You think the state should pay people to stay single?

This is it? This is the left’s response to IDS’s welfare revolution?

Ha ha. Good luck with that.

You think the state should pay people to stay single?

Paying people to help those who are single and struggling makes vastly more sense than paying people to stay married.

It’s not about paying people to stay single. It’s about ensuring that the children of lone parents don’t suffer because of a decision over which they had absolutely no control.

I read somewhere ‘(Gingerbread?) that the effect of the ‘couples penalty’ is to bring lone-parent families up to 75% of the average two-parent household income. One of Labour’s unsung achievements was to work towards alleviating the financial duress visited on lone parents and their children.

I haven’t looked at IDS’s actual words, but does he prefer hetrosexual couples to bring up children, as the post suggests, or just two parents?

There’s a fairly obvious explanation for that graph that doesn’t rely on “missing couples”. The x-axis is the earnings of the highest earner in the family unit. So there can be lots of people in couples earning 0-20k but the other person is earning more than that. Whereas to get a couple with highest earnings 0k, both people in the couple must be earning 0k. I’m not sure that the y-axis means anything at all in that case – you’d expect to get a fairly sharp drop-off once you got below the median wage.

If you’re single you don’t get to pay half the rent of a couple, you don’t have half the bills of a couple. It’s more expensive to live as a singleton – whether you’ve got children or not.

As for inviting people to ‘move where the jobs are’ – don’t get me started. Presumably the jobs are in places where the rents are more expensive; like London. So presumably, to save on housing benefits costs, families actually have to live where there are fewer jobs, and lower housing costs. (Because of course, most HB recipients are actually in work, but can’t afford all the rent because rent’s so high and the pay’s so low.) But then they can’t afford to take the job because they can’t afford to live nearby and they can’t afford to commute.

me/6 continued: Testing this out, even under the clearly false assumptions that there is no correlation between the salaries of partners in a couple and that the percentage of people in partnerships doesn’t vary with income, there’s a very steep drop-off between 10k and 15k that looks very like the one on that graph. Most of the “missing couples” space on that graph just isn’t there even in theory. Once you add back in the assumption that poverty can be a cause of not being a couple – even at something small like 2% greater chance of being single for every ten percentile drop in income, most of what’s left goes too.

Their graph is utterly meaningless: they’ve seemed to assume a nice almost-linear relationship when there’s no theoretical or practical reason there would be one. In fact, to get anything remotely resembling a linear relationship, you have to assume that rich people are more likely to be single, which is certainly not the case.

@5 And heres the left wing troll – I’ll say the same thing you said back to you but with a leftist twist. And i wont even realise im doing it.

EQUALITY. YAY. TORY CUNTS. yawn

This piece is interesting, but I object to the title. NOBODY is against families. Ever meet a politician who was trying to win the anti-family vote? Nope.

It’s a stupid rhetorical device used by the right (and yes, I know the left have enough of our own). There’s no need to copy them.

“and the state is not going to pay anyone to stay single, dammit.”

Why should it ? Why should working people subisdise a lifestly choice which damages them, their children, wider society and imposes life long cost on the taxpayer. No one is stopping anyone being single, what’s being said is “if you make that choice, you pay for it”

“They calculate this penalty,” says Lisa Ansell, “by looking at net state support, but with no consideration for the cost of childcare or rent, or the earnings potential of a single person with responsibility for a child.”

Maybe because childcare and housing costs are already paid for from a different (state) pot. And, at risk of stating the obvious unless you are in a tiny % of middle class career women earning six figure salaries and up to your ears in nannies, cleaners and exclusive nurseries, the “earnings potential” of a single person with a child is actually negative

@ 3 I read somewhere ‘(Gingerbread?) that the effect of the ‘couples penalty’ is to bring lone-parent families up to 75% of the average two-parent household income

So you get £40k ish for doing the square root of bugger all ? And you honestly think that is fair and sustainable ?

“Well, for one thing, moving away from an extended social network is a risk factor for divorce – couples are more likely to survive if they belong to a shared group of friends and family with an investment in their futures.”

