No one is depriving the parent(s) and I am not advocating depriving any human of work.

It is immoral to be unemployed when there is gainful employment to be had.

This is not a theoretical argument - It is a fact that British unemployed (with or without children) that are refusing to accept jobs, that EU immagrants are performing and supporting themselves and their dependents.


So again

Maybe British unemployed consider themseves better than our EU neighbours unemployed?

__________________
Russian Imperialism is a greater danger to the World today than AlQueda terrorism

lol nice one.

__________________
Manu Chao - Bongo Bong

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." - Oscar Wilde

"Nothing doth more hurt in a state than that cunning men pass for wise." - Sir Francis Bacon

would you want an able bodied individual with young children to be found ineligible for further welfare assistance because of that parent's refusal to find employment?
from your posts, it would appear so ... which would then deprive the dependent children of a means of sustenance

__________________

Quote:

"I like to watch the news, because I don't like people very much and when you watch the news ... if you ever had an idea that people were really terrible, you could watch the news and know that you're right."

Frank Zappa

Actually the reason giving tax breaks to business won't help the poverty situation much is because, as I pointed out with statistics earlier, it's a minority of the people below the poverty line who could work but don't. Most either are minors, are working, or are retirement age/retired.

It's just with kids that isn't enough to clear the threshold.

Here is an article about how reducing the corporate tax rate in Ireland has spurred an economic surge, this certainly isn't the only evidence of this, but probably doesn't matter anyone, most people here aren't interested in facts.

Clickity click

__________________

Ironically, every attempt in history to run a nation that way has failed.

The children should be removed from the home of such an irresponsible parent.

problem solved!

__________________
The woman in my avatar is Cristina Scabbia and the woman in my profile picture is Tarja Turunen
Sun flames and moons glow, timeless the tides will flow, what will I face, what will be mine, fortune and fate the other side...

Public thanks to Catzmeow for enabling me to make my goal of half a million credits by Xmas.

a better option than turning them out into the street
is removal the best option then?

__________________

Quote:

"I like to watch the news, because I don't like people very much and when you watch the news ... if you ever had an idea that people were really terrible, you could watch the news and know that you're right."

Frank Zappa

Unfortunitly no. The reason being you have to put the kid somewhere.

Lets see. Looks like the cheapest way is Foster care in an independent family
http://www.mfia.state.mi.us/olmweb/ex/cff/905-3.pdf

That gives $18 a day plus extra cash for holidays and cloths, plus options for increasing the pay at certain levels, probably based on problems the kid might have. So lets say $20 a day for Foster care so that's 7,300 annually per kid. Depending on the situation that may or may not be cheaper than paying off the parent in the first place. Especially after social worker and beurocratic expenses are figured in.


However it sounds like in general ,and with new foster parent guidlines, not all the kids can be placed that way so kids end up in, essentially, daycares.

This costs $80 to $250 per kid per day.
http://www.michigan.gov/dhs/0,1607,7...4898--,00.html

Which is far pricier than the cost of paying off the original parent.



Personally I like the idea taking the kids and sending them to a really decent boarding school, maybe military style.

Now this would cost even more. Probably three times what it would cost to just pay off the original parent. But maybe the kids wouldn't be messed up coming out and the problems we're having would lessen in a generation or so. But we'd have to put up the funding. A lot of funding.