yo_john117 on 16 May 2013
| Mr Khan said: Let us consider the alternative: don't pay for the children, then they end up yet more disadvantaged than they probably already are, and will likely do more long-term damage to society and the taxpayer than paying for them now, growing up to have health problems or more likely to be criminals. Aside from which, this lady is clearly an edge case (15 kids, at all, is an edge case) and so not indicative of the average welfare consumer, thereby providing no argument of consequence. |
I'm not disagreeing with you but I just want to point out that there are far more people taking advantage of welfare than should be.
I don't think it should be gotten rid of at all but it really does need to be much, much more strict and regulated better (That actually applies to almost every government office, business, etc)
