Page 4 | To think adding more child benefits is a pointless and futile policy?

MelissaExplainsItAll · 2025-02-27T10:30:36+00:00

[[https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/26/parents-under-fives-could-be-exempted-two-child-benefit-cap-uk https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/26/parents-under-fives-could-be-exempted-two-child-benefit-cap-uk]] I think child poverty would be better relieved in ways other than giving the parents more cash. For example: - better funded breakfast and after school clubs - better funded nursery hours (banning top up charges) - expansion of free school meals - better school funding - direct funding of school holiday clubs AIBU?

x2boys · 27/02/2025 14:44

Wildflowers99 · 27/02/2025 14:43

I agree. Benefits are in many cases now far far far too generous for people with children. A family with 3 children, who claim DLA for 2 of them (a very common occurrence round here), with rent of £1,000 p/m would be entitled to £3100 per month according to Entitled To. That’s equivalent to a salary of £37,000 per year.

Show quote history

So you think disabled children should be living in poverty than?
Nice.

Wildflowers99 · 27/02/2025 14:43

MelissaExplainsItAll · 27/02/2025 14:39

😂 You’ve taken one sentence of my post and chosen to ignore the other… Anyway, what I said was:

Anyone who chooses to have a child they can’t afford to raise or house except in poverty, is by default a bad parent.

If circumstances change, of course that’s different.

And I stand by that. Benefits should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.

Show quote history

I agree. Benefits are in many cases now far far far too generous for people with children. A family with 3 children, who claim DLA for 2 of them (a very common occurrence round here), with rent of £1,000 p/m would be entitled to £3100 per month according to Entitled To. That’s equivalent to a salary of £37,000 per year.

OldTiredMum1976 · 27/02/2025 14:41

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Original poster

MelissaExplainsItAll · 27/02/2025 14:39

verycloakanddaggers · 27/02/2025 14:34

You said: Anyone who chooses to have a child they can’t afford to raise or house except in poverty, is by default a bad parent.

This statement is devoid of humanity.

Show quote history

😂 You’ve taken one sentence of my post and chosen to ignore the other… Anyway, what I said was:

Anyone who chooses to have a child they can’t afford to raise or house except in poverty, is by default a bad parent.

If circumstances change, of course that’s different.

And I stand by that. Benefits should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.

OP posts:

Wildflowers99 · 27/02/2025 14:37

verycloakanddaggers · 27/02/2025 14:34

You said: Anyone who chooses to have a child they can’t afford to raise or house except in poverty, is by default a bad parent.

This statement is devoid of humanity.

Show quote history

But true.

biscuitandcake · 27/02/2025 14:35

MelissaExplainsItAll · 27/02/2025 14:31

If we go to a world war it’s highly unlikely we’d need boots on the ground nowadays.

Show quote history

If nuclear weapons are used then its all completely academic anyway (and if we assume it would come to that why spend on the military at all. Just bung some money into Trident and pray). Other than that though, war always always involves boots on the ground. The inventor of the Gatling gun believed it would save lives as it would mean you needed far fewer soldiers in the line of fire to operate it. It didn't work out like that (to put it mildly). Its important to invest in new technology (drones etc). The idea that that means we won't also need soldiers to risk their lives is a nice thought but unlikely.

winerosesandmusic · 27/02/2025 14:35

Why is it always the suggestion to give the cash to the middle-class so that they may "help" the poor souls with their wise "advice". Telling the poor tinkers how they can helps themselves is much more beneficial than giving them extra money. No actual cash can ever be given to those in poverty.

Funny how many middle-class great ideas leave them pocketing the money.

This is years ago now but is a good example.
Our local council announced tens of thousands for a scheme that promoted computer literacy for the the local povs. 1, the local povs already had computers. 2, the scheme ran for two hours, once a week and lasted 12 sessions in total. 3, no bugger showed up.

They could have purchased at least 100 basic PCs for how much they pissed away. All they did was enrich the bank balance of a couple of middle-class advisors who helped nobody but themselves.

verycloakanddaggers · 27/02/2025 14:35

MelissaExplainsItAll · 27/02/2025 14:31

If we go to a world war it’s highly unlikely we’d need boots on the ground nowadays.

