The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

If only they would just assess the parents, and if it was prooven they were fit for work, get them a job and let them support their own familes like millions of other people have to do!
Reply 21
Three or four people to one modest bedroom is unacceptable - of course they should be moved to a bigger house.
Zebedee
Surely if you think people should have equal housing then you think they are equally deservinf of it?



Exactly, its tough. So why are you trying to make up for natures lot with your unjust taxation?


When did i say everyone should have equal housing? I SAID that the children shouldn't have to live in cramped, awful conditions because of their parents' choice to have more kids. They need a house which caters for the fact that there are more people living in it, for the benefit of the innocent children.

Unjust taxation? If YOU say so.
Reply 23
If people can't look after their kids then they should have them taken into care, for the benefit of society as a whole. If they wanted a bigger house perhaps they should go and work a bit harder than expecting the state to continuously provide for them. The welfare state once again is the problem, it takes away the responsibility of the a normal family with the father able to just run off. It takes away all sense of people being encouraged to get a job.

Of course the socialists harp up along now, their statist intervention of stealing money from people who have worked a hard honest living just so Candice, Chardonnay and Co. can have a nice laid back life in their council house watching Sky + on the 32 inch plasma.

I still think we should force the proles from the age of twelve to be temporarily sterilised.
JonathanH
Your argument is that an artifical construct designed to enable people to "look after" their children exists, therefore they can "look after" them and have no responsibility?


I said they should be taken away if a child cannot be supported. That is only a measure to stop a child dying because of useless parents. As you note, with the welfare state handing out houses it's very unlikely to come to that - but why should a bigger house be given (at more taxpayer expense) to better the lot of this family? There's a difference between providing what's needed for survival (which I can just about support) and providing what they want - which you advocate.


Your argument is that the person who has to pay to house, feed, clothe, educate and keep healthy your children has NO interest in how many children you have?! That you have the god-given right to have as many children as you want and can rightfully expect someone else to foot the increasing bill?!
Rights come with responsibilities. You're advocating rights with ZERO responsibility. You're advocating allowing people to take decisions about the spending of resources that do not belong to them. In such a society where the hell is the incentive for anyone to work?


They really are - you're proving it right now.


Tripe. And tripe that reveals the inherent idiocy of socialism. You "care more about humans than money" to the point where you utterly forget WHERE THAT MONEY COMES FROM or HOW IT IS MADE. It's all very well saying "look at me, I'm so kind, I think everyone should be given money" - but if you don't bother to think that that money has to be TAKEN from others - or that when people are just GIVEN money there's no incentive for them to work to PRODUCE money, then what you essentially are is an idiot. A socialist is someone who thinks about people and not money, a capitalist is someone who realises that you have to think about both for the system to work. If money grew on trees you'd have a great system - unfortunately socialists don't appear to have factored in to their calculations the fact that it doesn't.


Of course there is responsibility. Responsibility isn't just money, and paying for things. Parents are a bit more than that. Let the state handle the artificial constructs of our society by giving money where its needed(with the incentives to go out and work too of course, as there is now-though how a single mother of 5 or 6 can work and raise children is a tricky one), and let the actual parent sbring up the kids, love attention etc etc.

Jon, it really is simple. A bigger house should be given becaus ethe one they live in now is far too small for them. I doubt this mother is going to be able tog et a mortgage anytime soon, or has the qualifications for a job where she will be able to get out of the poverty trap. Its fact that household situations have a big effect on how well a child does. If you want these kids to have any chance of succeeding and getting out of the poverty cycle, then you need to recognise that they need more space. You talk of "bettering their lot"- you are just punishing the children ebcause you are enraged at their parents. That isn't fair or acceptable.

Yes, i do advocate giving more thn is strictly necessary for survival. Because if kids are trying to survive, they aren't going to have much success at school are they? These kids will end up in the same situation their parents are in now.

