I generally agree with much of what you write, Pete. In this case, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with everything.
But you don't go far enough. Child benefits (paid specifically to the MOTHER, incidentally) are the tip of the iceberg. Unmarried serial mothers in their twenties don't just get their 40-something Granny to do free babysitting. Granny goes to the DWP and states that her unmarried and unemployed daughter is "incapable of caring for her many children", but that - out of the goodness of her own heart - Granny can help by becoming a FOSTER MOTHER to the children.
The Council, of course, laps this up. No colour-matching problem (tick), a family connection (tick), lives in the same area (tick). The application is fast-tracked.
This brings a monthly payment of £700 PER CHILD. Add in free dental treatment, free housing, free council tax, free school dinners, free tuition fees at college or Uni, free eyecare and glasses, free prescriptions and various other benefits and you're soon talking about serious money.
A woman with a convenient mother and eight children pulls in £75,000 a year. And that's in Streatham. No need to move to Hampstead to piss off the Daily Mail readers.
And are the children well-treated, with all this wealth? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. More money no more guarantees better treatment than less money guarantees worse.
And what do the children learn? That there are two routes to wealth. Crime and/or legally gaming the benefits system. We can apparently do nothing about the former. A benefits cap would begin to do something about the latter. But the benefits cap must only be the precursor to proper reform of the whole system. to remove its many perverse incentives.
When Jesus said "the poor are always with us", He was clearly thinking of a RELATIVE measure of poverty.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-01-23 06:11 pm (UTC)But you don't go far enough. Child benefits (paid specifically to the MOTHER, incidentally) are the tip of the iceberg. Unmarried serial mothers in their twenties don't just get their 40-something Granny to do free babysitting. Granny goes to the DWP and states that her unmarried and unemployed daughter is "incapable of caring for her many children", but that - out of the goodness of her own heart - Granny can help by becoming a FOSTER MOTHER to the children.
The Council, of course, laps this up. No colour-matching problem (tick), a family connection (tick), lives in the same area (tick). The application is fast-tracked.
This brings a monthly payment of £700 PER CHILD. Add in free dental treatment, free housing, free council tax, free school dinners, free tuition fees at college or Uni, free eyecare and glasses, free prescriptions and various other benefits and you're soon talking about serious money.
A woman with a convenient mother and eight children pulls in £75,000 a year. And that's in Streatham. No need to move to Hampstead to piss off the Daily Mail readers.
And are the children well-treated, with all this wealth? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. More money no more guarantees better treatment than less money guarantees worse.
And what do the children learn? That there are two routes to wealth. Crime and/or legally gaming the benefits system. We can apparently do nothing about the former. A benefits cap would begin to do something about the latter. But the benefits cap must only be the precursor to proper reform of the whole system. to remove its many perverse incentives.
When Jesus said "the poor are always with us", He was clearly thinking of a RELATIVE measure of poverty.