Should families on welfare limit the number of babies they have? Jeremy Hunt suggested so last night – kicking off a debate fuelled by our disclosure in today’s Spectator about just how many out-of-work claimants have 6, 7 and 8+ children. The moral argument is pretty clear. Before a worker wants to expand his family, he usually thinks about whether he can afford it. It’s far from uncommon to hear people say that they’d like, for example, three kids – but this brings with it a certain financial requirement (size of house, car, etc) which is prohibitive (and far bigger than can be offset by child benefit).
Yet the reverse financial incentives exist for parents on benefits. The more children they have, the more the state gives you. The Sun had a story yesterday about a couple in Kent with 13 kids on benefits, who was given a £2,500 in backdated benefits and used £1,700 of it to buy a 30’ flatscreen.
Get Britain's best politics newsletters
Register to get The Spectator's insight and opinion straight to your inbox. You can then read two free articles each week.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in