How Many Children Should The Taxpayer Pay For?

The UK tabloids splurt out some fabulous examples of beneficiary bludging.  The UK has a plague of bludging immigrants, this one from Latvia is special.  Different fathers and all.  While working as a “self employed” cleaner, there is no way she will ever be self-supporting with ten kids from SOCK.

Latvian Linda Kozlovska, 31, arrived in Britain with three of her children in 2008 and moved into a council-maintained three-bedroom house.

Four years later, however, the single mother says she is unhappy living there – because she has had three more children and four others have moved over from Latvia.

‘I have ten children living here with me,’ she said. ‘I’m the only adult. I am on the council waiting list, but we’re still here.

‘They don’t have a big enough house.  I want a bigger house. I don’t like it here. When we moved in it had bed bugs.’

The neighbours have had enough.

Another neighbour, Neil Blanchard, 39, said: ‘This kind of thing is beyond belief. If they want a bigger house they should have to earn it like everybody else.

‘It is not for the taxpayer to pick up the bill for a bigger house.’

And the clincher – Latvia does not have nearly as generous welfare.  Because they know what happens.

The amount is also much higher than the £9.26 per child she would receive each month if she were still living in Latvia.

There, couples can claim up to £1,865 per baby, but payments dip after children reach 18 months.

So I ask, how many children should the taxpayer be asked to fork out for?


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Patrick Starr

    scrap the DPB and replace it with a state funded
    Parenting Insurance. Couples register by showing they have the means to provide
    for a child, and in the event of a breakup they qualify for assistance. No
    registration- no assistance

  • conwaycaptain

    The UK is open to bludgers because if they come from an EU country they are eligable for UK benefits.
    The sooner the UK exits the EU and deports all these bludgers the better.

    • AnonWgtn

      sadly far too late – the damage has been done – I understand that the average non immigrant birth rate is 1.8 children, the “average” Muslim birthrate is 8.
      At the age of about 15 Muslim females are put into the breeding cycle, so by 2050 over 50% of the UK population will be Muslim.

      • BJ

        So they are going to take over the world – by out breeding the west!

  • Brian Smaller

    I think the number is ZERO. No one paid for my kids except for their mother and I.

    • thor42

      Yep – damned right, Brian!
      The thing is – you would **think** that the lefties would have got it through their thick skulls that ***dependency is bad.***
      It is bad for the beneficiary, and bad for the country.

      **FAR** better to ease the beneficiaries into work (which is what the welfare reforms are aiming at).
      I don’t care WHAT benefit someone is on – EVERYONE who is not in a full-body cast is able to work for a couple of hours a week (or per day).

  • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

    According to the Social Welfare/Social justice restoration policy Labourers are developing now – about 12. Take that and pay for it rich pricks

  • thor42

    I agree that the number of children paid for should be zero.
    It is **INSANE** that the government PAYS for people to have babies. We are **not** in some population-starved continent.

    What’s more, the people who *are* on benefits and have babies are the kind of **feckless losers** who can **barely look after themselves**, let alone half a dozen or more sprogs as well. And yet Liarbore and the Greens whine on and on about “poverty”. **Bullshit**.

    99.9999999% of so-called “poverty” is ***self-inflicted*** by having children when you can’t afford them and by not **living within your means.**

  • Mr_Blobby

    Dream on losers.

    The Horrid has an article from some expert who suggests something similar to the Latvian system of a universal child benefit, paid, based on the age of the child.

    DonKey thinks it is a “dopey” idea.

    No one, not one of our politicians, has the backbone to sort the problem out, because of the number of voters receiving state assistance will vote in their own self interest, not the best interest of the country.

    This will all end badly.

    • Seems to me

      Seems to me that Sir John Key was referring to the idea that it be a universal, not means tested idea. Ie we pay for EVERY kid in NZ. Now that is a dopey idea.

  • Hazards001

    The whole concept of paying people to have kids is flawed…and morally
    wrong. If you can’t afford them keep it tucked away!

    After Working for Families was brought in by Helen to buy herself
    another term I watched certain staff at work with interest. One in particular
    could barely fill out a timesheet but was a gun at working out how many hours
    he had worked and what his wage should be.

    A year or so after the paying people to go to work to look after their
    own kids scheme came in I informed this same guy that he was taking too much
    time off work. He told me that he had to as his hours were getting too high and
    he was earning too much and was in danger of losing his Working for Families

    I was stunned.

    My wife and I weren’t eligible as we worked long hours and made good wages
    although not huge by any stretch of the imagination and here we find out that
    the scheme that was supposed to encourage people to go to work was actually
    encouraging them to work less.

    Now the Greens want this piece of stupidity extended to beneficiaries as
    it is discriminatory to pay people that work while ignoring those that don’t!

    Or failing that give it to everyone regardless of how much they earn!

  • justin

    I have to say that as a young’ish father of three (fully employed, loving husband, on the straight and narrow). I’m about a kiwi as you could possibly be – that is I’m 100% committed to NZ, no travel overseas, buy locally etc etc.
    It is really really hard with the cost of housing. The house I rent at the moment has a GV of over $600k – but only 10 years ago it was $180k. The chance for me to own is very very limited, and I’m not convinced that being a slave to the mortgage is the best idea.
    The real question we must ask is – “Do you want younger generations of kiwi’s to have baby kiwi’s?” I would say that actually the best and brightest aren’t having kids (or minimising the number they will have).
    I really truly believe that kiwi kids are good for NZ. There is a truly long game being played out generationally in NZ – the country needs for good honest hardworking kiwis to have more young kiwis for our country. Then they need to get busy raising those kids to be positive and productive members of our country.