Britains largest family. Twenty children and pregnant again.

Are they selfish, or is it no ones business but theirs?



https://news.sky.com/story/britains-largest-family-to-welcome-21st-child-11389163

She first became pregnant at age 14, there will be a 30 year age gap between her oldest child and the expected latest addition.

Syl wrote:She first became pregnant at age 14, there will be a 30 year age gap between her oldest child and the expected  latest addition.

Which one is she? She certainly got great use of her store of ova. Waste not, want not.

They seem very happy as a family

They have their own buisness. So not sure how or why it would be anyone elses business.

Didge wrote:They seem very happy as a family

They have their own buisness. So not sure how or why it would be anyone elses business.

Well I suppose one could say its incredibly selfish and costly to tax payers by having so many children....which of course it is.

But they are a united family, they have stayed together not with various partners, and they don't live off benefits, unlike so many who choose to breed with gay abandon.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:They seem very happy as a family

They have their own buisness. So not sure how or why it would be anyone elses business.

Well I suppose one could say its incredibly selfish and costly to tax payers by having so many children....which of course it is.

But they are a united family, they have stayed together not with various partners, and they don't live off benefits, unlike so many who choose to breed with gay abandon.

You could apply that to any people who have children, as it cost the tax payer money. So not sure how that is valid. Either we believe to help pay for the education and health of children or we do not. I back that we do and like I say, they pay their way. They have their own buisness and pay taxes. 

At the end of the day all that matters is whether a child is being brought up with love and care. We have a system that ensures that those who do not, have the children taken away. So the argument on costs is a non-starter.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well I suppose one could say its incredibly selfish and costly to tax payers by having so many children....which of course it is.

But they are a united family, they have stayed together not with various partners, and they don't live off benefits, unlike so many who choose to breed with gay abandon.

You could apply that to any people who have children, as it cost the tax payer money. So not sure how that is valid. Either we believe to help pay for the education and health of children or we do not. I back that we do and like I say, they pay their way. They have their own buisness and pay taxes. 

At the end of the day all that matters is whether a child is being brought up with love and care. We have a system that ensures that those who do not, have the children taken away. So the argument on costs is a non-starter.

The argument is valid. Having a smaller family costs the tax payers a lot less than people who choose to have huge families, whether they are working or not...and that is a fact.

My opinion has always been it would be sensible to stop child benefit at 2 children.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


You could apply that to any people who have children, as it cost the tax payer money. So not sure how that is valid. Either we believe to help pay for the education and health of children or we do not. I back that we do and like I say, they pay their way. They have their own buisness and pay taxes. 

At the end of the day all that matters is whether a child is being brought up with love and care. We have a system that ensures that those who do not, have the children taken away. So the argument on costs is a non-starter.

The argument is valid. Having a smaller family costs the tax payers a lot less than people who choose to have huge families, whether they are working or not...and that is a fact.

My opinion has always been would be it would be sensible to stop child benefit at 2 children.

That is a false argument. As the cost is applied to the child. Hence why childless people also had this paid for them as children whilst growing up. Thus the cost is not applied to the parents but each individual child. Its why in the end, many people do not even begin to pay back what the state paid for them.

So to say based on the number of children is basically irrelevant. Being as the state already pays for children with education and health. Your argument would then only apply based on it being wrong that it is free for children. So again it does not matter how many children a couple has. As the state already pays for children.

The money they get for child benefit, for the first child is about £20, which decreases per more children that a couple has. That means they are worse off per child they have than people who have less children than them. So they are not getting much benefits. Which is again a smokecreen, as again all families get this small benefit. It depends how much they are earning, which could see them get very little or even having to pay some back in tax. Again the money is meant to go towards the child, in helping with costs of living.

Yes Didge, I am well aware the benefit is paid out for the child....if a couple have an average of 2 children, that costs the tax payer a lot less than if a couple have 20 plus children that costs the tax payer well over quarter of a million.... and that's just for weekly child benefit nothing else.

Anyway, leaving costs aside, its irresponsible to have so many children...especially when you think this woman started her family at aged 14.

The husband sensibly had a vasectomy after the 9th child (better late than never) unfortunately good sense didn't prevail and he had it reversed soon after.

Syl wrote:Yes Didge, I am well aware the benefit is paid out for the child....if a couple have an average of 2 children, that costs the tax payer a lot less than if a couple have 20 plus children that costs the tax payer well over quarter of a million.... and that's just for weekly child benefit nothing else.