The left passionately argue for the “rights” of people to travel half way around the world for a min wage job in Starbucks, but it’s unreasonable to expect indiginous unemployed to travel a few hundred miles down the M1 ?

“The left passionately argue for the “rights” of people to travel half way around the world for a min wage job in Starbucks, but it’s unreasonable to expect indiginous unemployed to travel a few hundred miles down the M1 ?”

Hold up. The left isn’t campaigning against the rights of people to travel for employment purposes. Two totally different things. If pro-immigrant campaigners were saying people should be FORCED to stay in their home towns and find work there, they’d be hypocrites.

I think the general feeling on the left (and I know that’s a dangerous kind of statement to make) is that telling people that they should move away from their friends and family because the government doesn’t want to protect jobs has a certain cold-hearted “like it or lump it” sound to it.

Matt/13: So you get £40k ish for doing the square root of bugger all ?

Only if you define “child care” as “bugger all”.

@13 – no, you work (well, I do); CTC and WTC tops you up to 3/4 of average family income. Nowhere near £40k in terms of what the state provides – well, again, not in my case at least.

‘the “earnings potential” of a single person with a child is actually negative’ – eh? Lots of single parents with pre-schoolers work, albeit often part-time; *most* single parents with school-age children work. (But agree with @16 that childcare is definitely work.)

‘Why should it ? Why should working people subisdise a lifestly choice which damages them, their children, wider society and imposes life long cost on the taxpayer. No one is stopping anyone being single, what’s being said is “if you make that choice, you pay for it” ‘

Leaving aside lots of baseless assumptions here – eg, that unhappy couples staying together is good for their children, or that separation is inherently damaging for society – there’s a truly simple answer: the state should pay because if it doesn’t, the life chances of the affected children will be gravely affected. Nothing, but nothing, impacts on people’s life chances like poverty.

“Leaving aside lots of baseless assumptions here – eg, that unhappy couples staying together is good for their children, or that separation is inherently damaging for society – there’s a truly simple answer: the state should pay because if it doesn’t, the life chances of the affected children will be gravely affected.”

THANK YOU.

I’m sick of people saying things like “Why should I pay someone just because they’ve decided to have kids?” You shouldn’t. Of course you shouldn’t. If we have any humanity at all, however, we should do everything within reason to ensure children, who have made no choice whatsoever about the circumstances of their birth, get a decent opportunity in life. No matter how much we dislike their parents. Ideally, but perhaps unworkably, the benefit should be paid in a way that means it can only be used to the kids’ advantage. Until someone figures out how to do that, the current system will do.

@18
Not to mention parents who for whatever reason have a partner that left them, no-one can say they had a choice in that either. But you’re absolutely right, as is Rowan – I can’t understand the mentality of someone who is completely OK with a child suffering because they have a kneejerk grievance against the parent(s).

@18 @19 I’ve never had two consecutive posters agree with me on LibCon before. Think I’d better leave now, things can only go downhill…

@20 – Cheers, but stick around. Under Mafia rules, you are now obliged to return the favour and agree with me at some unspecified time in the future.

@19 – I agree, and you’ve caught me being cowardly. I frankly think that most parents in that sort of situation should get benefits for their own, well, benefit. But that’s more arguable, so I tend to focus on the undeniably innocent party (the child) as a shortcut. Whatever your view on the parent, you’ve got to be pretty cold to punish the kid.

Chaise @ 18

If we have any humanity at all, however, we should do everything within reason to ensure children, who have made no choice whatsoever about the circumstances of their birth, get a decent opportunity in life. No matter how much we dislike their parents.

Agreed. Hard to argue otherwise.

But are you saying that the fact that the state subsidises children does not encourage some people to have children in order to improve their own circumstances?

Are you saying that it should be permissable to have unlimited numbers of children in the full knowledge that you have no resources to support them other than those provided by the state?

Presumably your answers are no and yes?

Bravo pagar – I was wondering when someone was going to mention the effect of benefits on behaviour?

