Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A case of codoms could have helped this guys case. But on the bright side, we might get the chance to pay for raising his kids.
I remember a similar case a few years back where a judge tried to get the guy to submit to sterilization.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/19/11768941-father-of-30-by-11-women-wants-child-support-help-from-the-state?lite

Yeah, This kinda stuff gives those who actually need help with state aid a bad rep. Makes them look like irresposible breeders tht live off the state.
Like the octomom.

This is the kind of reporting that causes demonisation and contributes to reactionary idiots killing children.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9269795/House-fire-which-killed-six-children-was-started-by-petrol-poured-through-letterbox.html

This is terrible.

Not sure I see the problem.

People have the right to have as much sex as they want and the state has taken on the responsibility of supporting children.

This seems like a logical consequence of that.

The alternative is that those children starve to death. feth that for a game of soldiers.

What's wrong with this story then?

Sterilisation.

Biccat, I sometimes think you should get a Mod warning for your goading abilities.

Do you put a notch on the side of your monitor each time someone makes a heated reply to your post, and then doesn't appear online again for 2-3 days afterwards?

Pacific wrote:Do you put a notch on the side of your monitor each time someone makes a heated reply to your post, and then doesn't appear online again for 2-3 days afterwards?

Why would I?

Do I think this is a problem? Sure. But only to the extent that we've created a situation where this guy not only can have 30 kids, but doesn't have to worry about taking responsibility for them. But I don't think anyone is going to seriously argue for mandatory sterilization of "undesirables", and I don't think anyone is going to seriously argue that we should not support the kids.

If your policies have created a situation and you're not willing to change those policies to resolve the situation, then it's not really a problem.

I was actually talking to one of my friends the other day about this. It's a fantastic business model, if you can get everyone to cooperate. By my understanding, kids become (generally) less expensive the more of them you have because you can just buy everything. I mean, the costs go up, sure, but for the most part, the cost to go from 1 kid to 2 kids is less than the cost to go from 0 kids to 1 kid, right? With that in mind:

Step 1, Have lots of kids with lots of women.
Step 2, Women all collect welfare
Step 3, Set up compound using the welfare money and live like a sultan.

Whats wrong is that these people go around reproducing recklessly, and we are expected to pay for it.

daedalus wrote:I was actually talking to one of my friends the other day about this. It's a fantastic business model, if you can get everyone to cooperate. By my understanding, kids become (generally) less expensive the more of them you have because you can just buy everything. I mean, the costs go up, sure, but for the most part, the cost to go from 1 kid to 2 kids is less than the cost to go from 0 kids to 1 kid, right? With that in mind:

Step 1, Have lots of kids with lots of women.
Step 2, Women all collect welfare
Step 3, Set up compound using the welfare money and live like a sultan.

No you receive a pitiful amount of money per child. You'd almost always be better off having a job and just having 1 or 2 kids.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Whats wrong is that these people go around reproducing recklessly, and we are expected to pay for it.

So the poor should be left to starve, in your own country? That's genuinely sickening, I can't fathom such a mindset.

At least in the States he is actually working! The guy works full time.. at least he pays something.

In Britain this mother fether would have been on the dole for 15 years. I presumed that the story was from the UK as soon as I saw it, Im glad to see that the US has professional breeders too, but as I said, its not half as bad in the US, at least the guy has a job.

Damn. Wrap that gak up.

Thought the exact same as you matty, surprised to see he works, they certainly dont here....

No, they should be here to help.
But damn dude, there should be a child limit. You can still have a child after the limit but it costs you a fine.

Revenent Reiko wrote:Thought the exact same as you matty, surprised to see he works, they certainly dont here....

Has it occurred to you that a few token Daily Mail articles does not constitute an entire socio-economic class, as convenient and simplistic as that may be?

Joey wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote:Thought the exact same as you matty, surprised to see he works, they certainly dont here....

Has it occurred to you that a few token Daily Mail articles does not constitute an entire socio-economic class, as convenient and simplistic as that may be?

Yup,

as it turns out Joey, i have personal experience of this. ie my ex, who didnt work. fair enough, single mum (as it were), but there was also the 3 or 4 other mums with children in the same class who (single or not) also didnt work.

then theres also her brother, who has 3 kids with the partner, neither of them work, and due to one of the children being diagnosed with ADHD (mistakenly in my opinion, from having worked with special needs children for 3 years), and the partner having epilepsy, now gets something in the region of £22k a year (and with rent being written offf because they bought a tv, laptop, printer, and Nintendo Wii instead of paying it) and so has QUIT his job because he doesnt need to anymore...

So yes, slightly biased opinion, and also anecdotal evidence, but i stand by my statement.