No idea where you pulled that number out of the hat from.
 
Well lets put that to the test Syl

Again this is about what it is paying out in benifits for each child

So this couple have 20 children. The first gets £20.70 and the rest get 13.70 each per week.
A total cost of £294.70 for these 20 children to the tax payer

Now 20 couples with one child each. Get the full £20.70 per child per week. 
So the total cost for these 20 children is £414 to the tax payer

Now 10 couples with 2 children. The first gets £20.70 and the second gets 13.70 each per week.
So the total cost for these 20 children is £344 to the tax payer

So when you look at this as a cost to children, this family is worse off than the majority of families, for what they get for each child. Thus each of their children cost the tax payer less money on average.

Syl wrote:Anyway, leaving costs aside, its irresponsible to have so many children...especially when you think this woman started her family at aged 14.

The husband sensibly had a vasectomy after the 9th child (better late than never) unfortunately good sense didn't prevail and he had it reversed soon after.

Why is it irresponsible, when all these children are cared, loved  and in good health?

None have ended up in care and clearly they must be great loving parents. None look over weight either

Like I say, all that matters is that children are cared, loved and in good health for. These children clearly are.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:Yes Didge, I am well aware the benefit is paid out for the child....if a couple have an average of 2 children, that costs the tax payer a lot less than if a couple have 20 plus children that costs the tax payer well over quarter of a million.... and that's just for weekly child benefit nothing else.

No idea where you pulled that number out of the hat from.
 
Well lets put that to the test Syl

Again this is about what it is paying out in benifits for each child

So this couple have 20 children. The first gets £20.70 and the rest get 13.70 each per week.
A total cost of £294.70 for these 20 children to the tax payer

Now 20 couples with one child each. Get the full £20.70 per child per week. 
So the total cost for these 20 children is £414 to the tax payer

Now 10 couples with 2 children. The first gets £20.70 and the second gets 13.70 each per week.
So the total cost for these 20 children is £344 to the tax payer

So when you look at this as a cost to children, this family is worse off than the majority of families, for what they get for each child. Thus each of their children cost the tax payer less money on average.

In real terms their child benefits (so far 20 kids paying out for an average of 18 years) will cost far more than my very conservative figure.

A very easy answer to your own convoluted sum is stop child benefit at two kids....far fairer for all.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:

No idea where you pulled that number out of the hat from.
 
Well lets put that to the test Syl

Again this is about what it is paying out in benifits for each child

So this couple have 20 children. The first gets £20.70 and the rest get 13.70 each per week.
A total cost of £294.70 for these 20 children to the tax payer

Now 20 couples with one child each. Get the full £20.70 per child per week. 
So the total cost for these 20 children is £414 to the tax payer

Now 10 couples with 2 children. The first gets £20.70 and the second gets 13.70 each per week.
So the total cost for these 20 children is £344 to the tax payer

So when you look at this as a cost to children, this family is worse off than the majority of families, for what they get for each child. Thus each of their children cost the tax payer less money on average.

In real terms their child benefits (so far 20 kids paying out for an average of 18 years) have cost far more than my very conservative figure.

A very easy answer to your own convoluted sum is stop child benefit at two kids....far fairer for all.

So you are making a false argument again

Again this is about the cost for one child each. So again this is the same no matter for what child.

You are basing this per family which is wrong, as its per child in costs over 18 years. Where again this family is worse off in benefits per child.

So basically you think to make it even more unfair and make more children suffer based on some warped reason to punish children, if they have more than one sibling.

wow

Either you do away with child benefit for all children, or all are entittled to. Unless there parents earn enough in wages

So over 18 years per child in costs. Would mean each child would get less in this family than a child that is a single child based on benefits alone. Seriously, can you not do the maths?

I suppose its up to them as they fund the children themselves but I agree its irresponsible as far as I am concerned at least, two children to eventually replace the parents are enough, environmentally speaking, then along with those who choose not to have children for whatever reason we might get some control of the world population, before we end up shoulder to shoulder.

Vintage wrote:I suppose its up to them as they fund the children themselves but I agree its irresponsible as far as I am concerned at least, two children to eventually replace the parents are enough, environmentally speaking, then along with those who choose not to have children for whatever reason we might get some control of the world population, before we end up shoulder to shoulder.