@22
I’ll jump in and answer those if it’s OK. For a start, I think that press coverage of those who have children to get their own flat and extra benefits far outstrips the percentage of benefit claimants who do, and that the many in genuine need should not suffer for the actions of a few. I also believe fervently that such behaviour sprung full-formed from the mind of Kelvin MacKenzie at the start of the ’80s, and that the Sun always banging on about it actually perversely encouraged it – a nice little misanthropic self-fulfilling prophecy.

Generally, when someone has unlimited numbers of children that they cannot support, the children (or some of them) get taken into care – so there is already a mechanism in place, albeit an imperfect one. Again, all the figures suggest it is a relatively rare occurrence, but a rare occurrence that makes good copy in the hate rags.

pagar/22: Are you saying that it should be permissable to have unlimited numbers of children

Are you advocating compulsory sterilisation for those who would otherwise have too many? (If not, then obviously it has to be permissible)

Are you advocating compulsory sterilisation for those who would otherwise have too many? (If not, then obviously it has to be permissible)

No. Of course not and I take your point that childbirth is not preventable.

However I do think that there should be some limit put on the largesse of the state in providing for the children of irresponsible parents even where this may sometimes impact adversely on an individual child.

Without such a limit, we merely reinforce cycles of deprivation and are perceived to encourage, or even reward, the irresponsibility of producing children that cannot be provided for.

@27
If the cost of employing actuaries to set the means-testing process, administrative staff to do the processing, and enforcers to perform checks on “irresponsible parents” actually cost the taxpayer more than they were losing in the first place (highly likely, given how rarely it in fact happens), would you still be in favour?

Many of the public sector administrative staff targeted as “waste” by the Coalition are in fact the staff hired to do the means-testing for benefits that the Tory press were calling for. If I were more cynical (or believed right-wing press barons were capable of Machiavellian intrigue rather than just low-level nastiness) I’d say that there was a pattern to be drawn there. As it is, it’s just unhappy synchronicity.

@26 rather. Oops!

@ 17 “Leaving aside lots of baseless assumptions here – eg, that unhappy couples staying together is good for their children, or that separation is inherently damaging for society – there’s a truly simple answer: the state should pay because if it doesn’t, the life chances of the affected children will be gravely affected. Nothing, but nothing, impacts on people’s life chances like poverty”.

But they are “gravely affected” irrespective of what the state does/does not do. You are making the classic statist assumption that state intervention alleviates poverty, and there is no evidence that it does. There is no correlation between state intervention and improved outcomes. Living standards have risen as a consequence of technological advance and economic growth, nothing (directly) to do with the state.
Your logic has prevailed pretty much uniterrupted for 50 years and we still have poverty, inequality, by some measures is actually growing. All it has produced is a huge bill for taxpayers, a massive expansion of the welfare industry and endemic, multi-generational dependendence on state handouts.

@ 16 “Only if you define “child care” as “bugger all”.

But lots of people bring up children AND work, without anyone giving them £40K (I do and so do most of my friends). Why should some people have the “choice” of being subsidised to be full time parents when most do not have that choice. What would happen if everyone with kids earning less than £40K just gave up work and lived off handouts (as anyone would if they made a purely economic, short term, decision ?)

Pagar @ 26

However I do think that there should be some limit put on the largesse of the state in providing for the children of irresponsible parents even where this may sometimes impact adversely on an individual child.

but is it as simple as that, though?

All over the World children are born in deprivation. Such deprivation does not act as a brake on conception, quite the opposite in fact. America has nothing like the welfare benefits we have, but they have a far higher proportion of teenage pregnancy than we do. The most ‘successful’ child poverty reduction schemes where the death squads of South America.

I wonder if we are falling into the trap of believing the ‘Daily Hate’ agenda here and blaming everything on benefits? I have absolutely no doubt that a sizeable proportion of our Country’s idiots like Munroe think that every single mother gets forty grand a year, but that is no excuse for the rest of us, is it? The vast majority of single mothers live in poverty and we all know that.