Please dont make assumptions on my views without actually getting to know the basis of them first.

Joey wrote:
Has it occurred to you that a few token Daily Mail articles does not constitute an entire socio-economic class, as convenient and simplistic as that may be?

Oh Joey, must you ever act the contrarian?

I read the Telegraph generally, and its a fact that there are at tens of thousands of people in this country, who don't work, because they say "Ill be worse off if I go to work!" and so stay on wellfare on purpose. And there are those who have numerous children and have been out of work for YEARS. There are people who dont work for a decade, and then funny thing, their children lack a work ethic too.

This happens, and this is true, and you know for a fact that it is, so therefore, why did you bother speaking, and what was the point in your obvious statement?

This is the internet, negative assumptions about everyone who disagrees with you are a requirement.

matty, source for your figures?

mattyrm wrote:

Joey wrote:
Has it occurred to you that a few token Daily Mail articles does not constitute an entire socio-economic class, as convenient and simplistic as that may be?

Oh Joey, must you ever act the contrarian?

I read the Telegraph generally, and its a fact that there are at tens of thousands of people in this country, who don't work, because they say "Ill be worse off if I go to work!" and so stay on wellfare on purpose. And there are those who have numerous children and have been out of work for YEARS. There are people who dont work for a decade, and then funny thing, their children lack a work ethic too.

You can't be better off not working than in work.
Average wage is what, £22k? Jobseeker's works out around 3k. Even minimum wage is £12,600.
The only way it'd work out better to work was if you had about 20 dental operations in a year.
Remember when people get money for having children, they have a fething child, which cost a gak load of money, and they'd get child benefit if they worked or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Revenent Reiko wrote:

Joey wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote:Thought the exact same as you matty, surprised to see he works, they certainly dont here....

Has it occurred to you that a few token Daily Mail articles does not constitute an entire socio-economic class, as convenient and simplistic as that may be?

Yup,

as it turns out Joey, i have personal experience of this. ie my ex, who didnt work. fair enough, single mum (as it were), but there was also the 3 or 4 other mums with children in the same class who (single or not) also didnt work.

Women who would rather raise their children than work are lazy? The father of their children should be supporing them, regardless of whether or not they want to work.
Critisise them for having children with idle scumbags if you like, but they're not scroungers.

Joey wrote:
You can't be better off not working than in work.

Mate, have you actually got any kids?

Clearly not.

You fething can, and its trivially easy to prove it.

If your on minimum wage, and you only have one kid, and you have to pay rent (average what, 600 quid?) council tax (ill be generous and say a 100 but mine is far more) and for any kind of childcare boom, your fethed.

Average is what? 150 a week? For minimum basic nursery? And thats only going to be about half the time you are at work. Your going to have to dig out blind to make sure the little gak has full time supervision, add all that up.. thanks very much, £1300, and your in debt.

Cheers easy.

The problem with you Joey is that everything is black and white to start an argument or make a backhanded comment! Clearly the Daily Mail distorts the facts, but clearly so does the Mirror. Now its obvious that England isn't going "to hell in a handcart" as per the Daily Mail, but they don't fully invent statistics. This country has thousands of people that have been on wellfare for ten years or more, and I read that on the BBC website last year!

Joey wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote:

Joey wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote:Thought the exact same as you matty, surprised to see he works, they certainly dont here....

Has it occurred to you that a few token Daily Mail articles does not constitute an entire socio-economic class, as convenient and simplistic as that may be?

Yup,

as it turns out Joey, i have personal experience of this. ie my ex, who didnt work. fair enough, single mum (as it were), but there was also the 3 or 4 other mums with children in the same class who (single or not) also didnt work.

Women who would rather raise their children than work are lazy? The father of their children should be supporing them, regardless of whether or not they want to work.
Critisise them for having children with idle scumbags if you like, but they're not scroungers.

Woah woah, slow down there sport!

please find where i used the word lazy....? cant do it? thats becasue i didnt use it. Dnt accuse me of using words i didnt use. Read more thoroughly.

I completely agree that the fathers should be supporting them. No question. Didnt say they shouldnt be...

I know a couple of other single mums who work. They had children with scumbags, admit it, and then do what they can to support their child(ren).

mattyrm wrote:

Joey wrote:
You can't be better off not working than in work.

Mate, have you actually got any kids?

Clearly not.

You fething can, and its trivially easy to prove it.

If your on minimum wage, and you only have one kid, and you have to pay rent (average what, 600 quid?) council tax (ill be generous and say a 100 but mine is far more) and for any kind of childcare boom, your fethed.