Show quote history

Tell that to Ukraine.

verycloakanddaggers · 27/02/2025 14:34

MelissaExplainsItAll · 27/02/2025 14:30

That’s not what I said though, is it?

Show quote history

You said: Anyone who chooses to have a child they can’t afford to raise or house except in poverty, is by default a bad parent.

This statement is devoid of humanity.

Original poster

MelissaExplainsItAll · 27/02/2025 14:31

biscuitandcake · 27/02/2025 14:29

If you want a military you need people to be in the army. And if there is a war (god forbid) some of the people putting their lives on the line for you will have been from poor families. Its actually in the interests of British security to have a well nourished, well educated population with stable childhoods. That's a horribly utilitarian way of looking at it but its true. Morally also, its wrong to expect people to fight for the state if the state views them as benefit scum when they are in genuine need of help.

As I said - there is an issue with working people also claiming benefits but fixing that is complicated and doesn't involve cutting benefits. It is probably best done at a time of economic prosperity.

Show quote history

If we go to a world war it’s highly unlikely we’d need boots on the ground nowadays.

OP posts:

Original poster

MelissaExplainsItAll · 27/02/2025 14:30

verycloakanddaggers · 27/02/2025 14:28

If you're saying being in poverty automatically makes someone a bad parent, you have lost your humanity and your moral compass.

You have no right to make that sweeping judgement.

Show quote history

That’s not what I said though, is it?

OP posts:

onwardsup4 · 27/02/2025 14:30

@offmynut *tide me over

biscuitandcake · 27/02/2025 14:29

Wildflowers99 · 27/02/2025 14:23

The fact it’s more than we spend on education or the military? And also the fact it’s rapidly increasing with no sign of levelling off?

Show quote history

If you want a military you need people to be in the army. And if there is a war (god forbid) some of the people putting their lives on the line for you will have been from poor families. Its actually in the interests of British security to have a well nourished, well educated population with stable childhoods. That's a horribly utilitarian way of looking at it but its true. Morally also, its wrong to expect people to fight for the state if the state views them as benefit scum when they are in genuine need of help.

As I said - there is an issue with working people also claiming benefits but fixing that is complicated and doesn't involve cutting benefits. It is probably best done at a time of economic prosperity.

verycloakanddaggers · 27/02/2025 14:28

MelissaExplainsItAll · 27/02/2025 14:25

You can be a bad parent for multiple reasons, you know. Arseholes make poor parents. People choosing to raise their children in poverty also make bad parents. It’s not mutually exclusive.

People posting here with accidental pregnancies are constantly told to think about the impact to their existing children. Is that irrelevant to those on benefits?

Show quote history

If you're saying being in poverty automatically makes someone a bad parent, you have lost your humanity and your moral compass.

You have no right to make that sweeping judgement.

Wildflowers99 · 27/02/2025 14:26

verycloakanddaggers · 27/02/2025 14:23

Is being a rich arsehole better for a kid than being a poor and loving parent?

So many people have lost their humanity and decency. Money or lack of does not make anyone a good or bad parent.

Human life is about so much more than that.

Show quote history

Are you offering to work for free then?

verycloakanddaggers · 27/02/2025 14:26

Wildflowers99 · 27/02/2025 14:17

I’m not judge and jury. I’m giving an opinion, same as everyone else. The fact is more and more children are entering reception very delayed and not properly cared for. This is having a huge knock on effect on the education system and benefits.

Show quote history

Well of course, every one has an opinion, they are like arseholes.

But read the academic research into why problems happen in families.

Wildflowers99 · 27/02/2025 14:25

MelissaExplainsItAll · 27/02/2025 14:19

Anyone who chooses to have a child they can’t afford to raise or house except in poverty, is by default a bad parent.

If circumstances change, of course that’s different.

Show quote history

Agree.

Some households take in more than £60k in benefits a year. It takes the absolute piss.

Original poster

MelissaExplainsItAll · 27/02/2025 14:25

verycloakanddaggers · 27/02/2025 14:23

Is being a rich arsehole better for a kid than being a poor and loving parent?