If we want to create a high level of marriage then perhaps we should look at the conditions that create happy, long term marriages? Instead of looking at the poorer estates and trying to find ways of forcing them to stay in unhappy marriages, why not looking at the areas where marriage is most successful and replicating those conditions? Just a thought.

@30
“What would happen if everyone with kids earning less than £40K just gave up work and lived off handouts (as anyone would if they made a purely economic, short term, decision ?)”

You really do have a low opinion of human beings, don’t you? Not everyone is out to get as much as they can for as little effort as possible, you know.

“But are you saying that the fact that the state subsidises children does not encourage some people to have children in order to improve their own circumstances?

Are you saying that it should be permissable to have unlimited numbers of children in the full knowledge that you have no resources to support them other than those provided by the state?

Presumably your answers are no and yes?”

Correct. I suppose a few people deliberately have kids to get benefits, but I suspect they’re very rare. Carelessness and bad luck are much bigger problems.

@ 31 “The vast majority of single mothers live in poverty and we all know that”.

How are you defining “poverty” then Jim. Free education, free housing, free childcare & free healthcare ? In most of the world that would be considered a luxurious existence – “poverty” to the left means not having the plasma TV’s foreign holidays and cars that working people have (even though many working people actually don’t).

[34] You have forgotten to publish evidence showing that the majority of single mother own plasma screens TVs, Matt. The Daily Hate scour the Country looking for these stories and they even find them, now and again, but the vast majority single mum never get anything like what they claim. Had you had any knoeledge on the subject you would know that.

@34 You haven’t answered the question, which was

Do you consider having acess to free education, free healthcare, free housing, free childcare (I could also throw in subsidised transport, legal representation, adult education, prescritions etc etc) to be living in poverty.

Yes or No ?

@35 “Had you had any knoeledge on the subject you would know that.”

What’s your knowledge of the subject exactly ? Guardian editorial, anecdotes from your social worker mates, or just good old fashioned middle class liberal guilt ?
Someone above basically said that single mothers get their incomes made up to £40k, which is roughly median income +£15k, are you disagreeing with that figure, or saying that £40k = living in poverty ?

[31] “If we want to create a high level of marriage then perhaps we should look at the conditions that create happy, long term marriages?” – we already have Gottman’s SPAFF-code which can allegedly predict with 95% accuracy which couples will last for 15+ years, but how many would be brave enough to take it before tying the knot?
http://contemporarylit.about.com/od/firstchapters/a/blinkExcerpt_2.htm

Jim @ 31

I broadly agree with you- poverty produces high birth rates and affluence cures them.

But what is the best policy to address the cycle of deprivation in our underclass? It is not to encourage them to breed more

Chaise @ 33

Carelessness and bad luck are much bigger problems.

Are you suggesting Karen Matthews was just unlucky on five occasions with five different men?

Do you think she have been so unlucky if she hadn’t got additional funding for each new child?

If you were one of her kids, how lucky would you feel?

@34
So what you’re saying is that relative poverty is not enough for you? You think that kids born to parents who aren’t working for however long, or for whatever reason should live a third-world existence before they have any right to complain?

This isn’t about plasma TVs (another Mackenzie-esque falsehood), this is about maintaining an amount of human dignity in a society which professes to care about such things. The amount of subsidised housing is not keeping up, the public transport system is being cut back – along with subsidies, and the NHS, in terms of frontline services, is now apparently under threat too. I wonder what it’s like to live in your head, with every other human being considered a grafter and an imaginary “left” to rail against who want to give them all thousand-pound luxuries.

“Are you suggesting Karen Matthews was just unlucky on five occasions with five different men? ”

No. It helps to read posts before you reply. I said nothing about Karen Matthews, and it is impossible to misinterpret what I said as “all benefit-receving children are the result of bad luck”. Nice attempt to crowbar an anecdotal argument into a sensible discussion.

“Do you think she have been so unlucky if she hadn’t got additional funding for each new child?”

Invalid premise (see above)

“If you were one of her kids, how lucky would you feel?”