Average is what? 150 a week? For minimum basic nursery? And thats only going to be about half the time you are at work. Your going to have to dig out blind to make sure the little gak has full time supervision, add all that up.. thanks very much, £1300, and your in debt.

Cheers easy.

The problem with you Joey is that everything is black and white to start an argument or make a backhanded comment! Clearly the Daily Mail distorts the facts, but clearly so does the Mirror. Now its obvious that England isn't going "to hell in a handcart" as per the Daily Mail, but they don't fully invent statistics. This country has thousands of people that have been on wellfare for ten years or more, and I read that on the BBC website last year!

Wait, what? You'd have to pay rent anyway regardless of employment or not - housing benefit is given to people in work, hence the fuss when the government tried to abolish it for inner city London folk who were earning 40k a year.
And you don't need to pay nursery since the kid's mother would be doing something (or working herself, and earning far more than the cost of a nursery).
The Daily Mail don't invent statistics but they twist the story. I'd like to re-iterate that you're still almost always worse off in welfare than working. There may well be some people who can't be arsed to work, but that's not because it doesn't make financial sense to work - if that was the case, no one who was poor would work. You think if someone with 3 kids on minimum wage loses their job, they think "goodie, now I can get some real dolla!". Of course not.
Incidentally, this might prove useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Revenent Reiko wrote:
Woah woah, slow down there sport!

please find where i used the word lazy....? cant do it? thats becasue i didnt use it. Dnt accuse me of using words i didnt use. Read more thoroughly.

I completely agree that the fathers should be supporting them. No question. Didnt say they shouldnt be...

I know a couple of other single mums who work. They had children with scumbags, admit it, and then do what they can to support their child(ren).

So, what's your point? That every woman should be capable of rising a children and working full time?

Joey wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote:
Woah woah, slow down there sport!

please find where i used the word lazy....? cant do it? thats becasue i didnt use it. Dnt accuse me of using words i didnt use. Read more thoroughly.

I completely agree that the fathers should be supporting them. No question. Didnt say they shouldnt be...

I know a couple of other single mums who work. They had children with scumbags, admit it, and then do what they can to support their child(ren).

So, what's your point? That every woman should be capable of rising a children and working full time?

Congratulations on not actually reading anything ive written...good show...

biccat wrote:

Pacific wrote:Do you put a notch on the side of your monitor each time someone makes a heated reply to your post, and then doesn't appear online again for 2-3 days afterwards?

Why would I?

Do I think this is a problem? Sure. But only to the extent that we've created a situation where this guy not only can have 30 kids, but doesn't have to worry about taking responsibility for them. But I don't think anyone is going to seriously argue for mandatory sterilization of "undesirables", and I don't think anyone is going to seriously argue that we should not support the kids.

If your policies have created a situation and you're not willing to change those policies to resolve the situation, then it's not really a problem.

I half suspect you have a thought or two on how this type of situation should be dealt with.
For my own part, I initially think about sterilization for these type of people, but that can easily turn bad. Criminal charges,perhaps? Once again, something can go bad.
Pretty much anything I can think of seems like it could spiral out of control into a police state type of scenario, yet these people are totaly irresponsible in the way they're kicking out kids and looking to the rest of us to foot the bill.

Meh. I'm hardly bothered by this. This dude is an edge case, and a pretty extreme one at that. There really isn't any need to be up in arms or making calls for radical changes because of an edge case.

Now of course people should not be able to have countless children and expect the state to pay for them, but why is this being reported if not to create indignation? As I linked earlier a similar case in Britain has led to the deaths of 6 children in a house fire that was deliberately started on a chap who has quite a number of children being paid for by the state.

Unfortunately it often doesn't pay to be in work in Britain, this has been the case for years, but probably has more to do with massive rents and an inadequate minimum wage. A third of the workforce are on state benefits [not counting child benefit], that would not happen if people were paid enough to live on. I'm not saying that getting £60 a week on Jobseekers is better than working full time, but there are instances where people are better off out of work. I for example will have a much greater disposable income come September when I get a Student loan, than when working 6 days a week. Unfortunately it seems this governments approach of cutting benefits across the board will not help anyone, the current climate of fear amongst the disabled due to cuts and "reform" makes me ashamed that such things are happening in my country.

You also have to look at the fact that the state paying for each child sort of incentivises some less desirable types to have more children. What happens to a country when the educated have 1-2 children max, while people we would like to less of are having 5-6+, after a few decades this will lead to a society I would rather not see.

Something like that can't be sustained much longer. I truly think the collapse that is most likly coming is going to lead to a massive attitude adjustment about leaching off others when everyone is going to have their hands full just taking care of their own.