So were my parents irresponsible for having 11 children?

Well you are never going to get control over the population unless you forced people to and even China has done away with such a poor rule. The population has grown more than anything. Due to the advances in science and thus people living far longer. More babies surving in to adult hood. So its poor to blame families for wanting more children. At the end of the day we need to find a solution to the growing world population, that does not require people being forced. Obviously, its even more important that women have control over their own reproductive systems. Also education is very key. Its never going to happen shoulder to shoulder, when again only about 8% of the UK alone is urbanized.

In the end, no doubt, we should look to colonizing the Moon, Mars and further beyond.

I can do the maths Didge, quite simply put, the larger the family the more it costs the tax payer.

You are obviously taking this personally because your parents had 11 children.
Decades ago large families were the norm...thanks to birth control and changes in our society, large families are now not the norm, unless for some outdated religious reason one think sex is for procreating and its sinful to interfere.

Anyway, that's my view, if others have anything to add they are welcome.

Off for the night.

Syl wrote:I can do the maths Didge, quite simply put, the larger the family the more it costs the tax payer.

You are obviously taking this personally because your parents had 11 children.
Decades ago large families were the norm...thanks to birth control and changes in our society, large families are now not the norm, unless for some outdated religious reason one think sex is for procreating and its sinful to interfere.

Anyway, that's my view, if others have anything to add they are welcome.

Off for the night.

You are still doing it. Accosting this to the family and not the individual child. That is where the cost is, for every single child in this country. So in this case, the individual children of this large family would cost the tax payer less. Just as the second child of a family with two children would, compared to a single child. I am shocked at your maths here.

No, I am not taking this personally and asking a valid question whether people do or not. Being as have experince of being in a large family. If people think so, then they should say so, I am not going to hold it against them. Religion clearly played a factor.

So you need to stop applying the costs to the family, when that money is accosted towards the child, not the parents. Hence why you are viewing this all wrong.

I'm afraid I do, unless they didn't understand contraception or a religion was driving their decisions. My mother was one of 9 my OH mother one of 11 but that was in the 1900 and 20's. Its not just about humans though is it, other species have the right to life and freedom, the human population always manages to marginalise animals and plant life, being the special species, most people don't even think about what their actions are doing to the planet, so the answer is colonise other worlds and do the same there, instead of finding our proper place and stewarding the planet for all creatures . More people mean using up more resources, squeezing out other life to make way for habitation, transport and food production and putting more strain on the atmosphere .
The rain forest is being cut down at a terrific rate in Indonesia, leaving wildlife including orangutans (near cousins evolutionary speaking - look out any indigeanous life on any other planet we go to, unless they are particularly strong and violent) no where to go, nothing to eat because the vast army of humans feel they have the right to be supplied with palm oil products. The seas are being poisoned with our human flotsam and jetsam from our throw away society but hey the scientists will come up with something and to hell with any consequences that always arise eventually. The rainforest in the Amazon is being ripped out to accommodate ranches breeding cattle, who knows potential medicines we are destroying.

Vintage wrote:I'm afraid I do, unless they didn't understand contraception or a religion was driving their decisions. My mother was one of 9 my OH mother one of 11 but that was in the 1900 and 20's. Its not just about humans though is it, other species have the right to life and freedom, the human population always manages to marginalise animals and plant life, being the special species, most people don't even think about what their actions are doing to the planet, so the answer is colonise other worlds and do the same there, instead of finding our proper place and stewarding the planet for all creatures . More people mean using up more resources, squeezing out other life to make way for habitation, transport and food production and putting more strain on the atmosphere .
The rain forest is being cut down at a terrific rate in Indonesia, leaving wildlife including orangutans (near cousins evolutionary speaking - look out any indigeanous life on any other planet we go to, unless they are particularly strong and violent) no where to go, nothing to eat because the vast army of humans feel they have the right to be supplied with palm oil products. The seas are being poisoned with our human flotsam and jetsam from our throw away society but hey the scientists will come up with something and to hell with any consequences that always arise eventually. The rainforest in the Amazon is being ripped out to accommodate ranches breeding cattle, who knows potential medicines we are destroying.

No problem if you think that, but again your argument is very misleading Vintage

To them it is based on religion, but they are few and far between. Where again the average children per household is 2.4 children in the UK. Large families of more than 10 are very few and far between and do not make much of a difference to the actual overall average for the population. Again people are wrongly blaming parents, when its advances in science that has seen the populations rise in the world.