I don’t know. If you were a duck, what would your opinion be on socialism in Latin America?

@ 40 “I wonder what it’s like to live in your head, with every other human being considered a grafter and an imaginary “left” to rail against who want to give them all thousand-pound luxuries.”

I’m not going to get into a “I’m more authentic than you” competition but I’ve actually lived on benefits, surviving on past their best potatoes and pot noodles in a flat that was so cold the toilet water froze in winter. My own father was uneployed for a period in the 1980s. In my experience only someone who has never been in that position imagines that living on state handouts can ever be “dignified”.
You come across an an old school, middle class welfare apologists, completely unable to see past the paternalistic state model that has been brainwashed into you and has so patently failed, even on its own terms.
Of course we should maintain human dignity but what exactly is dignified about living on handouts all your life ?

@42
Eldest child of two born to a single mother – Dad married her, then proceeded to bugger off twice in fairly quick succession, the second time for good just after my little sister, who he promised faithfully he’d stick around for, was born. Mum worked as what was then called an auxiliary nurse, but a little assistance was required from the state.

If you’re intending to tar me with the “old school, middle class welfare apologist” brush, you couldn’t be more wrong. Your last paragraph implies a supposition that there’s a plurality of people who set out to live on benefits their whole life – I can’t prove it, but I’m sure that isn’t the case. Almost everyone I encountered throughout my life – many of whom were claiming some state assistance – was working one way or another. Thanks to the sterling efforts of Dacre, Mackenzie and Murdoch, it seems that a lot of people think “Shameless” was a documentary rather than comedic fiction – a “what is” rather than a “what if?”.

Bluntly, you’re right in that there’s not a great deal of dignity in spending your whole life on benefits – however the evidence suggests that it’s not something that people aspire to. We have a system that guarantees a percentage of our working-age work-able population will always be out of work at any given time. Both parents might have been together – or even married, and working when their children were born. It only takes one or both falling on hard times, or one leaving the other, to turn what was previously a Tory-friendly family setup into “benefit dependency”. Basically in order to put the boot in to the few who game the system, you’re prepared to condemn the merely unlucky as well?

If you had your way, the only people you’d allow to reproduce would be those with a substantial fortune who could afford to raise a child off their own backs if they became jobless. Sort of like eugenics, but tackier.

Pagar @ 39

But what is the best policy to address the cycle of deprivation in our underclass? It is not to encourage them to breed more

Aren’t you basing that on a rather huge assumption that the benefits system acts as an encouragement to produce more children? Have you any evidence to support that theory? Surely you would have to prove that the benefit received per child is more than the cost of bringing up that child? Have you such evidence?

You could argue by the same ‘logic’ that paying people benefits who have had their legs blown of in war zones encourages squadies to be more reckless in war zones. Perhaps if they saw more ex squadies begging on the streets, they would be more careful?

Are you suggesting Karen Matthews was just unlucky on five occasions with five different men?

Who can tell what motivated her to act in the way she did? Who here fully understands the lifestyle of this woman and what has driven her to such behaviour? Is it the simple lure of a few quid added to her giro? Who knows?

What I do know is that her sexual behaviour is not that much different from millions of other British men and women in this Country. She may have outscored Ulrika Johnston by one, but she certainly hasn’t gained as much as her in financial terms from her children’s fathers, and I am willing to bet the Mathews had no-where near the good start in life that Johnston had either.

Do you think she have been so unlucky if she hadn’t got additional funding for each new child?

Again, you are making the assumption that Mathews was driven by purely rational decision making processes. It may surprise you learn that large families were the norm in this Country less than a century ago and certainly before there was a welfare State to ‘encourage’ a high birth rate either.

The fact is, sexual behaviour has never been driven by purely rational decisions. We have seen countless monarchs spread their seed pretty liberally as well as more than one politician brought to Earth by a peccadillo or two. People like Alan Clarke, Cecil Parkinson, Prince Charles et al risk everything they had for a roll in the sack, all of whom had far more to lose than Sharon Mathews ever did. So let us not be too puritanical here. Christ not only did John Major risk his job, house, marriage and everything else, he risked the humiliation of being caught shagging Edwina Currie!!!!! We see countless men caught in highly costly paternity suits that would make Mathews grotty little council house seem a paltry award.

