• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

I posted what's available to anyone wishing to claim government benefits.

It's certainly not an amount of want to live on but it's enough. That's all we need to be paying for.

It isn't enough to allow many people to find the quality of life above the poverty line to get themselves in a position to find work again. The rising poverty levels are proof it doesn't work. The system is broken if kids are going hungry. And the idea that all these parents or even a large portion of them are scroungers is hyperbole IMO.

During this pandemic the govt needs to do more and they are refusing to even do the basics.
 
So you can't have both? Does it have to be one or the other?

Im saying have both, hence give people what they need whilst working towards a plan that means a kids future is not just to give them manky sarnies every lunch.

Problem is this government wont be able to achieve that
 
It isn't enough to allow many people to find the quality of life above the poverty line to get themselves in a position to find work again. The rising poverty levels are proof it doesn't work. The system is broken if kids are going hungry. And the idea that all these parents or even a large portion of them are scroungers is hyperbole IMO.

During this pandemic the govt needs to do more and they are refusing to even do the basics.
If parents can get £800 per month tax free and their kids are going hungry, then it's social services that's failing, not the welfare system.
 
I must admit to being conflicted as someone who leans to the centre left. I resent subsidising people to have more children than they can afford and was pleased that the child benefit system was limited to two children. However I have read and witnessed the hardship that many children endure and it pains me to not help them. The good thing about free school meals is that it is a targeted and specific benefit for the kids rather than money that could be spent on something else.
 
I must admit to being conflicted as someone who leans to the centre left. I resent subsidising people to have more children than they can afford and was pleased that the child benefit system was limited to two children. However I have read and witnessed the hardship that many children endure and it pains me to not help them. The good thing about free school meals is that it is a targeted and specific benefit for the kids rather than money that could be spent on something else.

Medical procedures to stop the parents reproducing is the answer.

You are right it is not the children's fault.
 
I must admit to being conflicted as someone who leans to the centre left. I resent subsidising people to have more children than they can afford and was pleased that the child benefit system was limited to two children. However I have read and witnessed the hardship that many children endure and it pains me to not help them. The good thing about free school meals is that it is a targeted and specific benefit for the kids rather than money that could be spent on something else.
This is quite the moral dilemma.

Obviously we need to ensure the wellbeing of children, but I don't believe the state should have a say in how many children people can have.

The obvious answer is what the govt have done in limiting how many children you and I pay for, but people don't appear to have changed their behaviour. That leads us to the moral hazard of paying out more for those kids because we have to, which only weakens the argument that people should show restraint in how many babies their clown car fannies fire out.
 
Back