The Benefits cap

(130 Posts)
sarah293 Sat 09-Oct-10 17:25:57

Message withdrawn

burgandy Sat 09-Oct-10 19:36:59

I know people are not handed council houses.

Six years ago I was a single mother living in bed and breakfast accomodation who was told she would have to wait 8 years to get a council house and at least 2 years for a housing association place. My answer to that was to accept it was going to be a long time before I could have more children.

Bonkerz Sat 09-Oct-10 19:46:55

Lego, ofcourse people are not just handed a council house......BUT we would love to have a council house right now.
We are living in a house with a small mortgage, have about 40k locked up in profit in this house BUT we also have a boiler system that doesnt work and have to light it every time we want hot water and are lucky if it stays on for an hour, we have windows that have been smashed by vandals which we cannot afford to get fixed and the windows are actually 12 years old and leaky anyway, we need new fencing in the garden and need to spend money on new guttering and getting the roof patched up too BUT we cant afford to re mortgage or release any of the capital and cant afford to get this work done.
My sister has a 4 bed council house, paid for via HB and will be upgraded to 5 bed house within 9 months, they dont have to pay month in advance etc and will pay just to hire a van for a day to move.......
we cant afford to sell our house and cant afford to buy bigger, we will just adjust our spending and make do with what we have to accomodate our baby when it arrives. If we can do it then surely families on benefits can do it too????

burgandy Sat 09-Oct-10 19:50:34

But bonkerz you have £40K and you hopefully will not be paying your mortage in retirement.

ISNT Sat 09-Oct-10 19:53:26

All the people who say anything more than 2 children is a luxury...

What do you want done with the surplus children of the feckless scroungers?

Bonkerz Sat 09-Oct-10 19:54:06

but we dont have 40k.........we have a mortgage and no way to access this money as we cant sell or remortgage so its stuck......yes i appreciate we will release this money in the future hopefully but with the house falling apart around our ears and no way of funding the renovations we are stuffed for the next 20 odd years realistically. we looked into selling up but would end up with a bigger mortgage than we have now. If someone said they would give us a 3 bed council house now and buy our home for 80k we would take them up on that offer.

burgandy Sat 09-Oct-10 19:55:53

I think you can think that people should limit their families to suit their purse and still show compassion to those children whose parents don't show common sense or who fall on hard times.

There will always be people who have a ridiculous number of children but hopefully a cultural shift will limit that number in the future.

burgandy Sat 09-Oct-10 19:57:39

Bonkerz I think we often think the grass is greener, we sold up so we could afford to look after elderly relatives. I would love - right now to be in your situation.

kentmumtj Sat 09-Oct-10 19:59:22

its interesting reading this thread, this cap has caused a ripple but i really think it is needed.

i have 4 kids and i have to work as does my husband, we had to move out of our council house many years ago to buy a bigger house to house our children, after all we chose to have them therefore it is our responsibility to provide for them.

There have been many many years that we have had to eat cheaper food than my friends on benefits, drive an older car (still do), and not have the luxury of holidays abroad etc, we do not smoke and live a modest lifestyle.
We both work very hard to provide for our family. I would love to be in a position to sit at home and be with my children but am not afforded that luxury.
We have no family as they live in Wales and we are in Kent ive had to pay loads of money to childminders etc over the years.

Maybe in the future i will have a home which is mine but someone in council will also have their home. As for benefits in my old age we will probably not be entitled to one as my DH will have an army pension if this happens the eldery couple on benefits will get free dental care and we will have to pay for it, they will get council tax bebfit we wont.
I really do think the welfare state should be used for its original purpose and that it is to help people who are in genuine need and it should be time limited.
I would not want to see a starved child but have to agree with an earlier post that i am yet to see a child who has gone without, and i work with many disadvataged families who sadly belive that it is their god given right to choose to have children and chose to not provide for them.
There is a culture now of people relying on benefits which i think is sad.
here are def people who do deserve finianical help and sometimes families may be in need of help but it should be time limited and capped. We do need people to change there mind set and take responsibility for the family they choose to have.

Bonkerz Sat 09-Oct-10 20:01:19

showing compassion is all well and good burgandy but at the expense of what.....education, NHS? something has to change and this is a start......obviously the people who are affected by this could help themselves and find work.....YES YES i know its easier said than done BUT if we take my sisters situation again her DH has been unemployed for 6 years.....no excuse, he has had many job offers and can do lots of jobs but chooses not too as he can get more on benefits.....its trying to sort out this benefit trap that people with large families find themselves in. TBH even capping at 25k will still mean that my sister with her 5 kids will still be better off than me and DH who both work!

kentmumtj Sat 09-Oct-10 20:05:36

plus to be honest even with the cap i think families will be able to manage after all if people saw how much weve had to live on per week/ month sometimes even im surprised

ISNT Sat 09-Oct-10 20:07:21

bonkerz the savings from this benefit cap are actually not much to write home about - these changes are purely ideological, nothing to do with the defecit.

