Welfare reform: parents to be responsible for their kids until they are 30

The government has today announced a further initiative to reform state welfare provision. In future, the government will make parents legally and financially responsible for their children until they reach the age of 30.

This means adults under 30 will be expected to live at home if they cannot afford their own place, and they will not be eligible for any state benefits.

‘Everyone thinks kids are cute,’ said a spokesman, ‘until they are old enough to have mobile phones and get stroppy.  Then it gets tougher.  We want to reinforce the responsibilities of parents in starting a family, and we want to avoid feckless Gen-Z snowflakes from clogging up the benefit system.  It’s costing us a fortune.

‘Parents usually know how to keep their kids in line – the naughty step, being grounded, star charts, removal of their bedroom door, etcetera – so we think that this is very doable.  It will also give the children a tremendous incentive to get jobs and earn enough money to get their own place.  There is only so much outdoor sex that you can have before you get caught.’

‘This will avoid all the tedious arguments about whether state benefits should cover one, two or three streaming services, for example.   And disagreements about whether the state should pay for Frosties and Cocoa Pops and Ready Brek and Multigrain Cheerios.  In future, all those discussions can be settled by the parents.  We respect that fact that different parents will reach different decisions. That’s quite acceptable in a democratic society.’

The initiative will generate massive savings on the welfare bill and ease pressures on social housing.

The government is also considering if children should be responsible for their elderly parents, once they are older than 75. This could generate big savings on the cost of care homes. This further initiative would provide a helpful counterbalance to the new policy on parental responsibility.  Parents would need to be reasonable with their children under 30, or they could face retribution once they are over 75.

Photo by Ben Wicks on Unsplash

Are farmers their own worst enemies?

er

Government achieves substantial growth in the can-kicking industry

The British can-kicking industry is booming – after a kick-start from the government. Critics say that it would be much cheaper to ship the cans to China, for them to be kicked there using forced labour. And savings would be even greater if China also supplied the cans. The debate about whether we should export the cans for kicking or preserve our own can-kicking industry, probably by inviting immigrants to come and kick them for us, continues.

Although he has not yet set up a Can Kicking Czar, Keir Starmer has already declared a series of milestones, to measure the progress of the cans in their trajectory. He is understood to have also created an equal opportunities monitoring committee, to ensure diversity in the cans being kicked – large, small, steel and aluminium cans – and among the kickers – women, men, and undecided. And there is a health-and-safety committee to assess the risk of the can going in the wrong direction and hitting someone.

However, there are still questions about funding. Who's going to supply the can, and the boots for the kicker? Which can company will get the lucrative contract to supply the can, and the boots? And what about the long grass? Where should it be? In London as usual? Or would regional long grass better deliver levelling up?

When praised for his 'can do' attitude, one government minister said, 'Those who can kick cans do, and those who cannot kick cans set up commissions to study who might be kicked into action as can-kickers.'

[ Hat-tip to deskpilot ]