Your old "i hate socialists" argument is one to ignore. Go and phone someone about it.
dan_man
If people can't look after their kids then they should have them taken into care, for the benefit of society as a whole. If they wanted a bigger house perhaps they should go and work a bit harder than expecting the state to continuously provide for them. The welfare state once again is the problem, it takes away the responsibility of the a normal family with the father able to just run off. It takes away all sense of people being encouraged to get a job.

Of course the socialists harp up along now, their statist intervention of stealing money from people who have worked a hard honest living just so Candice, Chardonnay and Co. can have a nice laid back life in their council house watching Sky + on the 32 inch plasma.

I still think we should force the proles from the age of twelve to be temporarily sterilised.


If they wanted a bigger house they should work a bit harder? How is a woman with no qualifications and 5 kids going to be able to get a job that would enable her to have a choice over how many rooms her house has? The fact is, where they live now is too small.

If i had read your last sentence bofre starting to post, i would have just ignored it altogether. Anyone who advocates sterilizing people agains their will should be sterilised, so they can't pass on such Hitleresque opinions.
Holly-AT
Three or four people to one modest bedroom is unacceptable - of course they should be moved to a bigger house.

If that's the way you feel, feel free to start the "give welfare-bums nicer lives" charity and donate as much as you want. Not everyone thinks they should have to hand over their hard-EARNED money in order to give these people a bigger house.
Answer me this - why should a welfare family with 5 kids get a house, but say, a family with 2/3 kids, where both parents work but don't earn too much - have to make do with a 2 bedroom flat?
JonathanH
If that's the way you feel, feel free to start the "give welfare-bums nicer lives" charity and donate as much as you want. Not everyone thinks they should have to hand over their hard-EARNED money in order to give these people a bigger house.
Answer me this - why should a welfare family with 5 kids get a house, but say, a family with 2/3 kids, where both parents work but don't earn too much - have to make do with a 2 bedroom flat?


Thats a stupid question. Because a house with 7 people living in it needs to be bigger than a house with 4 or five? Why should the children have to suffer in a tiny house because you feel hatred towards the parents? I know you're the kind of guy who doesn't care about war crimes and stuff, but come on.
Reply 28
cottonmouth
If they wanted a bigger house they should work a bit harder? How is a woman with no qualifications and 5 kids going to be able to get a job that would enable her to have a choice over how many rooms her house has? The fact is, where they live now is too small.

If i had read your last sentence bofre starting to post, i would have just ignored it altogether. Anyone who advocates sterilizing people agains their will should be sterilised, so they can't pass on such Hitleresque opinions.


Ah the straight away, 'you disagree with socialism therefore your a Nazi' outburst. I would quite like a bigger house, does that mean I can have one through the statist welfare, sadly I'm a grammar school educated middle class person without any kids yet, so I doubt it. Its a great encouragement to pass on down the generations, don't do well at school? Well just sleep around a bit and the state will provide all!
cottonmouth
Of course there is responsibility. Responsibility isn't just money, and paying for things.

The fundamental responsibility is to support your family and make sure they are provided for. You are advocating there being no such responsibility.

cottonmouth
Jon, it really is simple.

Like you?

cottonmouth
A bigger house should be given becaus ethe one they live in now is far too small for them.

They can live in it without dying.

cottonmouth
Its fact that household situations have a big effect on how well a child does. If you want these kids to have any chance of succeeding and getting out of the poverty cycle, then you need to recognise that they need more space.

Oh please. You think that teaching a child from the time it's born that you don't need to work for a living and that everything can be provided for you by someone else is instilling them with a work ethic? You really think that parents too lazy or useless to get jobs are going to provide an environment conducive to producing kids that contribute much more to society?

cottonmouth
Because if kids are trying to survive, they aren't going to have much success at school are they? These kids will end up in the same situation their parents are in now.

They don't have to worry about survival, they can be assured that. What they do not need is a nice big house, Sky+, big TVs, mobiles and designer sportswear.

cottonmouth
Your old "i hate socialists" argument is one to ignore. Go and phone someone about it.