Now to me, if people raise their children with loving and care, then nobody really has a right to say whether they can or not have more children. They can certainly whing about it, but they have no right to enforce how many children. The only time I see it as irresponsible, is when parents cannot afford to raise so many children and are placing those children at risk. Now my parents were very poor, but they always ensured we had food on the table. They hardly ever went out, did not drink and always ensured we had food. That is being responsible. Having children and you cannot afford to feed them, is irresponsible. 

The environmental problems are more to do with how civilisation has formed and is basically raping the earth of its resources. Its again why I have said we need to protect the wildlife and eventually look to build cities under the sea or colonize elsewhere. You are never going to be able to control populations, when we continue to look to ensure people remain healthy. Which means with more breakthroughs in medical science. High fertility rates in poor countries, where again education is needed. More people are going to live longer and to me you are looking to blame people simple for wanting to have children. When they are not the core reasons and problems for the environment. 

We can now create synthetic foods and will be the key to ensure nobody goes hungry. Like I say there is little you can do about how many children people have and to me its not irresponsible when people can afford to feed their children and love and care for them. The population will continue to rise with the advances in science. Its something we have to accept is a reality, now that the population is so big.The population rise, has also continually slowed down over the last 100 years. What we have to do is ensure we protect the planet, its species and ensure there is a place for all to live.

Again education is the key around reproduction, espcially in places like Africa and Southern Asia. Where there is high poverty levels. To help bring down fertility rates overall, but again I still have no issue with some families having larger families, if they can afford to do so.

Anyway, have things to do. Interesting debate Vintage and Syl

Hope you both have a good evening

How long can the parents keep working ? What happens if one or both have to stop ? There are many reasons why they cannot work, illness, accident etc. Then the whole burden of looking after the family falls on the Tax Payer. I suppose they think it can't happen to them,but it can ! In my opinion it's irresponsible.

The advances in medicines are allowing people to live longer and in better health, so having less children can only be a good idea, as many people in developing countries have many children because so many die in childhood and they have to ensure there's someone still around to care for them in their dotage.
The current world population is 7.3billion the UN projection for 2030 is 8.5 billion, for 2050 - 9.7billion, 2100 - 11.2 billion, just how do we accommodate all of them and all the land and sea species and feed everything and everyone with the land and sea we might have left, although at the current rate of pollution of land or sea, I can't see how science can even get us out of this, without something drastic having to happen. Whichever direction I go in these days, new houses are being built, I'm afraid I find it so depressing, where there were fields full of grazing animals and meadows of wild flowers, we now have ugly houses cheek by jowl and costing an arm and a leg, any views are long gone, its almost become as if we are factory farming humans, the traffic is awful as well, the pleasure in living in a beautiful location is swiftly going for so many people especially children, although I expect some people like being surrounded by tarmac and concrete. It's no pleasure going to local beauty spots, they have become congested with cars and people presumably escaping the towns and cities and bringing it all with them, leaving tons of litter, making so much noise it won't see anything and generally acting as if nature is a Disney Theme Park.

nicko wrote:How long can the parents keep working ?   What happens if one or both have to stop ?   There are many reasons why they cannot work,  illness, accident etc.   Then the whole burden of looking after the family falls on the Tax Payer.  I suppose they think it can't happen to them,but it can !  In my opinion it's irresponsible.

You could apply those reasons to any couple that has children

They own a bakery and with older children, clearly those can work, within the bakery, if one or both of the parents become ill Nicko. So it clearly has advantage this family, being as they have a family bakery. Not only that the older siblings can look after the other children, in the event of an accident. 

So sorry Nicko, that can apply to many families and yet here this one would be able to cope better than most

nicko wrote:How long can the parents keep working ?   What happens if one or both have to stop ?   There are many reasons why they cannot work,  illness, accident etc.   Then the whole burden of looking after the family falls on the Tax Payer.  I suppose they think it can't happen to them,but it can !  In my opinion it's irresponsible.

Possibly they have a plan should that happen, I doubt it though, the elder children would have to take over from the parents, people never think something could happen to them.

