OMG!

Of course the OP should get help, I have already said she should receive help as she is unable to work. Now surely she should also take some responsibility and not have children she and her partner cannot afford. Why should it all be one way.

pot of gold???

londonone Even the most right wing Tory still believes in help for those who are vulnerable. The OP has SNs. She cannot work due to severe epilepsy. Her DP/H, is working, but on a very low wage. What's the problem with helping people who need it?

Doesn't really answer the question though does it nickschick? Where are you getting the money to fill your pot of gold?

Ive never done this before on mumsnet

Londonone you are a nob-have a

To all of those people who think that I shouldn't comment on ll's pregnancies, I ask you again. How would you fund everyone in the country having an unlimited number of children because if you wouldn't fund that then you are just the same but not willing to say it.

You voted tory? well suck it up then. Sorry, more fool you.

Ooh, missed that. You voted Tory?!!!

Yes you're right her DP is working therefore she is beyond critcism. Get a grip.

Loudlass...you voted Tory?

Well, what did you expect?

You just lost all sympathy from me re; what you expect form the government.

I do think there have been some shocking comments on here about your pregnancies, though.

Shame on those posters.

Leave loudlass alone - her DP is working, contributing to society and paying tax so get off your fucking high horses those of you being so high and mighty and just pray your lives never change for the worst.

HEAR HEAR

There are some utterly charming people around on MN at the moment . The ones whose lives have been planned to the nth degree and who would never ever have a contraceptive failure. Not content with telling you that you have too many children, they are now saying you have no right to a sex life because you fell pregnant. Nice.

Get a grip folks - as I said earlier - sex happens, pregnancy happens despite contraception sometimes. Get over it - in this country we have a Welfare State (thank goodness). Those of you castigating loudlass want to come out with me sometime to see people with up to 8 children and not working at all. And in both those cases (only tewo families out of several thousand) the number of children is the least of the problems.

Leave loudlass alone - her DP is working, contributing to society and paying tax so get off your fucking high horses those of you being so high and mighty and just pray your lives never change for the worst.

My mother in law died aged 61 my mum died aged 38 -my grandfather in law died days before his 65th birthday - all of them paid into a system they never got 'returns' on - Im happy to let their benefit'overflow' support Loudlass.

Londonone Id like to have a life as perfect and managed as yours .....theres a saying - dont kick peoples ass as you pass them on lifes ladder you will be kissing them when you come back down.

Benefits arent generous and anyone who thinks its easy to live on that income should work with the families I know.

That is only the case because at the moment the benefits are in some cases are so generous if we didn't give people 10s of thousands a year then they would be better off in a low paid job.

Think in the long run, it's cheaper to retrain someone so they are able to come off benefits.

And don't get so high and mighty on me londonone

I don't believe anyone is better off on benefits. My friend has just started working 16hrs per week in a minimum wage job. She has two young DCs and her DP has health issues which has meant he has been unable to care for them on his own. He has recently stopped getting incapacity benefit and had to go onto JSA. Her DS now has a free nursery place and her neighbour has him when he's not in nursery if her DP is feeling ill. They are better off now as she gets wages + WTC + CTC. It's a fucker for them as her DP's condition is no longer eligible for IB but if he was able to care for the little boy alone (forgetting free nursery places) they would still be better off with her working. That is the great legacy of tax credits and the one which GB should be remembered for!

FFS that is exactly the problem. Why should the state pay out so someone can retrain just because they fancy it? There is no money the state should be a safety net for those in real need not a support service for those fancying a career break or wanting a bigger house.

All of you who are so horrified about the idea people should pay for their own children. Here's a question? Where exactly are you going to get the money to pay for it if everyone fancies having 6 children and demanding a big house? Do you know about a money tree or something? Where would you draw the line?

no one nowdays is better off in benefits because of wtc.... you cannot just give up work, that disentitles one to benefits.

But people shouldn't be better off on benefits IMO ilovemydog. I'm not suggesting that they should have no money but not better off than working and contributing to society.

This is shocking. Suggesting the OP being unwilling to terminate .

I haven't read the budget, but thought there were allowances made for the working poor? People who are trying to make the best out their circumstances.

Personally, if I was in the OP's DP's position, and better off on benefits, I would go down the benefit route as then this means entitlement for retraining. There are some great 2 year degrees, paramedic for instance, although think my ideal job would be an estate manager for National Trust complete with cottage.

I'm horrified.... what started off as a discussion on low income and the effects of this buget has turned into something quite scary!
Wondering whether to shoot myself now rather than except my life has occasionally taken unexpected turns for the worst!!! Dam......who are these perfect people! I've yet to meet one!

I'm not considered by mine and my husbands income to be poor, but a middle income family. We really can't afford another baby after moving because of anti social behaviour and mortgaging ourselves to the hilt. That's our choice - I'll live by it.

i don't think anyone should have a termination because they are "poor" but there are loads of contraceptive available, not all of which are hormone based.

Your point is? At what point do you think people should take responsibility or should the state payout for as many children as people want to have, house them in bigger and bigger houses? Where exactly is the money coming from for all this BTW?

You will be £200 a year better off from the £1k tax allowance rise, and £150 a year better off from the CTC basic rate rise, so you will only be £50 a year worse off from losing the baby element. CB rises are worth about £15 per year per child so not a huge difference.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not overjoyed at the budget but on your income you should find you are not much worse off - not enough to really notice.