In fact the tories have immediately spent all of the money that this cap saves, by introducing the married couples allowance.

Don;t be fooled that this cap is anything to do with the defecit, it is simply an opportunity for the tories to flex their muscles on something they believe in ie punishing the feckless poor (by punishing their children).

burgandy Sat 09-Oct-10 20:07:22

Bonkerz I am not disagreeing with you, I agree with the cap.

In 6 years I have gone from being on the sick in B and B accomodation thinking that was it for life. I may have worked my arse off to get myself out of it, but there was nothing I did that noone else could not - bar a serious disability. ( I actually am classified as disabled myself but accept that there are others with greater disabilities)

burgandy Sat 09-Oct-10 20:08:57

I agree there is an idealogical element to it, but not one I necessarily disagree with.

ISNT Sat 09-Oct-10 20:13:31

But how can anyone say that they don't want to provide for more than two children? When those children have already been born?

I don't get it, honestly I don't.

All of these children from large families - the ones who have the worst life outcomes and the most chance of poverty - are going to have to be removed from their schools where they have their friends and built up relationships with teachers - and be moved somewhere completely different. At the same time their parents are going to have much less money to feed and clothe them.

I just don't understand why people think this is a good idea?

Portofino Sat 09-Oct-10 20:13:38

Me either. The alternative is what? Reintroduce SHAME?

ISNT Sat 09-Oct-10 20:15:37

So for you it's ideological, I get that.

Would you also be in favour of restricting other services to the first two children?

burgandy Sat 09-Oct-10 20:16:41

I would like to see such measures introduced for all familes conceived from now or a fixed date in the very near future. I do not want to see families who already exist being placed in jeapardy.

ISNT Sat 09-Oct-10 20:17:36

The sort of shame that meant that violence and abuse within the home were never mentioned you mean?

There has never been shame attached to having large families AFAIK.

Before benefits they just used to die, I suppose having your children die of starvation made you feel ashamed, is that what you mean?

I'm honestly a bit baffled.

Should people who have suffered bereavement or disability feel ashamed?

ISNT Sat 09-Oct-10 20:18:29

This is some scary shit on here.

What if people don't toe the line burgandy, what if the fecund bastards just keep having children. What then?

burgandy Sat 09-Oct-10 20:18:45

No I would not ISNT. As I said I am not a natural right wing person who is out to punish the poor. I come from poverty and deprivation. I just think that we need a shift in culture about taking reposnsibility for the children we produce.

burgandy Sat 09-Oct-10 20:21:50

ISNT I have a disabilty, I was the only child in my primary school to come from a single parent family and my Dad was in and out of psychiatric hospitals and prisons I know all about shame.

As I said before you can want people to take reponsibilty for their children without resorting to the workhouses and forced abortions. I don't have all the answers but we cannot continue the way we are going.

ISNT Sat 09-Oct-10 20:21:57

But what if the buggers won't stop breeding?

That's the problem isn't it.

The tories have set out their stall. Why should society be expected to pay for families on benefits with more than two children? Why indeed. Compassion, maybe?

I wonder if they will cancel free school meals for third and subsequent children. What next?

The BBC says that this is the first time that a benefit of this type has been disconnected from need. it is very scary.

burgandy Sat 09-Oct-10 20:28:02

I would not like to limit free school meals, children need to eat.

I think tbh the number of families who keep having children when the benefits stop will be very few. I have already said that I do not want to see such caps for the families that already exist. If people have more children than they can afford to feed they should not have those children.

I am in a position where I can afford 2, I could maybe afford 3. I earn too much to claim any benefits and do not claim child benefit or disability benefit. If I had 7 children that I could not afford and they were starving I would expect social services to be involved. I would not have more children than I could afford why should it be different for anyone else.

As a person with a disability I am also expected to limit my family. Why is OK that I have to go without because of a disability that i cannot control when others can choose to have kids they cannot look after.

I repeat again, I would not apply this to existing familes.

burgandy Sat 09-Oct-10 20:28:40

Infact I would like to see more children getting free school meals.

ISNT Sat 09-Oct-10 20:29:26

But these children already exist and the cap will apply to them.

So really, you don't agree with it, do you.

I don't want to get into this "future children" thing as it's a wide and extremely dodgy topic.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now