Vintage wrote:The advances in medicines are allowing people to live longer and in better health, so having less children can only be a good idea, as many people in developing countries have many children because so many die in childhood and they have to ensure there's someone still around to care for them in their dotage.
The current world population is 7.3billion the UN projection for 2030 is 8.5 billion, for 2050 - 9.7billion, 2100 - 11.2 billion, just how do we accommodate all of them and all the land and sea species and feed everything and everyone with the land and sea we might have left, although at the current rate of pollution of land or sea, I can't see how science can even get us out of this, without something drastic having to happen. Whichever direction I go in these days, new houses are being built, I'm afraid I find it so depressing, where there were fields full of grazing animals and meadows of wild flowers, we now have ugly houses cheek by jowl and costing an arm and a leg, any views are long gone, its almost become as if we are factory farming humans, the traffic is awful as well, the pleasure in living in a beautiful location is swiftly going for so many people especially children, although I expect some people like being surrounded by tarmac and concrete. It's no pleasure going to local beauty spots, they have become congested with cars and people presumably escaping the towns and cities and bringing it all with them, leaving tons of litter, making so much noise it won't see anything and generally acting as if nature is a Disney Theme Park.

I get your points on global population and agree its a problem Vintage
Again education in poorer countries and women having control over their own bodies is also key to combat this global population.

I have no time to go into now, but again I get your points.

Night

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:They seem very happy as a family

They have their own buisness. So not sure how or why it would be anyone elses business.

Well I suppose one could say its incredibly selfish and costly to tax payers by having so many children....which of course it is.

But they are a united family, they have stayed together not with various partners, and they don't live off benefits, unlike so many who choose to breed with gay abandon.

There’s your answer right there: they’re a happy, united, independent family.

Seems perfect to me.

While the taxpayer funded system pays for it... there will be people doing all sorts of things that they would otherwise not be doing, if they had to pay for it themselves...


And don't kid yourselves with the 'run their own business' bullshit, that they haven't cost multi millions to the rest of us...!


While we have people living on the streets, and meds being denied, squeezes on other public services, as well as the pressures on over population here and globally we already face... it is totally wrong for these two to be banging out so many children...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

While the taxpayer funded system pays for it... there will be people doing all sorts of things that they would otherwise not be doing, if they had to pay for it themselves...


And don't kid yourselves with the 'run their own business' bullshit, that they haven't cost multi millions to the rest of us...!


While we have people living on the streets, and meds being denied, squeezes on other public services, as well as the pressures on over population here and globally we already face... it is totally wrong for these two to be banging out so many children...!!!

I agree with your last paragraph. We share this planet with everyone else, it's already divided out unequally. The least we can do is not greedily grab the share of others.

Tommy Monk wrote:

While the taxpayer funded system pays for it... there will be people doing all sorts of things that they would otherwise not be doing, if they had to pay for it themselves...


And don't kid yourselves with the 'run their own business' bullshit, that they haven't cost multi millions to the rest of us...!


While we have people living on the streets, and meds being denied, squeezes on other public services, as well as the pressures on over population here and globally we already face... it is totally wrong for these two to be banging out so many children...!!!

So you think we should give money to to help people on the street but not children now?

Again the money spent to each child over their first 18 years will be the same as any other child in education and health, the later varying dependent on how healthy they are. The money they get in benefits is as seen less per child than many other families, as easily explained. As the money is accosted to each child. Not the family.

So either you back child benefit for families or you are against this. There is no middle ground and as I easily pointed out, the child on average will get less that many others who are an only child. So if you are at odds with money provided to children, this means you are at odds, with the money spent on you growing up and every single other child.

Again you make the glaring mistake Syl has done throughout this debate, thinking and accosting the money to the family and not each child. As there is hundreds of thousands of babies born each year. There is 11 million children in the UK. So do you think 20 from one family makes any difference in that number?

Seriously?

So what you have to ask yourself is why you think we should help the homeless but not children?

I think most rational and not bigoted people would want to help both

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well I suppose one could say its incredibly selfish and costly to tax payers by having so many children....which of course it is.

But they are a united family, they have stayed together not with various partners, and they don't live off benefits, unlike so many who choose to breed with gay abandon.

There’s your answer right there: they’re a happy, united, independent family.

Seems perfect to me.

Exactly

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

While the taxpayer funded system pays for it... there will be people doing all sorts of things that they would otherwise not be doing, if they had to pay for it themselves...


And don't kid yourselves with the 'run their own business' bullshit, that they haven't cost multi millions to the rest of us...!