So many people have lost their humanity and decency. Money or lack of does not make anyone a good or bad parent.

Human life is about so much more than that.

Show quote history

You can be a bad parent for multiple reasons, you know. Arseholes make poor parents. People choosing to raise their children in poverty also make bad parents. It’s not mutually exclusive.

People posting here with accidental pregnancies are constantly told to think about the impact to their existing children. Is that irrelevant to those on benefits?

OP posts:

Mrsttcno1 · 27/02/2025 14:25

verycloakanddaggers · 27/02/2025 14:23

Is being a rich arsehole better for a kid than being a poor and loving parent?

So many people have lost their humanity and decency. Money or lack of does not make anyone a good or bad parent.

Human life is about so much more than that.

Show quote history

I totally agree that money isn’t everything, but the fact is children need a roof over their heads, they need food to eat, they need clothes to wear, as an absolute basic. You do need money to provide those things.

YouveGotAFastCar · 27/02/2025 14:25

MelissaExplainsItAll · 27/02/2025 12:11

I hadn't heard about top up charges being banned. At my nursery it’s £2 an hour for “consumables” when using funded hours, and the funded days have to be 10hrs, so it still costs £20 a day. They do offer “limited funding only places” but that’s only on certain days and my understanding is that there’s only a couple of these places.

Show quote history

Mines £3.40 per hour, which is insane really. But you can guarantee that if the DfE confirms they intended to; or will, ban top ups, they’re going to either put up the day rate or stop accepting the funding.

Wildflowers99 · 27/02/2025 14:23

biscuitandcake · 27/02/2025 14:20

As that chart clearly shows, the majority of benefits are paid to pensioners. It is just only a little bit over 10% of total spend which is paid to "working age and children". What about that is terrifying exactly? I agree there are issues where people in work are unable to afford the costs of living because wages are too low so need benefits to top up. Essentially these benefits are a subsidy to businesses but if you cut that subsidy (by raising wages) it would limit growth and lead to much handwringing. But 10% of the governments spending going to non-pensioner benefits seems about right to me. Even if you think its too much its hardly "terrifying".

Show quote history

The fact it’s more than we spend on education or the military? And also the fact it’s rapidly increasing with no sign of levelling off?

verycloakanddaggers · 27/02/2025 14:23

MelissaExplainsItAll · 27/02/2025 14:19

Anyone who chooses to have a child they can’t afford to raise or house except in poverty, is by default a bad parent.

If circumstances change, of course that’s different.

Show quote history

Is being a rich arsehole better for a kid than being a poor and loving parent?

So many people have lost their humanity and decency. Money or lack of does not make anyone a good or bad parent.

Human life is about so much more than that.

biscuitandcake · 27/02/2025 14:20

Wildflowers99 · 27/02/2025 14:10

We have no more money for benefits. The amount we spend on them is absolutely terrifying.

Show quote history

As that chart clearly shows, the majority of benefits are paid to pensioners. It is just only a little bit over 10% of total spend which is paid to "working age and children". What about that is terrifying exactly? I agree there are issues where people in work are unable to afford the costs of living because wages are too low so need benefits to top up. Essentially these benefits are a subsidy to businesses but if you cut that subsidy (by raising wages) it would limit growth and lead to much handwringing. But 10% of the governments spending going to non-pensioner benefits seems about right to me. Even if you think its too much its hardly "terrifying".

Original poster

MelissaExplainsItAll · 27/02/2025 14:19

verycloakanddaggers · 27/02/2025 14:14

Who made you judge and jury over others? This type of baseless judgement is unacceptable. You don't know many people at all, none of us do. Judging based on no knowledge is foolish.

Show quote history

Anyone who chooses to have a child they can’t afford to raise or house except in poverty, is by default a bad parent.

If circumstances change, of course that’s different.

OP posts:

ConnieSlow · 27/02/2025 14:19

offmynut · 27/02/2025 11:27

Some parents make me laugh when they say i dont claim or never claimed any benefits i only get child benefit well thats still a benefit.
I believe if you have children you should pay for them and child benefit child tax credit should not exist.

Edited

I agree with this.