Where having children is too unaffordable if you work

First topic message reminder :

that's because those at work unable to afford them will be taxed for those who stay at home.

Her is a brief article about the Philpott case a few months ago. Philpott is the anti hero to us Tories and to many on here an icon who should be defended at all cost.

As the article says we are creating a society where the Philpott mentality is passed do to the next generation but those hard working people who can't afford children can be role models to no one.

Be careful what you wish for comrades I so wish I could move all these problem families next to you.

From the Spectator

The Philpott case has already turned into a row about media reporting. You can see why. It is so much easier to argue about a newspaper front-page than to talk about the terrible underclass this country has created.

In a nutshell our problem is this. For hard-working couples, having children in 21st century Britain is unbelievably costly. Having been taxed at every turn of their lives they have to think extremely carefully about whether they can afford to have a child. Many will decide they cannot. Others will decide that they can but will spend endless nights worrying over how they are going to support the child they have brought into the world. If they find they can afford that first child they will still think very hard about whether they can afford a second, let alone a third.

The cosmic joke is that at the same time that such couples are worrying about their bills, they will be paying money to encourage another group of people to have children with few such concerns. Of course most of this latter group do not live like millionaires. And naturally most do not burn their children to death. But there is a substantial class – or underclass – in this country which no longer shares the concerns of what used to be ordinary people.

If you think this is not an issue – like much of the political left – then you have to ask yourself a straightforward question. What is the long-term future for a country where responsible people are discouraged from having children and the irresponsible encouraged? And yes – it is not just irresponsible, but deeply, deeply irreponsible to bring a child into the world if you do not have the means to support that child, let alone no intention of obtaining such means. Of course some peoples’ circumstances change for the worse and the welfare state should be there precisely to support such people. But people who have no job and no prospect of getting one and yet have more children are bad and selfish people.

A simple reversal needs to take place so that people on welfare are dis-incentivised from having children and working couples are incentivised. Exactly how this should be done can be debated. But what should not be debated is that people on welfare should not just worry about having children as much as working couples do – they should worry about it far, far more. And that is not just because the cost of their actions ought to be higher, but because the cost of their actions is higher..

However, as the war against Iain Duncan Smith’s efforts has shown, this country appears unwilling to make such basic judgements. It often seems that we are going to have to hit the bottom and break completely before some people realise it needs fixing at all.

veya_victaous wrote:@sphinx
Here we just mean anyone that got most of it from inheritance (lots of old money in India and Japan too, plus the USA). We have a go a Gina Rinehart all the time because her Grandfather and Father did all of the work  

"commonwealth nationals" who are you referring to, the Indians clearly say they inherited vast estates in India.
The Russians are all unclear how they got money but they all seem to just have it after the fall of the USSR.

Richard Branson is not too bad, at least he does invest in innovation but he is about the only one on the list, and he still had a mega rich father.

Anyway what does nationality have to do with innovation? Doesn’t change the fact you don't have inventors or innovators on the list. just people using the money they were born with to make more money, which means they are just making money from the poor (increasing the wealth divide)not increasing the value of the total economy which supports increased prosperity for a higher proportion of citizens.

I just think it unfair to say Britain has too much old money when a huge portion of that old money is actually other countries old money that has moved here.

Like I said the reason for lack of innovation here is it tends to get thrashed out of people in the school system (for example going back many moons to when I was at school a group of youngsters worked out they could buy drinks and snacks down town cheaper than stuff sold in the school tuck shop and more popular to boot bring it into school and sell it at profit undercutting the tuck shop - said group were called in by year head and told that although what they were doing was not illegal it would not be tolerated because the school tuck shop was taking less money as kids would rather buy from the kids bringing it from down town - so legal profitable innovation was stamped out) and those who do manage to survive generally get head hunted and taken abroad.

 @sphinx
you got to put in comparission (this is also my point the UK and Europe in general seem to forget everyone else is moving forward) most Aussies Families have been here for less than 3 generations, Our Old money is Also Mainly from overseas. Your economy is made up of whoever is a citizen now, if an indian/Asian is born here we call them Aussies.
also why are they moving to the UK? maybe because you have a system that supports old money 'Better' than the nations they are coming from (the same nations with lots of Entrepreneurs expanding their economies and therefore weakening the old money)

I definitly agree that you need a change in perspective in gov't and institutions. your example from school, here no one would have cared or the kids would have told the school "STFU like you said it aint illegal" in the USA they probably got made school captian or something