While we have people living on the streets, and meds being denied, squeezes on other public services, as well as the pressures on over population here and globally we already face... it is totally wrong for these two to be banging out so many children...!!!

So you think we should give money to to help people on the street but not children now?

Again the money spent to each child over their first 18 years will be the same as any other child in education and health, the later varying dependent on how healthy they are. The money they get in benefits is as seen less per child than many other families, as easily explained. As the money is accosted to each child. Not the family.

So either you back child benefit for families or you are against this. There is no middle ground and as I easily pointed out, the child on average will get less that many others who are an only child. So if you are at odds with money provided to children, this means you are at odds, with the money spent on you growing up and every single other child.

Again you make the glaring mistake Syl has done throughout this debate, thinking and accosting the money to the family and not each child. As there is hundreds of thousands of babies born each year. There is 11 million children in the UK. So do you think 20 from one family makes any difference in that number?

Seriously?

So what you have to ask yourself is why you think we should help the homeless but not children?

I think most rational and not bigoted people would want to help both

that's not what he said, he never said not to help children.
he Said people should be RESPONSIBLE and not make more children than can be cared for. the fact society cannot home everyone shows that we already can not care for everybody's well being.
No Different than letting your pet cats or dogs breed uncontrolled Of course if you were so Irresponsible to an Animal the RSPCA would be involved

And YES obviously 20 from 1 family makes a difference, because then they are selfishly denying others the chance to have kids for the 11 million to still be 11 million.
plus only 2 taxable incomes yet 20 sets of expenses, so their contribution to society is divided between 10(1 to 10 ratio of income to expenses ). A Family of with 2 kids is Contributing the same and only generating 1 set of expenses per income they are on a 1 to 1 ratio.

there is a Pretty simple test for selfishness that Children are often taught
"If everyone did it would it fuck things up?"
If every one had 20 kids it would indeed fuck things up

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you think we should give money to to help people on the street but not children now?

Again the money spent to each child over their first 18 years will be the same as any other child in education and health, the later varying dependent on how healthy they are. The money they get in benefits is as seen less per child than many other families, as easily explained. As the money is accosted to each child. Not the family.

So either you back child benefit for families or you are against this. There is no middle ground and as I easily pointed out, the child on average will get less that many others who are an only child. So if you are at odds with money provided to children, this means you are at odds, with the money spent on you growing up and every single other child.

Again you make the glaring mistake Syl has done throughout this debate, thinking and accosting the money to the family and not each child. As there is hundreds of thousands of babies born each year. There is 11 million children in the UK. So do you think 20 from one family makes any difference in that number?

Seriously?

So what you have to ask yourself is why you think we should help the homeless but not children?

I think most rational and not bigoted people would want to help both

that's not what he said, he never said not to help children.
he Said people should be RESPONSIBLE and not make more children than can be cared for. the fact society cannot home everyone shows that we already can not care for everybody's well being.
No Different than letting your pet cats or dogs breed uncontrolled  Of course if you were so Irresponsible to an Animal the RSPCA would be involved  

And YES obviously 20 from 1 family makes a difference, because then they are selfishly denying others the chance to have kids for the 11 million to still be 11 million.
plus only 2 taxable incomes yet 20 sets of expenses, so their contribution to society is divided between 10(1 to 10 ratio of income to expenses ). A Family of with 2 kids is Contributing the same and only generating 1 set of expenses per income they are on a 1 to 1 ratio.

there is a Pretty simple test for selfishness that Children are often taught
"If everyone did it would it fuck things up?"
If every one had 20 kids it would indeed fuck things up

But this family are responsible for their children, as they have their own buiness and yes he was using money towards all children, as a means to use this. Claiming this somehow stops money for the homeless.

I know you are desperate to debate me, but being as Tommy does not actually give a stuff, when the money should go to both. You fail to see that he is using a false argument

Sorry, come again, them having 20 children, is now denying other familes children?

On what fantasy level do you come out with that load of crap?

Again, you are making the same piss poor mistake as others, as this money is for the children, that is set aside with benefits to all ffamilies and the cost of education ect. To say these 20 children are a problem, when there is 11 million children, shows you are wanting to discriminate against these 20, simple because they come from the same family. Them having 20, is not denying anyone else and that was just absolute nonsense to even suggest such a thing. You need to get this round your head, the expenses paid to the family is for the children, not the parents. As its a contribution for each child, the same in any family and again these children will be worse off. Even more so over 18 years, than say an only child raised in a family. As I already showed the money given to all families and on how many children they have

See this is the point, hardly anyone has 20 children, so this is not an issue and making out they are an issue based off a what if, is irrelevant.