If you go and phone an economist and ask about wealth-creation.
Reply 30
I'm sure a suitable alternative can be found that doesn't involve a 'swap' with a smaller family.

For a start, old council houses need to be ripped down and replaced. They've done this over the past few years in the Craigmillar area of Edinburgh, and it's had a really positive impact on the community - but that's going off on a tangent, sorry.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the parents, the children have done nothing, and deserve to live in a decent house in as best an environment as possible.
cottonmouth
Thats a stupid question. Because a house with 7 people living in it needs to be bigger than a house with 4 or five?

I cannot believe that you would happily watch a welfare-family have a bigger, nicer house than those that work based purely on the fact they have more kids. You think it's fair to give welfare-scum a house as reward for having more kids to leech off the state, but deem it fine for a hardworking family to have less?

cottonmouth
Why should the children have to suffer in a tiny house because you feel hatred towards the parents?

It's not because I "hate the parents", don't talk crap. It's because it's not fair on those who contribute to society to fund these people who do nothing for themselves.

cottonmouth
I know you're the kind of guy who doesn't care about war crimes and stuff, but come on.

:rolleyes:
Reply 32
JonathanH
reward for having more kids to leech off the state


Do you actually think that people receiving benefits go through the conscious thought process of "I want more money so I will pop out another one"?
Holly-AT
Do you actually think that people receiving benefits go through the conscious thought process of "I want more money so I will pop out another one"?

Not all people, but I have absolutely no doubt that there are those who do. You don't think there are families out there who'll pop out another kid so they can upgrade their property or get higher up a waiting list?
Reply 34
I've always thought that this was a weirdly lenient loophole in the system. It reminds me of that awful Lizzy off Wife Swap who popped out about 6 kids and had more income through unemployment and child benefits than the income of a hardworking middle class family. I don't plan to have children until I can afford them through my salary. Surely that's a morally better plan than relying on the state to supply my kids with X boxes and TV's in every bedroom...
pikaboo
Surely that's a morally better plan than relying on the state to supply my kids with X boxes and TV's in every bedroom...

Absolutely. Unfortunately not everyone has such morals and is above taking because they can take, and more unfortunately there are plenty of those who, for some reason, think that such a system is a good idea and not only worth keeping, but worth expanding.
Reply 36
pikaboo
I've always thought that this was a weirdly lenient loophole in the system. It reminds me of that awful Lizzy off Wife Swap who popped out about 6 kids and had more income through unemployment and child benefits than the income of a hardworking middle class family. I don't plan to have children until I can afford them through my salary. Surely that's a morally better plan than relying on the state to supply my kids with X boxes and TV's in every bedroom...


Did she not get in trouble after the show for scamming the system or something?

Yes though, I do agree there are flaws in the system that need to be thoroughly assessed and rectified.
Reply 37
JonathanH
Not all people, but I have absolutely no doubt that there are those who do. You don't think there are families out there who'll pop out another kid so they can upgrade their property or get higher up a waiting list?


Yes, there are bound to be a minority who do this. Though I'm sure most of the people do actually want kids. And children are expensive - I'm sure most don't come out of it benefiting economically.
Reply 38
Cottonmouth, our society goes forward through work. Your system actively discourages it.


Its a bit like saying " go out and work and i'll give you a cookie, but if you don't - i'd still give you the cookie, wouldn't want you too miss out would we?" Where is the incentive? basically your system means decent people work whilst scum get everything taken care of. It should work the oposite way round, hard working people get good jobs and scum don't get anything.
Reply 39
Holly-AT
Did she not get in trouble after the show for scamming the system or something?

Yes though, I do agree there are flaws in the system that need to be thoroughly assessed and rectified.


Slap on the wrist probably. Child benefit is a great thing for the genuinely disadvantaged (my mum was living off it before she got a job) but there are far too many who just take advantage and don't even have an incentive to get up and work...including the fact that people like my mum were better off on benefits than from wages!