AIBU to think parents on benefits shouldn’t be allowed to have more children until they’re financially independent?

I’d love to see the studies. It might depend on where you live. I know many families like this unfortunately.
Sorry, see you have. They were trying to find families where generations of the families haven’t worked and it wasn’t an exact science the way they were going about it.

Parents mental health, me time, right to live their life how they want etc pushes the needs of some of these children further and further down the parents priority list. Why isn’t it ok to say if you don’t work don’t have too many children? It’s always about the parents and their feelings and not the children. Then there’s horrific stories in the news about children and the same people who think families should have as many children as they want are the ones saying ‘isn’t it awful what happened to that child. Where were the parents?’

Can we sterilise the judgemental folks right alongside those benefit scroungers?

How wonderful, a goady, kite flying post by an OP who never returns.

I don’t agree with the OP but this is a different situation as these are people who are working and contributing economically to society, and whose tax contributions almost certainly cover that childcare cost

I'm horrified by the concept of a world where rich people are so entitled to become parents that they're allowed to buy an egg off one woman and rent a uterus off another woman, but a poor woman "isn't allowed" any more of her own kids.

Anyway, you're behind the times. The more likely imminent dystopian scenario is govt incentives for out of work women to breed in order to stem our falling birthrate (or financial incentives for immigrants to come here would also work)

How far would you go to stop them? Issue contraception? Place surgical contraception or full on sterilisation? That all sounds draconian to say the least? Who gets to decide?

I think there is already a cap. My mum is one of those people who kept having children, no job, no dads that stuck around, so all on benefits. Of course it’s irresponsible and god knows why she kept doing it (I suspect she thought it would mean she’d get the man to stay) but if you’d taken her benefits away my childhood would have been far worse than it already was.
Im of the opinion as a tax payer I’m all for my taxes going towards children that are living in poverty (sometimes because of their parents poor choices) We should invest more into these children and hopefully they’ll become adults who won’t repeat the pattern.
Everyone I know who was brought up similar to me are now the complete opposite to their parents.

There's already a cap, so no need for the benefit bashing thread

https://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/the-power-of-stupid-ideas-three-generations-that-have-never-worked/

You're a nasty piece of work.

In vanishingly small numbers.

IMO the OP was referring largely to those who not only don’t work, but who rarely or never have, and don’t ever intend to if they can possibly avoid it.

I know it’s not popular to say so on MN, but they do exist.

Exactly! We didn’t have more children due to not being able to provide well enough for more.

This demographic is so vanishingly small it barely makes a ripple. Studies have been done.

This sounds like a vote winner. It would be so simple, straight forward and time effective to judge on a case by case basis who should/should not be able to reproduce......

I mean the OP could come back and explain what they meant.....

I think a lot of you are deliberately misunderstanding the OP.

She is referring to families where no one works, has ever worked, who keep on having child after child with no thought for the other children. It really sickens me to see this. No hope for the children, parents saying they haven’t got time to help their children because there’s too many of them, no extra curricular, no extras, no ambition to work.

OP isn’t saying families with these circumstances can’t have children but more why keep having them.

I don't think anyone should have more than two kids personally. It's just the responsible choice IMO. I think we should be encouraging it as a positive, responsible thing.

We have nearly a million NEETs aged 16 -24 so there's no shortage of labour - we need to make sure they're getting the support and opportunities they need to get into work. For me that means starting long before they're 16 to get them on the right path, so many kids are learning that they're no good failures from an early age in school. Functional skills and practical qualifications should be available to all kids from much earlier - nobody should have to be in school sitting GCSE's knowing they're going to fail most if not all of them.

I disagree.. and reporting my post won't get that changed.

By engaging with it, you're encouraging it and giving it credence and validation as something to discuss.

I don’t really get the responses on this thread. It’s strange how the done thing is to be shocked at the very idea that only those who can afford their children should have them. That sounds right to me…? We stoped at two as we can’t afford 3 despite having 2 good jobs surely that’s just being responsible. If you can’t ever afford to feed your children without support then no you probably shouldn’t have more. That’s not a controversial statement.

Perhaps employers should not be allowed to employ more workers until they can clearly demonstrate that they are paying ALL their workers, from the CEO to the janitor, a wage that allows them and their family to live a comfortable life with dignity and security?

Did I ensure I could financially and mentally support my children before I made the choice to have them - Yes.
Do I think people who have more kids despite not being able to financially care well for the ones they have are irresponsible - Yes.

But I also judge those who have plenty of money but no love to give their kids or any sense of empathy to pass on to them...

And I hella judge anyone who thinks limiting the money or support to those kids who are born in less than optimal situations is the right thing to do. We need to be massively investing in a new sure start scheme providing more care to these kids from age of 0-4, because if you don't get to them and their parents with education and support in these early years they will remain behind at every level of education. which means they are less likely to have post school education, less likely to have fulfilling careers, more likely to end up on benefits themselves.

Instead of spending huge amounts of money on protecting the triple lock, or subsidising the crap wages that large companies get to pay through UC for working people, or paying billions in housing benefit to boomer landlords because we don't build enough houses, we should be massively investing in social housing and early years support to help families break the cycle that society has created

What a surprise. @Tellitasitisss drops a goody, benefits bashing thread - they're only contribution to the site - and disappears.

This site is properly being intentionally shit stirred.

It doesn't stop people having children, it just means those children have to grow up in poverty, the answer is to scrap it not to make it stricter . so many people have truly disgusting attitudes 🙄