Fed up of my cousins comments about benefits and UC

Nope. Everybody pays sales tax.

@MuckFusk Only net tax payers subsidise things they don’t agree with, the other 53% don’t subsidise anything.

Some people would like to go back to the early "poor law" days, where only the "deserving" poor got help and the "undeserving" poor had to beg, resort to crime or prostitute themselves.

Ok. So experts wouldn’t advise someone living in poverty against having another child and the two child limit on benefits aim was to reduce the number of children that were born?

Does any of that not ring true for you? It’s just pure entitlement. What would happen if everyone thought like you and just took all the time with no regard for anyone else?

I'm also intrigued by those saying that they are subsidising all of these feckless parents who are having children they can't afford. Do you all assume your taxes would reduce if people only had children they could afford? (I assume you would still be paying for disabled children, disabled parents and widowed parents?).

Tax doesn't work like that - your taxes wouldn't reduce. And in any case, we don't get to choose where our taxes go. I don't smoke, why should I subsidise those with smoking related illnesses? I'm not obese, likewise. I'm not infertile, why should I fund fertility treatment? If I'm vegan, why should I subsidise farmers, if I don't use a library, or drive a car, why should I contribute to those? I'm not old either and don't have any old people in my family, and in fact have a substantial pension, so maybe I shouldn't fund other people's pensions who haven't been as organised (and as rich) as me. I am a pacifist, I certainly don't agree to increase the spend on missiles and reduce foreign aid. I do want my taxes to fund asylum seekers, children with SEND, state schools and the bits of the NHS I use. But we can't pick and choose, and nor should we - that's not the basis of the way our state or our welfare state is run.

I'm also intrigued by those saying that they are subsidising all of these feckless parents who are having children they can't afford. Do you all assume your taxes would reduce if people only had children they could afford? (I assume you would still be paying for disabled children, disabled parents and widowed parents?).

Tax doesn't work like that - your taxes wouldn't reduce. And in any case, we don't get to choose where our taxes go. I don't smoke, why should I subsidise those with smoking related illnesses? I'm not obese, likewise. I'm not infertile, why should I fund fertility treatment? If I'm vegan, why should I subsidise farmers, if I don't use a library, or drive a car, why should I contribute to those? I'm not old either and don't have any old people in my family, and in fact have a substantial pension, so maybe I shouldn't fund other people's pensions who haven't been as organised (and as rich) as me. I am a pacifist, I certainly don't agree to increase the spend on missiles and reduce foreign aid. I do want my taxes to fund asylum seekers, children with SEND, state schools and the bits of the NHS I use. But we can't pick and choose, and nor should we - that's not the basis of the way our state or our welfare state is run.

Well no, because there's a two child limit and you don't get benefits for a third or subsequent child. Which even by the Government's own research hasn't worked in achieving what it set out to do (to reduce the number of children that are born) but has only pushed more children into poverty.

What @Frazzled83 says.

@ThatBoldBear there is not one expert who works in the field of poverty or poverty alleviation that says the answer is for parents to only have children that they can afford. Nor is there one expert that says if that happened (which, quite frankly, would be impossible, as it completely ignores the possibility of a parent dying, becoming disabled, being divorced * losing their job unexpectedly, having to leave their job to care for a disabled child etc etc) then poverty would be eradicated.

The causes of poverty are very complex and made up of far more issues than people having children they can't afford. If you want to eradicate poverty, then providing a basic level of state issued social security is one key element (I don't think anyone on this thread is going to say that our welfare state should be abolished), as is affordable housing, childcare, wages and essentials.

As for parents that have children they can't afford, as you'll know if you were an expert in this area, most parents who are claiming Universal Credit are working (and that includes single parents, where 66% are in work). In work poverty is the fastest growing area of poverty. The solution to in work poverty isn't to remove or reduce benefits.

If you are suggesting that the government should assess each claimant on the basis that it's their fault they are in poverty because they had children they couldn't afford (and this would have to ignore all of the people who died, became disabled, caring for a disabled child etc etc), and therefore only give benefits to those parents it deemed faultless in this regard, I'd wonder what your criteria would be for that? I'd also wonder whether you are happy with the end result of removing benefits from those parents - that THEIR CHILDREN are in poverty and are going without food, warmth, clothing. But maybe that would be alright because you're not rewarding those selfish parents who are having children they can't afford.

*On the feckless father thing - yes, of course it is morally reprehensible for fathers not to pay for their children but there needs to be a huge shift in attitudes for that to trickle down. And we need a working CMS which we don't have at the moment. And even if all the children who were entitled to maintenance got it, it would only lift 66% of those children who are in poverty, out of it. So it doesn't include children who aren't entitled to child maintenance and in any case isn't the complete answer.

