The Benefits cap(130 Posts)
surely the cap should be when you first go on benefits. My sister and her husband have been on benefits for 6 years now and in that time have had 2 more children (one due next month) Its this that is wrong......If they were told when they signed on 6 years ago that the benefits were capped at 3 children then they would have thought about having anymore whilst on benefits......as it is those extra 2 children mean they can get a 5 bedroom house paid for and will have had extra 1400 in grants for baby equipment and also will have the extra benefits and TC and CB etc.
I find my local netmums has a good meet a mum board
I think that while people think that if they want something they're entitled to have it, we're in trouble.
I wanted 4 kids, couldn't afford it, so had 3 and built a happy life around that. It seems unbelievably selfish to think it's ok to have 4,5,6 or more kids just because you want it
So eg DH has just been supporting his family through his mothers illness, my parents assist with childcare, we are here for DHs family when they need us, they provide babysitting, I expect to look after my parents and his dad when they are old (as much as poss).
If we had to move away, who would do all of those things? These are the "invisible" things which go to making people's lives that little bit easier. take it all away and it's whole groups of people who are effected, it's far-reaching.
It's community that goes. Maggie said there's no such thing as society, this lot think there's no such thing as community.
I work but can't socialise with them as I have to be home for the dc's. Rather puts paid to getting to know anyone .
If you're saying family is your support network our closest is 2 hrs away, the ILs, mine are 3.5 hrs away. I couldn't get a job closer to home when I graduated. I had to develop one.
Riven that's a shame that people are only looking for friends for their children.
I meant I had to develop a support network of friends.
If they really want to save money on housing benefit they should raise the money through taxing second homes properly. Far more practical and far fairer, since it's the landlords that are the real beneficiaries of high levels of HB, not the tenants.
I'm not sure what your point is willaby.
That you live a long way from relatives so no-one else should be allowed to if they are on benefits?
So if a family are looking after some elderly relatives who live nearby - and they are moved away - tough.
If a family have been looking for work on teh basis that a family member can do the childcare (very common) and that is removed - tough?
That it is perfectly reasonable to force families who depend on each other apart in this was on ideological grounds ie it doesn't actually save much money - to punish them for being feckless?
To deprive all of those children of close relationships with relatives?
All of that stuff is important. it's important to me. if we were suddenly forced to move away we;d be devastated. Doesn't it matter that children will have to be removed from schools - all of that stuff? No? I think it matters.
The 'Married couples' allowance' makes a MOCKERY of their excuses that they need to make cuts
I mean WTF
"I wanted 4 kids, couldn't afford it, so had 3 and built a happy life around that. It seems unbelievably selfish to think it's ok to have 4,5,6 or more kids just because you want it"
And if you can afford more kids, and then find yourself unable to support them through job loss or illness, then what?
We live in a small two bed terrace house (mortgage), claim no benefits (well apart from CB for the moment) and can't afford to move. My boys share a room 8x6 foot and I am now expecting dc3 (not planned at all as we knew our house was too small). And we just need to get on with it as there is nothing we can do about it. This is just what these families will have to do. It isn't ideal and is technically overcrowded under social housing rules. It grates somewhat that we can't afford a larger house for our kids but we are paying taxes so that others can. I keep thinking that many families have it worse and I should be grateful we have a house at all.
Spooky, I think the idea is that when you plan your 5 kids, you THINK about how you will manage in the future, to include the possibility of everything going horribly wrong.
Just that I don't have that support network and cope.
Admittedly not on benefits.
We do have to travel lots so our children have a close relationship with their grandparents, and we won't be able to look after them in their old age, but they've worked hard to save and will hopefully be able to get the help they need themselves. And 35 years ago my parents stopped at 2 because that's what they could afford.
I know quite a few doctors have been 'forced' to move for their jobs since that's the way the NHS works, but then they're not on benefits either.
On the other hand my DH is one of 5, but his parents have always worked hard to support them.
portofino Surely by that logic no one should have any kids? Just in case
We moved 100 of miles from family and friends due to us both being made redundant from the same company. It has been hard at times. Emotionally if not financially as we are lucky to be both working. But you get on with it.
Not everyone is fortunate enough to have family on hand to help out. Whilst I am really sympathetic to the need to keep communities together, sometimes it has to give...
But we are talking about maximum amounts here. 1, 2 or even 3 kids should be manageable with careful budgeting. Others above have already said that they live within in this.
I am not a natural tory voter by any means, I years delivering the Socialist Worker but I think the time has come when people have to control the size of their familes. I am a higher rate tax payer and would never consider having more than three children as I know if something went wrong I could not afford to raise them. Infact I have one child after years of hard work and saving. I then worked for another 7 years to get myself in a position to have a second.
I don't think children are a right, but I am a tough cookie. No one has the right to have more than two certainly.
Funny how people think council tennants just get 'handed a house' with endless amounts of bedrooms? just where in the country does that happen? -I would love to know as it is not the experience of anybody that I know!
Also, it costs to move. It costs the deposit on a house, a months rent in advance and moving your stuff. That is thousands and an expensive job. Which bank will lend you that sort of cash when you are unemployed? what about if you have used the social fund already and besides which, would they really pay for you to relocate for that expense? how will you pay it all back?
Seems to me, many people are fortunate to have a mortgage [something to retire on and keep at the end of your working life] and seem jelous of someone who may never be a home owner, will be paying some rip off landlord [and probably more than mortgage repayments would have been] until their graves without a penny to show for it.
Join the discussion
Please login first.