Alan2005

How often does this actually happen though? A pragmatic approach is much better than an ideological one for cases like this.

There are other choices that people make that have far bigger costs to society. Eating too much, smoking, etc. At what point do we tell fatties or smokers that they aren't going to get health care?

A few cases like this isn't that big a deal really.

(I'm all for giving scroungers less, just not at the expense of increased child poverty)

Piff Poff

All it needs is you get x amount of assistance per child upto a maximum of children. If you want more kids go find a job.

Shard

It already happens I'm afraid. It's called social services. Where a mother has been convicted of child neglect the kids are taken away; if she then tries to replace them, the newborns are removed at the hospital. It does sound creepy and Orwellian, but you have to consider the bigger picture - the child's interests.

It would be a deterrent for some or at very least, the removal of an incentive. Imagine if you were really poor and had no prospect of income, the idea of a larger house and higher child benefit would represent a sort of progress. And in time honoured tradition, having a large family would improve the parents' chances of being looked after in old age. It's just a question of who pays.

You could argue that with a low birth rate extra kids would be a good thing, although this presupposes the kids will become contributors to society and that may or may not be the case.

Shard

If it's a few cases then a pragmatic approach is an adequate solution. Nevertheless, I don't have a problem with the ideological concept of fairness.

Alan2005

Fairness is too subjective. Once you accept the need for the government to help people with free cash, you accept that there will be people that game the system. There are three options when implementing this:

1 - Maximize the number of people who need help getting it
2 - Minimize abuse
3 - Maximize the ratio of help to abuse

In all cases abuse will happen, and some people who need help won't get it. But which is fairest?

Jingsamichty

FL, what do you make of this scrounger? She's never worked in her life, yet the council is giving her a 4 million makeover on one of her houses.

caretaker

Factor in the future cost of institutionalising and/or providing for dysfunctional people their whole lives who aren't productive because they were pulled from their families and into foster care, it could be a lot more.

scrubbedexpat091

What about instead of expecting people to go into min. wage jobs where they can't afford daycare so end up staying on assistance as it ends up better then working + pay for day care and having even less money at the end of the month, and introducing programs to teach people skills and get them into higher paying jobs.

I know its not perfect and wont work for the lazy one in this article who appears to have no ambitions of any sort.

Not sure about the UK, but here (BC anyhow) while if one is on EI they can access training and education to get back into the workforce, if on assistance there is really nothing program or funding wise to train people with a useful skill.

Right now if your on assistance and go to school, you likely lose your assistance and since those on assistance generally can't survive without it, they don't try to go to school as 1) they usually lack the funds, 2) student loans won't cover living expenses and tuition costs these days a good amount of time. So they just end up back into a low paid job that is dead end and probably temporary and back onto assistance at some point.

If you think about it, education beyond grade 12 in Canada is not within reach of everyone, and tuition is now at a point, where its not really possible to work through college if you have no other resources beyond government loans.

Almost Canadian

Is it also distasteful when the media reports on MPs' trough-snouting?

Jingsamichty

No. MPs ought to be held to a higher standard of probity given that we have entrusted them with the authority and power to make the law.

Almost Canadian

But I thought that you accepted that both groups were complying with the law.

Jingsamichty

Probity and complying with the law are quite separate things, as you well know.

Former Lancastrian

One must say old chap that its rather distasteful to the commoner to see that just for renovations. Now that may even rise as Mummy has given Wills and Kate a new helicopter thingy so they may need to spend more on a helipad.