So, given that the most powerful and intelligent men and women are leaping into bed without the slightest bit thought of the consequences, it is safe to assume that what is driving Karen Mathews is the same base instinct that drives Kate Price.

Why assume that Karen Mathews behaviour is some kind well developed strategy designed to maximise her income, when there are men and women all over the Country doing the exact same thing after meeting in nightclubs?

@ Chaise

I asked

Are you saying that it should be permissable to have unlimited numbers of children in the full knowledge that you have no resources to support them other than those provided by the state?

You muttered something about bad luck.

I mentioned Karen Matthews as an example of the kind of person I was referring to.

You refused to discuss her because she was “anecdotal”.

If you are saying she is unique and atypical, I’d suggest you watch a bit more Jeremy Kyle but, in the meantime, I’d like an honest answer to my original question, please.

“You muttered something about bad luck.

I mentioned Karen Matthews as an example of the kind of person I was referring to.

You refused to discuss her because she was “anecdotal”.

If you are saying she is unique and atypical, I’d suggest you watch a bit more Jeremy Kyle but, in the meantime, I’d like an honest answer to my original question, please.”

LOL. Answered two of your questions honestly and the last sarcastically. I think it’s rather bad form on your part to demand an answer to a straw man question, but I’ll answer the third more conclusively if you like:

I do not know how her kids feel, because I am not her kids, but I am pretty sure they won’t be all that happy about her actions. However, I strongly doubt they are unhappy about the fact that they were born in the first place. I also fail to see how conjecture about how five kids feel about one incident factors into a national-level argument.

This question of yours is an anecdotal appeal to emotion done in an attempt to disprove a statement that I never in fact made. What a colossal waste of internets.

Anyhoo… what makes my original answer dishonest? My suspicion is that you assumed that I meant that bad luck (i.e. failed contraception) is the cause of the vast majority of unwanted kids and are upset that I didn’t match up to your prejudices. Do let me know if I’m wrong, though.

Finally: well done for using Jeremy Kyle to research humanity. It’s regarded as a very balanced source, and is not in any way a freak show designed to make snobs feel better about themselves.

@46
Yes, because we all know the audience of The Jeremy Kyle Show to be a representative slice of the UK’s population, and not at all drawn by the producers from a small minority of shrieking idiots who make “good”, combative television…

Sheesh…!

If you are saying she is unique and atypical, I’d suggest you watch a bit more Jeremy Kyle.

Or you could listen to the archers and you would find these people don’t exist at all

Oh, sorry pager, you wanted an honest answer to the question you highlighted in that post? OK, here you go:

“No. It helps to read posts before you reply. I said nothing about Karen Matthews, and it is impossible to misinterpret what I said as “all benefit-receving children are the result of bad luck”. Nice attempt to crowbar an anecdotal argument into a sensible discussion.”

Sound familiar?

Bugger, that wasn’t it. Ignore post 49 (but not 46).

“Are you saying that it should be permissable to have unlimited numbers of children in the full knowledge that you have no resources to support them other than those provided by the state?”

I answered ‘yes’. Why is that dishonest? And I still don’t see how you read what I wrote and somehow interpreted it as “Karen Matthews was serially unlucky, bless her”.

Hi Chaise

Sorry I had missed the positive answer to my original question.

So.To be clear.

You are saying that it should be permissable for everyone to have unlimited numbers of children despite the knowledge that they have no resources to support them, other than those that will be provided by the state?

You are presumably arguing that there is an absolute human right to have as many children as one might wish and that there is no requirement whatever that, before having additional children, a prospective parent is required to ensure they have sufficient resources, from their own efforts, to be able to feed, clothe and house their new children?

You are contending that all the children born to such willfully irresponsible parents must be paid for with money that the state will take from their fellow human beings at the point of a gun and hand over to the reckless and feckless?

