The Benefits cap

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

Message withdrawn

NC78 Fri 25-Jan-13 16:35:06

zombie thread

spiritedaway Thu 24-Jan-13 18:42:44

Families in social housing do not get a bedroom each. My 3 share 1 room, number 4 has little room and i have a sofa bed downstairs. I had 4. So judge me. They have every right to exist. Their dad has no contact, is wealthy but self employed and lying to csa. Where is the criticism of non paying parents? I am at home looking after them. I am a qualified professional and will go back when baby is 2.

burgandy Sun 10-Oct-10 18:54:58

I know it it happening. I am no tory poster girl, I have never voted tory in my life.

SanctiMoanyArse Sun 10-Oct-10 18:52:47

And yet it is ahppening.

I am supposed to start training as a SW in 2012 (whenDH graduates so can take over childcare around his working from home)- also when I complete my MA in Autism.

I will do it becuase I care enough; I am not convinced there will be a job for me.

sarah293 Sun 10-Oct-10 18:52:34

Message withdrawn

burgandy Sun 10-Oct-10 18:26:54

Of all the budgets that have to be cut I least want it to be the social services front line budget, this is even more important when times are tough.

SanctiMoanyArse Sun 10-Oct-10 17:33:07

Absolutely SSD should step in for neglect; yet there is a council ATM considering privatising it's CP services and minimisingthose it takes into care; that would leave such children without a safety nety.

And never fear that benefit reduction would stop big famillies: Dad was born pre welfare state, child 15 / 16 to an alcoholic and a disabled Mum who was bedridden. At five he used to go knockk up neighbours to see who needed shopping and coal brought abck from the shop in his barrow, that's how he provided his dinner. Given that my AS DS1 has been in trouble this week for touting his (beautiful) home made jewellery at school to classmates who have been buying with their lunch money becuase he saw the news and me upset, then I wonder how far we really are from that situation.

And laugh in the face of the people who have tried to tell me that DH and I must have a poor work ethic to be poor over the last few months (usually on MN); clearly we have passed soemthing of one on to ds1.

sarah293 Sun 10-Oct-10 17:25:01

Message withdrawn

burgandy Sun 10-Oct-10 14:17:23

I was talking about as a very final action which is not so far from where we are now. If despite help being given people continue to neglect their children social services would step in.

I have never ever once on this thread said that if someone on benefits has a third child we should take that child away. I know of a woman who has 6 children on a very low income, she manages to house, clothe and feed these children and they are all thriving. I however have a relatively high income but due to my own needs could not cope with more than one at the moment. If based on my current situation I were to have six children they would be neglected and I would expect social services to step in. If despite their help I still could not manage and went on to have another child I think it woul be reasonable for that child to be taken away - for the sake of the child.

I was asked above what would happen if despite the cap and further help from the state people kept having children they could not care for. In this tiny number of cases children may need to be taken.

I was a child conceived for benefits I wish to hell someone had taken me out of that situation.

thedollshouse Sun 10-Oct-10 13:36:14

I have no answer to this problem. I wouldn't know where to begin. There are people like Sanctimoanyarse who need all they help they can get and then there are people like my cousin and her friends who have 4 children (all planned) have never worked, complain that their social housing is too small whilst actively planning a 5th child. The benefits system needs to distinguish between the two but I don't know how.

I wanted 4 children but will be stopping at two because we live in a 2 bedroomed house and wouldn't be able to afford to feed and clothe more than 2.

spiritedaway Sun 10-Oct-10 13:23:19

burgandy it sounds like you do so much to help people on an individual level. Taking in washing, buying them shoes etc. I imagine you make an enormous difference to the lives of these children. You sound like a truly lovely person....apart from advocating the forced removal of infants from their birth families. hmm

betelguese Sun 10-Oct-10 12:53:31

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

burgandy Sun 10-Oct-10 12:27:51

Tbh I am not driven by saving money or even a sense of personal injustice but wanting to see children getting the best start. I may not have all the answers, infact I am sure I do not but the conversation needs to be had.

AmpleBosom Sun 10-Oct-10 12:23:13

Some parents do have more children for the money they bring in benefits. Why should these families be able to have £2000/£3000 a month coming in every month without having to work at all for this money. For the record i see this alot at work so i know it does happen.

I think that we need to rethink how we give people help in times of need. I have seen parents being given hundreds to buy a washing machine which then gets blown on other things. Or parents who spend the money on cigarettes, drugs or alcohol. Don't get me wrong i know not every family does this but i see alot who do.

I have no problem with families being given help regardless of how many children they have as long as they are spending it on feeding and clothing their kids and bringing those children up to be functioning members of society. Sadly alot of the families i see don't as they have alcohol or drug issues or in alot of cases just no idea how to prioritise the children's needs over their own.

If there was an easier solution somebody more intelligent than me would have thought of it i'm sure. Sometimes it feels that i'm a complete mug for working full time as does my DH whilst earning less than alot of the families i work with do in benefits.

How can that be right?

burgandy Sun 10-Oct-10 12:09:15

I did not say that the state cannot care for those who are victims of domestic violence or disability but you cannot plan a welfare state that pays everyone out week in and weekd out at a certain level incase of violenc or disability.

SanctiMoanyArse Sun 10-Oct-10 12:08:20

I am not head in the sand; I worked for HomeStart, I know what's out there as much as anyone- I grew up on the estates and went on to be working towards my MA, an MA which will lead me to SSD training: trust me, I am far from naive.