I was going to reply, but you said it much better. My only additional points are 1. many people can't work for disability reasons, yet are told "get a job" when actually health doesn't work that way and they need real finacial support and a workforce that isn't at it's core ableist 2. The current welfare system penalises people with virtually any savings, so poverty becomes multigenererational - the stories you hear of children brought up in poverty who've gone on to massive success are the outliers. 3. It's only ever UC, PIP, single parents who don't fit the strict criteria (e.g. not widows) or mums with 'too many' children who are slammed. What do you think pensions, SMP, childcare benefit are, if not benefits? Stop attacking the lowest hanging fruit, it's cruel. When people are living hand-to-mouth, in a rented home with no savings or pension they cannot be savvy with their investments or taxes even if you can. Sure, enjoy your privilege, but don't be naive about it. A laissez faire attitude to society benefits a core group and leaves another core group vulnerable.

No but what about all the people who are having to limit their family sizes because they can't afford another kid? Or foregoing having children completely? How is that fair? What does someone get for being responsible? Absolutely bugger all.

No expert suggests to people in poverty to not have anymore children? I guess because of the benefits they can access? Sums up the issue really. It’s obscene to have half the country living within their means by limiting the number of children they have to those they can look after whilst being forever squeezed to pay for the other half who don’t even consider it.

Obviously, I think that was the point. I was making very clear.

Each to their own, but not for me back in the day when I was considering who the father of my children would be

What @Frazzled83 says.

@ThatBoldBear there is not one expert who works in the field of poverty or poverty alleviation that says the answer is for parents to only have children that they can afford. Nor is there one expert that says if that happened (which, quite frankly, would be impossible, as it completely ignores the possibility of a parent dying, becoming disabled, being divorced * losing their job unexpectedly, having to leave their job to care for a disabled child etc etc) then poverty would be eradicated.

The causes of poverty are very complex and made up of far more issues than people having children they can't afford. If you want to eradicate poverty, then providing a basic level of state issued social security is one key element (I don't think anyone on this thread is going to say that our welfare state should be abolished), as is affordable housing, childcare, wages and essentials.

As for parents that have children they can't afford, as you'll know if you were an expert in this area, most parents who are claiming Universal Credit are working (and that includes single parents, where 66% are in work). In work poverty is the fastest growing area of poverty. The solution to in work poverty isn't to remove or reduce benefits.

If you are suggesting that the government should assess each claimant on the basis that it's their fault they are in poverty because they had children they couldn't afford (and this would have to ignore all of the people who died, became disabled, caring for a disabled child etc etc), and therefore only give benefits to those parents it deemed faultless in this regard, I'd wonder what your criteria would be for that? I'd also wonder whether you are happy with the end result of removing benefits from those parents - that THEIR CHILDREN are in poverty and are going without food, warmth, clothing. But maybe that would be alright because you're not rewarding those selfish parents who are having children they can't afford.

*On the feckless father thing - yes, of course it is morally reprehensible for fathers not to pay for their children but there needs to be a huge shift in attitudes for that to trickle down. And we need a working CMS which we don't have at the moment. And even if all the children who were entitled to maintenance got it, it would only lift 66% of those children who are in poverty, out of it. So it doesn't include children who aren't entitled to child maintenance and in any case isn't the complete answer.

No crystal balls needed. The bloke sees his kid twice a year max and doesn't pay towards him-I'm not sure any of his past behaviour would be screaming "Mr Responsible" unless he had a personality transplant.

That's fine, but they shouldnt be expecting other folk to subsidise their choices.

What actually doesn't make sense is that office hours are 9-5, instead of being shorter and at the same time as school hours so parents wouldn't have these logistical problems.

The government's "free hours" do not provide childcare settings with the amount it actually costs to care for one child. This is part of the reason childcare settings must charge "top up" fees and costs are astronomical for anyone who does not qualify for those hours for whatever reason. Nothing is ever "free" as the funds have to come from somewhere. It's not complicated.

Why can't ambitious people on low incomes strive for better paying jobs...?

Does it occur to you that people with the means and the smarts to structure their taxes aren't all evil baddy meanies but actually have family, even children, who they wish to take care of, ahead of giving money to other people's kids via welfare and subsidies?

You’re jumping all over the place tieing yourself in knots over a very simple concept: parental responsibility. You seem to want someone to blame for malnourished kids living in poverty, I suggest you take it up with the people who put them in that situation by having kids they can’t look after. I can’t really make this any simpler for you.

They are not baying about that, they’re baying that they have to pay so much tax to pay for it. The money comes from people who are also ‘doing their best’ and it’s well past what is acceptable now.