Large families

Is that per week???

In France family allowance is €127 for the first two children €291 for three and for each additional child an extra €163. So, France , our nearest neighbour does not penalise larger families. Thank goodness.

Exactly BAnanas - one could argue that 'encouraging' such large families who cannot sustain themselves is indeed cruel to the children in more ways than one.

What the answer is, I just do not know. I do wish we could have a discussion which does not get so polarised - with the 'hang them all in one corner' and the 'what's the problem' in the other.

Fact is, such large families who depend on other tax payers (it is not 'The State' that pays, but indeed others) exist only in a very few countries. The UK social system is the very best in the world and has become a victim of its own success (as in another way, the NHS sadly). In most countries in the developed world, such families would be extremely rare as they would not be supported.

In this case, gillybob, the mum must be removed to a suitably smaller accomodation.

Yes, as others have said in posts which appeared whilst I was typing this.

Sorry Jess have you read my post? Please explain how my calculation is wrong. I want to know.

I agree with petallus that more than 1 in 10 families with 3 or more children are on some kind of benefit.
Because working/not working figures cannot be translated into on benefit/not on benefit figures.
Housing benefit is I believe paid to more working than non working families.
Its like saying 9 out of 10 families eat apples therefore 1 in 10 eat pears. The logic does not follow.

I was echoing your 'so what' Greatnan. In other words agreeing with your sentiments as I understood them.

I was also making the point that not only those unfortunate enough to be out of work claim welfare payments; some of those 'hard working families' so beloved of Cameron also have to have top ups from the state because of abysmally low wages and rising prices.

According to CPAG "Almost two-thirds (62 per cent) of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one member works". It depends how you define work.

Much has been said about job creation, but of OECD countries, only the US had (in 2011) as high a percentage of part-time work as UK. A family depending on the wages of a part-time employee will be in receipt of welfare benefits, but unless that part-time work is over 24 hours per week, they will not have the working tax credits that they were once entitled to receive.

Surely Jess it is a fair assumption based on those facts? Perhaps a few are living on unearned income but that would be more than balanced by the number receiving welfare benefits while in work. Therefore it is a reasonable assumption that 1 in 10 must be on welfare. In fact I think the figure is probably conservative because, as you said, "most of those in receipt of some benefits are working". Please explain why you think my assumptions are wrong? Many thanks

"Nearly 9 in 10 couple families with three or more dependent children had either one or both parents working"
does not translate directly into
"1 in 10 must be on welfare"
Work is mentioned in one and welfare in another. Some of those working are in receipt of benefits. in fact most of those in receipt of some benefits are working. Some of those not working may have unearned income that they live on.
You cannot pluck a statistic, shake it by the scruff of the neck and kick it around a bit and still have it make sense. It's like you toss up a pancake and down comes a chapatti.
So I wondered if you had got the figure from somewhere else on those websites.

I think depending on where we live we all have different perspectives. I live in the over crowded South East where you can't help be aware that we have a finite amount of space, we have a dire lack of affordable housing, hospitals are overcrowded, new schools are springing up all over the place. The primary near us has just acquired a piece of land to build a much needed third class to every year, when my children went there it was slightly under subscribed. My husband's daughter who works in central London tells me the daily commute is hell, particularly the London Underground part of it. I believe her annual season ticket is something in the order of £4,000 per annum for the privilege of packing herself into perpetually overstuffed trains on a daily basis. I worked up in town for some 10 years back in the '70s and early '80s, it was heaving then, but it's sure as hell a lot worse now. Nevertheless, I appreciate that living near the capital over crowding is possibly something that goes with the territory. Would under populated countries such as New Zealand with it's mere 4 million people be considered such an idyll however if it had a population of between 60 and 70 million?

I don't think anyone would want a "China" type of society where draconian measures are imposed to limit the number of children people have, but at what stage does a country reach saturation point and should we not give some thought to future generations as to how they are going to cope with such an over burdened infrastructure. Aware as we all are that we need a younger working population to support an ever increasing aging population, it's the logistics of how they are all to be accommodated that perplexes me!

I had a friend in junior school who was one of 13 children, even the nuns at my Catholic school raised an eyebrow, mainly because the eldest three girls had to share the school regulation hat, so my friend only got to wear "the hat" every third day. I remember going back to their smallish house and was shocked to see how all these beds were crammed into three fairly small bedrooms and the parents slept in the lounge. My friend, being the oldest had to bear the brunt of helping her mother with child care, she told me that her family life was chaos, endless drudgery and she longed for a "small space of her own" but that wasn't possible. She also told me that living the way she did put her off having children. I lost touch with her so I don't know whether she did have children or not, but the up close memory of this very large family crammed into a small house stayed with me in a "descending into hell" sort of way. Of course they were an extreme case back then, and even at a Catholic school they wouldn't have been considered the norm, just as the much discussed Philpott family set up is perceived unorthodox today to say the least.

Same as petallus. What has that question got to do with any of my posts?

Is that an answer?

So what indeed!

Same question to you, Petallus. So what?

I thought I had asked a specific question, but here it is again:
So what if one tenth are in receipt of benefits?

More than 1 in 10, since many families where one or even both work are also claiming some sort of benefit (say partial housing benefit, tax credits) if the income is low enough).

Greatnan perhaps if you read my posts again you will understand? If you have a specific question relating to one of them please ask it.

I don't understand the point you are making, Movedalot. So what if one tenth of the families are in receipt of benefits?

Moved I read it the same way - maybe it's a political thing.

Jess just look at what Greatnan has saved everyone the bother of reading and you will see it is not confusing. It is not difficult to work out that if "•Nearly 9 in 10 couple families with three or more dependent children had either one or both parents working" then more than I in 10 must be on welfare, is it? I then asked another question to which the answer might add something to the discussion.

Thank you very much for the links, Nellie - it is good to have the correct figures. I was especially interested in this section:

•There were 7.7 million families with dependent children in the UK in 2012, 1 in 7 of which had three or more dependent children
•Married couples had a higher average number of dependent children in their family than other family types, at 1.8 children per family compared with 1.7 on average
•The UK has a higher percentage of households with three or more children than three-quarters of European Union countries
•Nearly 9 in 10 couple families with three or more dependent children had either one or both parents working

It seem that married couples are the biggest breeders - not single mothers.
And most couples with larger families had one or both parents working - not shirkers then.

So many myths, so few facts.

Movealot does it not depend on what you mean by "on welfare".
and 1 in 10 of what? No point nellie trying to put info out there if it then becomes confused in the comments.

Movedalot I think regardless of who pays, people should be encouraged to limit the number of children they produce. There is a problem, the Earth can't continue to support more and more people. Children could understand that simple concept, just as they can understand climate change etc. Every discussion on large families ends up with people saying 'well, what's to be done?' Obviously nothing can be done for those with existing children but I firmly believe that there should be a limit on state support for any in excess of three.