To ask what's the beef with benefits?

Its bullshit, If you cant afford to support yourself don't have a kid and expect everyone else to support it for you, So no evidence then? Thought so.

Daisy there are many countries that do not provide child benefit. The teenage pregnancy statistics remain the same. Teenage pregnancies are down to education, something we are incredibly lax in in this country. Having said that, it has been going down, year on year for about 20 years in the UK.

I had my DD when working, my ex also worked, I decided not to return work to save on childcare bills. Then he left me.

Sorry if I've offended anyone. I was just suggesting possible ideas. I've never been on benefits so don't know how they work; I just know that they exist. If electricity is supplied using a meter, there must be a way of (say) altering the meter or getting rid of meters altogether.

As for child benefit, there was a time when only the first child or second child (can't remember which) qualified for child benefit. It's a relatively new thing for all children to have benefit. Hence the "I'll have another baby to have more money coming in" outlook.

I have utmost sympathy for those who've been made redundant so have a dramatic change in their circumstances.

My attitude boils down to 'if you haven't the money for it, don't buy it'. That's how I live.

Nobody can stop people having children but if they knew there would be no state assistance for simply having a child then fewer would be born. The teen pregnancy rate would dramatically drop. Everybody has the same playing ground then. If they want children, then they work to support them. JSA would still be there if they lost their job and had no insurance.

All the money saved from not paying child related benefits could be better spent. Think of all the extra teachers so smaller classes, more nurses, more apprentice jobs for those who can't or don't want to go down the uni route.

We waste so much of the money made via taxes. A strong government could change that.

Also in work benefits are marginally better but are designed to keep you poor
if you work 16 hours per week and get your various in work benefits but if you go over 16 hours you get your other benefits reduced. This is not a bad thing of course as the less you receive in benefits is good for the coffers of the uk. .
I will give you an example
Your boss offers you 10 hours overtime
You declare it. Your hb and wtc goes down. Fair enough
the following month no overtime. You declare this and usually get your hb suspended while they investigate potentially leaving you in rent arrears and with reduced available cash. That's why a lot of lone parents stick to 16 hours in a low paid job. To actually have more physical cash in your pocket you would need to be earning 4 x what you currently earn.
so you stick out your low paid job not to rock the boat. Then your children leave home/education and the benefits are taken away. Quite rightly. By now you are pretty middle aged and on a low wage. Your HB won't pay for a 2/3 bed house so you have to move to a studio flat (bed sit) its a pretty bleak future unless you have an exit strategy. You can try and self improve, learn new skills but remember you are pretty middle aged by now with younger more experienced candidates snapping at your heels for those jobs that pay a living wage that enable to entirely self support.
yes benefits are great!
Fwiw i was a really high earner prior to having children. I didn't exactly plan on my partner buggering off and never paying a penny in child support.
The field i worked in would be impossible to re enter

Its bullshit, If you cant afford to support yourself don't have a kid and expect everyone else to support it for you,

Woowoo What you are saying is the poor shouldn't have children.

No I'm not! I'm saying people should be given free childcare so that they can afford to keep working after having children, as that would benefit everyone who has children, poor people included. And that if they still need benefits then they should be limited to two children, or two successful pregnancies to account for multiple births. Believing people should be financially responsible for children they choose to have is nothing like believing that poor people shouldn't have children.

Who decides how much is enough to bring up a child?

People who have children should decide that.

After they've done away with us poor people, whos next. Fat people, ugly people, skinny people, gingers.

Sorry Territ can you provide some sort of Empirical Evidence of your claim?

how territt16? contraceptives are not 100% so could still full pregnant. only takes one mistake... and they who in the world has a right to make a woman have an abortion because they are on benefits

And perhaps they can sterilise us so we cant inflict any more pauper unwashed children on the world with our evil wombs/sperm.

My DD is quite good at hovering and polishing, she could do cleaning, she wont notice that she never sees mummy who's too busy working 16 hour days for a pittance.

I dont see the problem with supporting family's that lose there jobs, but at the moment so many unemployed people have kids when out of work, this needs to be stopped.

bring back the work houses...

My DS is quite small, probably fit handsomely up a chimney.

While I'm at it, the families of benefit claimants could all live and work in a communal dwelling, while toiling away at their Workfare.

Maybe there could be a name for them, these Houses for Work...

Woowoo What you are saying is the poor shouldn't have children. Who decides how much is enough to bring up a child?

Surely there could be some kind of big house for all these children of paupers to go and live in? And perhaps they could do some kind of manual labour while they are there?

Oh and if you manage to get a half hour slot in a library have you seen the charges got printing and photocopying?

ha ha derek my eyes water at the thought