And you are saying that you find this to be entirely acceptable from a moral standpoint?

Interesting.

“You are saying that it should be permissable for everyone to have unlimited numbers of children despite the knowledge that they have no resources to support them, other than those that will be provided by the state?”

If you mean legally permissable, yes. I don’t like it, but I can’t think of any cure better than the disease

“You are presumably arguing that there is an absolute human right to have as many children as one might wish and that there is no requirement whatever that, before having additional children, a prospective parent is required to ensure they have sufficient resources, from their own efforts, to be able to feed, clothe and house their new children?”

I’m not arguing any absolute rights exist because they evidently don’t. I think, however, we should enforce such a legal right. Otherwise, see my reply above: the other options seem to be a) sterilizing the poor or b) more realistically, confiscating children like they did in Australia. Please note that option b does not actually eliminate the costs of childcare, just move them, and we have enough kids in foster homes to know that we wouldn’t just be able to offload these kids onto willing adoptee. There’s another option, of course, but I assume you’re not advocating it.

“You are contending that all the children born to such willfully irresponsible parents must be paid for with money that the state will take from their fellow human beings at the point of a gun and hand over to the reckless and feckless?”

Yeah. I never said it was perfect. But I generally support a tax system that avoids the vulnerable being left to suffer, and this fits it.

“And you are saying that you find this to be entirely acceptable from a moral standpoint?”

That’s a little strong. I’d say it was the least worst option. And again, I’d like to remind you that my sympathy here lies with the blameless child, not the possibly reckless parents.

“Interesting.”

Meh, I could say the same thing about the damage you’d inflict using alternative policies. I think this is just one of the scenarios where socialists and those with a more laissez-faire outlook tend to see things in totally different ways.

Chaise

a bit late I know…

But your analysis seems to be ignoring one factor – what effect does a framework like the above have on behaviour?

Over time, on average, some percentage of people will change their behaviour based on the law, or the financial incentives of the state.

So it is likely that the percentage of people willing to become single parents is higher now, than it would be if the state did not pick up the tab.

In a parallel – I just heard from a Dutch friend that over there – the unemployed lose their benefits if they turn down 2 jobs offered to them.

One can imagine that such rules would change over time, on average, people’s attitude to the expected normality of having a job.

(haven’t googled to check that fact out)

@ 53 – Indeed. The flip side of constantly and unconditionally “helping” people is that they eventually become helpless and dependent.
I don’t think people neccesarily make a rational choice to have children they can’t afford. It’s more likely that over time cultural norms are set, these are re-inforced by the lack of alternatives for some working class women (dead-end min wage work for life). The problem it, is has huge social and economic costs, and is harmfull to everyone involved.
I think the reason people get wound up with the default left wing position (any criticism is picking on the poor/children can’t choose their parents) is that it sounds like giving up, shrugging shouldders and filing under all too difficult, and it gives the impression that the left have some vested interest in single parents proliferating – if you were a cynic you would say more clients for the client state and/or any family is preferable to the heterosexual nuclear model.

Just Visiting and Matt:

Your mutual point about changing people’s behaviour is right. But I doubt (having no sources either!) that it’s a big factor in terms of the overall economy or even the benefits field.

First, I’d say that even with child benefits it’s probably cheaper not to have the kid. Of course, it’s unlikely that anyone is sitting down and running a cost/benefit analysis. But would people really get the impression that kids are a cash cow? They will probably know someone with kids. People being what they are, would this person with kids spend all their time crowing about the free cash they get, or whinging about the price of school uniforms? Aside from that, deciding to have kids is a pretty major deal that is unlikely to be swung by the promise of an extra few quid a week.

Again, there presumably are people who have kids because they think it’s to their financial advantage. But I reckon they’ll be few and far between, and that assessing policy based on them is therefore ridiculous.

Secondly, to address Matt’s point: “if you were a cynic you would say more clients for the client state and/or any family is preferable to the heterosexual nuclear model.”

