U.K. News, Father of 11 works 12 hour days.

[passwithoutatrace]

It shouldn't be news really, but I have no problem with the media profiling someone who sets an excellent example for other people. There's already plenty of bad news.

[SKP440]

This might surprise you, but this is a concept that we really should re-adopt here in the states. The concept of two parents raising a family (in this case a very LARGE family), the father going out and providing for his family, and not living off some government subsidized program. The possibilities are endless. If every family lived like that here we would not be in the financial mess we are in now.

[findinghope]

^^^
exactly and maybe they are trying to make a point here in that people should live within their means and not act as if luxuries like vacations are "needs". we could all learn from this. they look like a beautiful and well taken care of family.

[markg91359]

What I worry about in a situation like this is that Dad will eventually get tired of working such long work days and will seek out greener pastures. Everyone has their limit. Everyone reaches their breaking point. Don't be shocked if Dad has a "mid-life crisis" by age 50 and the public is called on to help support this family.

I personally am rather biased against large families. I routinely hear that "if people can support a large family its no one's business, but their own".

I have yet to meet a large family that was really supporting itself. Yes, the parents may work and provide food, shelter, and clothing. But does anyone really believe that these families "pull their own weight" when it comes to paying their fair share of taxes? The whole tax structure is skewed to encourage large families and I think that is wrong.

Example 1: Federal Income Taxes. Large families get a deduction for every child or dependent they have. For someone with a $58,000 a year income this would mean paying virtually no income tax at all. Yet, the nation has constant needs for a military, a food and drug administration, environmental protection, etc.

Example 2: Property taxes. Most of this goes to pay for public schools to educate children. If you have 11 kids and live in a house worth $250,000 you pay the same tax that a family with 2 kids living in a house of the same value pays. Does anyone seriously contend this is not a subsidy of large families. You can't educate 11 kids on annual property taxes of $3,000 or less.

Example 3: The sales tax on food where I live was recently reduced to 3%. Many states have none at all. IMO, this is one of the few taxes that actually has an impact on those who choose to raise large families. Every time it is eliminated or reduced, the burden of paying for government falls ever more heavily on those with small families who generally will impose less cost on government through less demand for its services.

Anyway, if large families truly paid their own way in life, they'd be right to assert that family size is no else's business. Until they do, I'll continue to criticize large families.

[chicagojlo]

The article doesn't mention child benefit, which all families receive in the UK regardless of income. Last time I heard it's £20 per week for the oldest and £13 per week for each of the others, so that's at least $225 per week they are receiving in state benefit, not counting the reductions they are getting to their taxes, again for benefits all families receive regardless of income.