Is It Possible Reduce Child Poverty Without Rewarding Feckless Parents?

Avatar Image
dave50 | 15:27 Thu 20th May 2021 | Society & Culture
18 Answers
There is always talk from the left and Labour Party about wanting to eradicate child poverty but how could it be achieved? If benefits were raised to ensure every family with children were not in poverty no matter what their circumstances, even if they were unemployed, would that be fair on those that work? Where would be the incentive to work if you knew that because you had children then your income would be guaranteed in order to keep your children out of poverty. Indeed it could have unintended consequences of certain people having children in order not to have to work and would these children be cared for and loved if they are merely a means to get state cash or would we then have more child neglect ?


1 to 18 of 18rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
So to avoid feckless parenting, innocent children must starve. Nice one.
There are a certain number of parents whose benefit payments are never spent on ensuring that their children are well cared for.Some benefits go on drugs, booze and cigarettes.
Reduce the number of children?

I've said for a long time the only people here who have big families are the very rich or the very poor.

Of course Mick Philpot screwed up & killed his kids attempting to get more benefits.
In my experience in education, for some parents, spending on children is not their priority regardless of how much income they have, whether through work or benefits. As Danny says money is spent on other things.
No one is poor in this country unless they choose to be, end of.
toratoratora are you completely thick? Yes.
We recently had government give the go ahead to extend free meals during school holidays to try and help child poverty. What happened, the contract was given to a cowboy company who in turn ripped the government off supplying a box of rubbish. At the time it was discovered what was going on, ( and here we go again) there was going to be an investigation, has there been , a big fat no, so someone ( yet again) has got a big fat bank account. So unless government stop rewarding feckless companies, my answer is no chance.
Question Author
You have twistered my question canary, I was merely questioning whether it was a realistic goal and no, children should not be allowed to starve as you put it.
Most people on benefits are working. They just don't earn enough.
Firms pay really low wages, knowing that the tax-payer will try to make up the difference. The real benefits scroungers are the bosses and shareholders of firms that pay poor wages.
The chair. Plus you have so called employment agencies with their fingers in ones earning. But really unless government get their own house in order, there really isn't any foundation to work from.
only people on lowish is wages are often those who work in hospitality, the cafes, bars and sometimes restaurants. Having worked in bars in my time, i can testify it wasn't enough to live on, though many of those who do work in those areas now are often youngsters. who don't necessarily have children.
child neglect in the UK is a blight, some bad parents don't neecessarily spend their benefits or even wages on seeing their children fed which is disgraceful.
Could you let me know when child poverty went down?
there will always be some form of poverty, some people for a start don't know how to manage money, perhaps there should a government scheme that advises how to manage your finances, payment of bills.
if you are single and without children, then you can get various benefits, JSA used to be the one, if disabled you can get PIP, personal independence payments, and if one is elderly then the sp, and pension credit is there to help. If struggling i would always go to CAB first for advice, they can sort out stuff that you can't get to grips with.
The point is that they're not feckless, rather that they feck too much.
There will always be poverty because of the way poverty is defined. Its relative to averages.
Em there was such Government scheme a few years back but no idea if it's still happening. A friend of mine ran it.
You can be poor and in full time work. Been there, done that. I earned too much to qualify for benefits but still had a mortgage and bills to pay.

I went without, not my kids.

1 to 18 of 18rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Is It Possible Reduce Child Poverty Without Rewarding Feckless Parents?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.