To blame this on why there is homeless is even more disingenious, as everyone should be helping homeless and using this as a stick to beat this family with, is disgusting. When they are not at fault for people being homeless

it is denying others children if the TOTAL population of children is to remain THE SAME.
like Quill says 'Read'
Not the 20 children that are the problem, it is the parents that are the selfish ones (again READ cause not a single person has said that)

Get this Basic Concept, that the money doesn't come from no where it comes from Taxation, taxation is FINITE. so taking 20 shares instead of 2 shares (because you have 20 kids instead of 2) is a BIGGER DRAIN on the budget.
and You cant give it to Both, the UK can't even fund its NHS properly and your now suggesting you have Infinite funds so don't need to make decisions on what is fairer/better to spend the money on

a family unit consisting of 2 parents and 2 children take 2 child payments and contribute 2 taxable incomes. a Family unit consisting of 20 kids and 2 parents is taking 20 child payments contributing 2 taxable incomes.
If you can't work out that one is greater than the other then I can only blame it on your arithmetic ability.

No one is saying this as the reason for Homelessness, (don't even know how you pulled that shit out of you ass)
But existing Homelessness shows we are already incapable of looking after all the people already born! so obviously we are not capable of looking after an massively increasing population which IF everyone had 20 kids we would have.

AGAIN
there is a Pretty simple test for selfishness that Children are often taught
"If everyone did it would it fuck things up?"
If every one had 20 kids it would indeed fuck things up

veya_victaous wrote:it is denying others children if the TOTAL population of children is to remain THE SAME.

This is why I dont debate you

Can anyone else understand the stupidity expressed above?

There is no finate number of children per the population and its not set 11 million and that number is going to rise, based on the fact we have high birth rates at the moment, about 700,000 last year

So your argument is so stupid its beyond belief

So there is around 11 million children, which the country decided that all children should have an education and free health care. That each child should also receive a benefit towards helping them in life, paid to one member of the family. So to say one family is a drain on the country, when there is 11 million children, is so ridiculous, its beyond belief. Hence you are not looking collectivelly at the cost of all children. To say this one family is a drain, when there is 11 millions, is like I say so dumb, its why again I have you on ignore.

Again this is about what it is paying out in benifits for each child

So this couple have 20 children. The first gets £20.70 and the rest get 13.70 each per week.
A total cost of £294.70 for these 20 children to the tax payer

Now 20 couples with one child each. Get the full £20.70 per child per week.
So the total cost for these 20 children is £414 to the tax payer

Now 10 couples with 2 children. The first gets £20.70 and the second gets 13.70 each per week.
So the total cost for these 20 children is £344 to the tax payer

The vast majority of families have 1 to 2 children.

So when you look at this as a cost to children, this family is worse off than the majority of families, for what they get for each child. Thus each of their children cost the tax payer less money on average.

So again the money for those children, is for each individual child, no matter the size of the family and to say a life is wrong to basically live, when its within a larger ffamily. Is appalling to say the least, as all life is precious. So as seen above, those 20 children will get less towards them on average and vastly less than an only child in a family over 18 years. When you placve 11 million children in the country and less than 20 families have 20 children, shows your views are so stupid and ridiculous beyond the extreme.

Like I said, you either do away with child benefit for all or all children receive this same benefit.

Tommy pulled the shit out of the bag with the homeless which is a seperate issue which needs resolving and has nothing to do with the amount of children born out of love between people.

I never thought I would see the day people would basically argue that some children should not exist, based if they are in a larger family. As to them its wrong that those lives exist and yet in the same breath they would never begrudge these same children born into a childless family. Hence the absurdity here, when we are talking about millions of children.

Basically people are saying money is more important than life itself.

My god you are retarded:roll: the majority of your post is Just dumb shit no one in the entire thread has suggested, NO ONE BLAMES THE KIDS it's not the kids that have been selfish and irresponsible. they should not exist because their PARENTS should NOT have been selfish and irresponsible. the kid didn't give birth to themselves, the Kid wasn't the one that Couldn't use some sort of Birth Control.

