relationship, got married, had kids and a husband to support the family, then the husband walks out/ beats up the wife etc and the woman is left with no breadwinner and children to support. Unfortunately, in some cases the woman can't afford to work - child care (especially in summer holidays when the kids are off school) is horrendously expensive. The government says it is trying to encourage single mothers back into work but it needs to put its money where its mouth is. In my humble opinion.
2007-01-06 02:30:03 · answer #4 · answered by JellieBabie 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Parents are responsible for their children. And you're right, I think some people have forgotten that! Some people limit themselves because they know that they cannot afford to have more. I pride myself on bringing up my child with our money we've earned through work.
I also think that we should help people get back on their feet. But you will always find people who abuse the system and this takes valuable help away from people who really need it.
2007-01-05 22:29:33 · answer #5 · answered by Stef 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I am completely with you, Mate. I really think an old bloke's idea would make sense.
Let them have all the kids they want, and take those kids and give them to people who want to adopt, and have the money to support them.
What to do with the women? Put them in ore houses with contraceptives and mandatory education, and make honest slags out of them. sort of like a modern work house.
--That Cheeky Lad
2007-01-05 23:25:57 · answer #6 · answered by Charles-CeeJay_UK_ USA/CheekyLad 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
why not? Seems a fair point to me. I can see the sense of families receiving benefits if the main wage-earner losees his job for no fault of his own or a temporary redundancy ... you can't see people go without. But if no-one is working and chooses not to work, why should we pay for their lifestyle? If you can't afford to have a child then don't have one. and if they whinge that it is their "right"? Well, I'd love a Ferrari but can't afford one ... should I claim that is my "right" also?
So, either pay out for the kids you spawn or keep your legs shut!
2007-01-05 22:50:59 · answer #7 · answered by gorgeousfluffpot 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Never mind the tax issue! Think of the children, it is not much fun being raised in an overcrowded, penniless home.
2007-01-05 23:10:46 · answer #8 · answered by Nini 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
apparently it's an inherent right to have kids for some and an inherent right for others to pay taxes to pay for their kids. I'm totally w/ you. If I could afford to I'd have kids myself but I barely scrape by. Well , I guess I'm too proud and have some dignity to accept dole/welfare and others aren't
2007-01-05 22:21:58 · answer #9 · answered by uknowme 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2007-01-05 22:22:01 · answer #10 · answered by ltjn4 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes they should be limited cis concentrating in tow children is better than 5 children
2007-01-05 22:21:52 · answer #11 · answered by montathra 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