Large families

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

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

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

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 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.

Is that per week???

No, it's per month. For each of the first two children. Oh, and excellent nursery places too, highly subsidised.

I can hardly believe those figures but what a good example from France.

I suppose the French don't have our over population do they?

Sel Whilst nobody has said that children of these large families should be left to starve, you did say "I firmly believe there should be a limit on state support for in excess of three [children]". If that policy were to be put in place, children from large families would most certainly suffer.

So, in the case of long term unemployed-by-choice parents (and there is disagreement as to how statistically significant their numbers are), what else could be done? Should their children be taken into care? That would be even more expensive and the outcomes for children in care are probably even less positive than if they remained in a chaotic family. Should women be forced to have long-term contraceptive implants or should both parties be forcibly sterlilised (or should financial inducements be offered for a man to be sterilised)?

Or, given these ethical dilemmas, should we just accept that a very small number of ill-educated and emotionally immature people will take advantage of the system and that we have no option but to ensure that their children are at least reasonably well fed, clothed and housed?

What do mean by over population?

The number of inhabitants per square mile is 33 in France, 96 in the UK.

France has been very underpopulated for a very long time, hence the high child allowance.

And your point is?

If France is underpopulated and Britain is overpopulated, what constitutes the "right" population and how is that number arrived at?

Eloethan are you suggesting that we should continue to encourage people to have large families they cannot afford for generation after generation? Such large families will produce an awful lot of welfare dependant people in a very short time if they all carry on having large families. I think that would be creating a huge burden for our children and grandchildren.

It would be interesting to see how many did have large families if they knew there would be no extra money to pay for them. It was a long time ago and I can't remember all the details but I believe there was a cap applied in a couple of states in America. I didn't hear that lots of children suffered but I am sure there will be others who know more about this than me.

petallus
I read a few years ago that the French were / are very keen for the indigenous ladies to keep breeding.
The family allowance was one of the carrots.
In fact, if I remember correctly the child benefit did not come into fruition till after the the " production " of TWO children.
One child did/does not give entitlement.

For the umpteenth time - NOBODY is encouraging large families. The only point any of us has made is that they do not amount to a large proportion of people in receipt of benefits. How much clearer can I make myself?
Some of us also thought it was wrong to link the thread about Philpotts to the size of families. He is obviously an extreme example of the feckless and stupid but one cannot extrapolate from his story to say anything meaningful about family size.
I am now bored with this endless circular argument - if people won't actually take notice of what is said there is no point in repeating it ad nauseum.

You've made yourself perfectly clear, Greatnan. But repeating your own point of view again and again doesn't mean others have to accept it, and surely the views of others are just as valid.

Of course everybody is entitled to their own point of view, but I get fed up with having my own views consistently misrepresented. To suggest that I, or anybody else, thinks large families are to be encouaged where they are not affordable is patent nonsense. Some people are stupid and feckless, but they are not the ones responsible for the financial meltdown around the world.

Just as it's patent nonsense to suggest that anyone on here would condone leaving the children of such large families to starve to death. It works both ways. And I haven't heard any GN member claiming that this country's welfare bill has, on its own, led to its present unfortunate economic situation.

In the paper today, from some freedom of information figures from DWP there are only 180 families with more than 10 chidren dependent on benefits. So large families is not a major crisis!

Every family getting child benefit is in reciept of benefits but does not mean they are dependent on the benefit.

Hope I have not repeated what others have said..I did look through posts.

Don't we all get fed up with having our views consistently misrepresnted.

Quite, POGS.

I have certainly never suggested that anybody would leave the children to starve to death. That is my last comment - I am going to read some more revelations in Private Eye, the only journal I trust.

Not you, Greatnan. Someone did suggest that those who criticised benefit claimants with large families would welcome that as a solution, though. No wonder reasoned debate isn't possible on here.