But people mixing a thread with @I would never wish to wothdraw help from....' and comments how we can;t legislate for abused famillies etc: somewhere in that mix a lot ofm vulnerable people get left out.

burgandy Sun 10-Oct-10 12:07:36

I would only like the cap to be in place with regards to children not yet conceived. I have dedicated my whole life to working with children in deprivation, why would I want to add to the problem?

I am not labelling anyone on a benefit a scrounger, I have been on benefits myself because I have a disability.

burgandy Sun 10-Oct-10 12:03:11

I am talking about the kind of familes that I teach, parents have never worked and they have child after child who are malnourished, sometimes starved, wear dirty clothes and crammed into tiny dirty houses. The children at our school arrive in the morning grey and starving. I watch them when they come to my room for breakfast in the morning, they will hide food away so they can eat it later. I have bought children uniform only to find their parents have sold it to buy drugs or drink. I teach 11 year olds who drugdeal on the premesis and if they do not make a deal they do not get fed and often get beaten. I have taught children who earn their keep working as prostitutes, passed around the neighbours in return for drink, drugs even pirate DVDs.

Although in reality I am not talking about these children because I think the cap would only apply to families in the future.

I would never want to see help withdrawn from familes who are acting as carers.

It is easy to pretend that the world is a nice place and that children are never treated as cash cows if you don't see it with your own eyes day after day.

I was a cash cow child, I rarely ate at weekends, I worked from age 12 and was hardly sent to school. Quite frankly you would have done me a favour to have taken me out of my home.

SanctiMoanyArse Sun 10-Oct-10 11:59:51

How can these famillies be yet to be created?

Yes soem will be; but unless we are expecting 4 year olds to get a job, many will already be complete, no?

The huge publicity on this sort of case ATM is designed to make us forget the veryt many deserving people on benfits: the whole they are scroungers ethos that the darling MP mentioned on TV the other day. Is my ds3 a scrounger, that his disability may render him unable to work? Are we scroungers when we tackled redundancy and caring with full time retraining and setting up our own business but need top up help as I cannot currently work? Is a public sector worker amde redundant a scrounger? A pensioner who ahs lost their pension?

No.

SanctiMoanyArse Sun 10-Oct-10 11:56:41

Oh wrt to SSD

I don;t know about non SN care especially but I know thatc are for a child with SN tops the £2k a week amrk

And that foster carers (whcih most children seized under this suggestion would utilise) in both short in demand and pays the carer in excess of 2 3 hundred pounds a week.

Cheap?

Certainly not when you study the outcomes for chidlren who ahve been in care: benefit dependency isn't really even the start of it!

Oh and when people say 'you can't change the system for a person who has been absued etc'

Wrong

Anyone can design a system that allows for large groups to be considered

It takes a real talent to enable the smaller ones to be supported and that's the people who should be given the role.

I've worked with aprents of alrge famillies who ahve been rehoused to areas where they know nobody (as a safety measure) after time in a refuge; the one I am thnking of especially was an incredible woman, quite the ebst mother I can imagine. Penalising her as a by product of penalising those who deliberately set out to strip the state of resources is ridiculous.

Peanalising people like us who continue to pay NI but ahd a bad run of it is wrong.

Penalising any child for the sins of the aparent is very very wrong.

burgandy Sun 10-Oct-10 11:55:33

I think it is a huge ridiculous leap to go from capping benefits in the future for familes that are yet to be created to enforced abortions.

I repeat again that 99% of familes will limit their children to what they can afford. Unless spooky you are saying that all families on benefits are so feckless that they cannot do limit their families.

Of the remaining 1% there will need to be extra support, perhaps through extended schools or social services providing food and clothes. If despite this help being provided a family choose to continue having chid after child which cannot be be cared for even with this extra help then social services would need to be called in. This would be a tiny number and woul not result in a huge increase in children being taken into care.

As I said above extended schools/social services/ the charity sector are already picking up the slack. Every summer when I buy my dd unform I buy another five or six complete uniforms for the children I teach. Whenever I buy a coat or a pair of shoes for my dd I often pick things up for children I teach. Every Friday I take home bags of washing from my pupis, every morning I bring n breakfast and most lunchtimes I will buy food for pupils. Many other teachers do the same and we also as a school buy uniforms etc from or hardship fund.

SanctiMoanyArse Sun 10-Oct-10 11:51:17

So what are we saying here?

Are wwe talking about the supoer huge famillies the DM loves to 'expose'

or famillies like mine, whjere not one child was conceived without a good job in the family, but where 2 X Autism and a redundancy has pushed us into temporary need (of the low paid working famil variety)?

I would really like it if people would clarify this.....

SpookyKalooki Sun 10-Oct-10 11:43:31

Hey, maybe we should fine people for having more children, and if that doesn't work, we could force them to have abortions. It's worked so well for China. hmm

CardyMow Sun 10-Oct-10 11:41:07

To those people who say that ultimately social services should pick up the slack from those with large families that would no longer be able to feed some of those children. Do you actually realise that the costs of taking them into care would be much greater than paying things like CB/CTC to their parents? You have the FC allowance. The costs involved in employing the social workers. THe costs involved in employing the therapists to deal with the emotional problems caused by wrenching a child away from its parents and siblings. I bet that costs a huge amount more than just paying CB& CTC to those families....

burgandy Sat 09-Oct-10 22:06:12

I agree that education is they way to bring about change, that is why I teach. I escaped deprivation because people provided me with an excellent education and they did not make allowances for me. That is how I teach, I give the kids I teach my all but I am firm and make no allowances.

A number of our staff feed children at our own cost, we buy them clothes, we buy books pens provide days out. I am not heartless but I am a realist.

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