The first point is valid. While there’ll be no overriding conspiracy to pay out benefits to win votes, left-wing politicians will have no doubt said to themselves at some point: “better not cut benefits, these guys vote for us”. Fair enough.

The second point, however, sound a bit like paranoid lunacy. Do you REALLY think that there’s a large movement out there that hates nuclear families and wants to get rid of them? What would be the motive?

Matt: your point about cultural norms is better than I thought on first reading and replying to your post. I think I’ve addressed it a bit, but not enough. It’s eleven thirty: mind if I give it some proper thought and get back to you?

@ Matt

The flip side of constantly and unconditionally “helping” people is that they eventually become helpless and dependent.

Agreed.

And today’s helping hand becomes tomorrow’s inalienable right. When we have abolished poverty, we must invent relative poverty.

I don’t think people neccesarily make a rational choice to have children they can’t afford

Agreed again.

But the pregnant single parent without income other than benefits and faced with the prospect of NOT receiving additional state funds for the new child will surely be less likely to have it and I would argue that’s a positive.

Abortion is a bit of a household elephant in this debate- there are really very few reasons for coninuing with unplanned or inconvenient pregnancies any more and many women from many backgrounds make that decision. And we all fought hard for their right to do so didn’t we?

Or are we saying that having a child is an absolute right and that to be discouraged from having children because they cannot be afforded is an example of relative poverty?

Pagar @ 55

But the pregnant single parent without income other than benefits and faced with the prospect of NOT receiving additional state funds for the new child will surely be less likely to have it and I would argue that’s a positive.

Again this claim is made without any real supportring evidence. I wonder how many single, unemployed people decide they want to have children and then follow up with getting pregnant once they have researched the benefits system? I really wonder what actual research has been done on this, because the only ‘reseach’ I ever see is people like yourself and Matt who just repeat this unsupported assertion. No doubt there are some that do this, but is there any evidence that ‘most’ do?

Or are we saying that having a child is an absolute right and that to be discouraged from having children because they cannot be afforded is an example of relative poverty?

I cannot see any real humane alternative, Pagar. I cannot see how withdrawing benefits from the vulnerable parents and children who happen (for what ever reason) to require help, just in case a few ‘devious’ women slip through the net. Are we really ready for child prostitutes in this Country, just as long as it stops the odd Karen Mathews getting a few quid out of the system?

Hi Jim

I wonder how many single, unemployed people decide they want to have children and then follow up with getting pregnant once they have researched the benefits system?

I agree with you that this is not how it happens and I also realise that, for some women, having children is the thing that gives meaning to their lives and they would do so regardless of the financial consequences.

As I said earlier in the thread, affluence is what will ultimately lower birth rates and we need to be giving young women from the underclass meaningful alternatives to having children they cannot support.

Paying them to have more children is not part of that agenda.

Pagar @ 58

Paying them to have more children is not part of that agenda.

There is that pithy phrase again Pagar, but I still do not see any evidence that a single mother is ‘better off’ the more children they have. They may get ‘more money’ but does that mean they are better off? Surely that would imply that the money they get in benefit is larger than the cost of rearing that child?

I have to tell you Pagar, that without looking at any evidence I find that rather difficult to believe, certainly in relation to the vast majority of single mothers. What’s more I cannot see any humane alternatives to the current system. Unless you are going to sterilise these woman or remove the children from the home.

I genuinely do not believe that you would accept the former and if the stats are any indication, putting children into care is likely to end up producing a far costlier and more socially disastrous than the system it is supposed to replace. If, as you say, that affluence is the way to cut child birth rates (to put it crudely), then driving people further into poverty is hardly the answer.

So what is?

“Paying them to have more children is not part of that agenda.”

No, of course it’s not. But you have to consider the alternative, which is absolutely fucking over kids who are born to unfortunate circumstances. Your agenda may be to set up a fair benefits system, and fair enough. More power to your elbow. However, I’d like to think that defending the vulnerable counts for something.

In other words: the problem here is thinking that there is one true agenda that we need to follow, rather than several agendas that unfortunately are hard to reconcile with each other.