YES there is no limits on population if you IGNORE THE ENVIRNOMENT and limited Physical resources limited of fresh water supply, limits of food, shelter and everything fucking else

But if you live in the real world these things are finite we need to share them. so 2 people making 20 mouths to feed is selfish as fuck.
Its not about the benefits per child, it is about the cost to society and the nation of each child.

'Life itself' is more important than a few more Hairless ape kids.
Quality of life is more important (at this point) that total number of Hairless apes lives.
Homelessness stresses the Poor Quality of life already being offered (let alone 3rd world)

And it's not one family!!!(Again something NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED)
anyone with more than 2 kids is more than replacing themselves, an reasonable argument could be made for a spare 3rd child to account for early deaths etc.

but if its 6 or 20 it still too many for the world's current circumstance.

veya_victaous wrote:My god you are retarded:roll:  the majority of your post is Just dumb shit no one in the entire thread has suggested, NO ONE BLAMES THE KIDS it's not the kids that have been selfish and irresponsible. they should not exist because their PARENTS should NOT have been selfish and irresponsible. the kid didn't give birth to themselves, the Kid wasn't the one that Couldn't use some sort of Birth Control.

YES there is no limits on population if you IGNORE THE ENVIRNOMENT and limited Physical resources limited of fresh water supply, limits of food, shelter and everything fucking else

But if you live in the real world these things are finite we need to share them. so 2 people making 20 mouths to feed is selfish as fuck.
Its not about the benefits per child, it is about the cost to society and the nation of each child.

'Life itself' is more important than a few more Hairless ape kids.
Quality of life is more important (at this point) that total number of Hairless apes lives.
Homelessness stresses the Poor Quality of life already being offered (let alone 3rd world)

So all the above is doing is insulting me and failed to actually address the many poor points I made countering your previously made poor points. 

I was right in that you do not think many of those children should exist and that is staggering to even think and believe. Espically, as they do exist within this family. To say their life is less important than life itself. Simple contradicts itself. As all life is important .

Now you change tact and want to talk about the environment. Which is a different argument altogether.

Again this is caused by high fertility rates in poorer countries,where education is required and women should have control over their own reprodcutive systems. So they become more like western nations. Where birth rates are basically under control. Hence a few families in the Uk with a larger family is not going to make much of a difference. With the advancement of science people are living longer. So what is needed is to help those poorer countries where people should not be bringing children into the world, if they cannot afford to do so. Which is what is happenning. If these countries were like the west, then a few large families is not going to make any difference.

Again the cost to the nation, shows again you ffail to look at the fact there is 11 million children and think these 20 some how make it worse. Ignoring it is a cost towards all children, not just 20.

This family can afford to do so and this family loves and cares for their children. To show hostility to such a family, is appalling beyond belief

Now all you can do is spout hate and do not debate

You are back on ignore until you learn some manners and some maturity

Syl wrote: Are they selfish, or is it no ones business but theirs?



https://news.sky.com/story/britains-largest-family-to-welcome-21st-child-11389163

planetarywise yes they are. But if they dont claim benefits and can pay for them themselves then it is their choice. Although many of them would qualify for child credits I presume?

after 2 kids no one should get any extra child credits, in fact in this ever increasingly green taxation fixated world, there is surely a case for increasing tax for every child after the first 2. Because children are far less carbon neutral than a 4x4 over their lifetime.

The only upside is that apparently many children from such households don't go on to emulate their parents.

Vintage wrote:The only upside is that apparently many children from such households don't go on to emulate their parents.

lets hope they dont. even if they go for only each 2, thats a possible 63 decendants within 25 years, 137 in 50 years 315 in 75 years.And I may be being generous in what they consider a generation . From that one couple.

lets hope the family firm has a lot of openings.

The Devil, You Know wrote:after 2 kids no one should get any extra child credits, in fact in this ever increasingly green taxation fixated world, there is surely a case for increasing tax for every child after the first 2. Because children are far less carbon neutral than a 4x4 over their lifetime.

So basically you think any other children are not entittled to the same amount of money to help them

You want to discriminate against them, through no fault of their own. Simple a prejudice view towards the parents

Figures

They may run a business now... but what do they earn & pay in taxes compared to the enormous sum of tax payer funds that has gone their way over the last 30 years in benefits and other costs etc...!?


And I bet they still get more out of the system than they pay in now too!!!