to think that the state shouldn't be expected to pay out for more than 2 kids per family on benefits?

[rockermom]

I don't know if anyone agrees with me but, do any of you believe that the state shouldn't be expected to pay money to any more than the 1st 2 children if a couple on long-term benefits decide to have 3+ children. Am I also right in thinking that kids are a responsibility rather than a right.

Obviously there are exceptions like families with 2+ kids where the parent(s) have been in F/T work and been made redundant, and, families whose parent(s) have had an accident and are disabled etc.

Do you think it's a fair question

[GypsyMoth]

i think people likr to just attempt to post inflamatory posts,then do a runner to leave mumsnet to argue and fall out with each other!!!

[edam]

Btw, there's a big difference between condemning other people and especially children, wishing terrible things on them, or making a fairly mild or innocuous comment that shows you haven't tried to think about their lives.

The OP deserved strong criticism for making a very strong statement that could, if her views gained any traction, cause real harm.

[tootyflooty]

I think that child benefit should have a cap on it, not sure for how many kids but say for example 3, and then at least families know that before they start having kids that they won't get cash for every child. I don't think that would be unreasonable, but the benfits thing is a bit more tricky as there are many circumstances were a large family could need help at difficult times.

[onagar]

You hear about someone having child after child and not caring about the cost because they are on benefits. (often in the Daily Mail, but there are some in real life too)

Of course this feels wrong, but there is no decent way around that.

No matter how you work the rules we live in a society that is going to have unemployed people. It's even argued that you must have unemployed people for the economy to work.
So you can't reasonably penalise those on the bottom of the scale. Whether by saying they shouldn't have more kids or even that they shouldn't be able to afford a TV etc.

[purits]

Considering that this country is already overcrowded and you only need 2.1 children per couple to keep the population going, why are so many keen to promote larger families.
Not very eco, is it?

[edam]

actually for the last few years the demographers have been warning adults have been having too few children to support the elderly. Think it's average 1.7 kids per woman? You need sufficient working-age population to support the growing number of retired, now everyone is living longer. Govt. has been encouraging immigration partly for that reason - although it's only a short-term answer as immigrants grow old themselves. And that phase is over anyway.

Anyway, it's odd that people are still moaning about those on benefits when we have just been through, and are still suffering the dire effects of, the worst financial crisis since the 30s. Caused by fat cats in the City, not poor people.

[Penthesileia]

Well children grow older too, edam, so I don't think that's why immigration isn't the solution; and if immigration is allowed to be sustained, younger immigrants arrive to take the place of those growing older. Immigration isn't the solution because a lot of immigrants return home, I think. So, that recent influx of eastern European immigrants has reversed.

Also, although I am not disagreeing with your fundamental analysis on this thread (ie. your robust rejection of the bigotry implicit in the OP's post), it is also not the case that large families in certain demographics translate into economic prosperity or sustainability. I suspect, though the OP did not articulate it well, that one of the targets of his/her misplaced wrath, is the so-called "underclass": those on benefits for generations. These people are obviously not supporting the ageing population by working/paying taxes. However, this is a result of structural inequalities, lack of employment opportunities, etc.

Anyway, sorry, rambling response, as I think your point doesn't fit this particular argument, iyswim.

[Penthesileia]

Oh, sorry - just realised you were responding to purits, rather than the OP or others. Ignore my last post.

[biddysmama]

indeed.... those children shouldnt eat... in fact why dont we get the drs to lave them outside to die like they do in china if you have too many children?

[cheesesarnie]

how many dc does op have?im guessing two.

circumstances change op.

[rockermom]

Thanks catinboots,Mingg, baggedandtagged,Penthesileia, boiledegg and Ladyanonymous for your opinions, much appreciated.

Ok lets get a few things straight here. I'm a SAHM mum of 2 due to being made redundant 5-6yrs ago when pregnant with DC1 (worked since 16, my CHB for both my kids is £35 and that's what's left after bills are paid). I got sterilised so the state wouldn't have that extra burden to bear. I also volunteer for a charity because I believe I should be doing something for the benefits.

With regards to the previous post, I would hate to see any child starve and certainly it's not their fault, but I was thinking about parents who have never worked in their life and have no intention of working either.

So if more and more people are being made redundant and there is subsequently less tax for the treasury then how does the country sustain the growing population without getting out the begging bowl and going to the IMF for a bail-out. Plus, there's no guarantee the IMF will give money anyway and if the dosh ain't given, the ship goes down.

[mumeeee]

YABVU

[Quattrocento]

Let's examine this idea more closely.

Say a couple on long-term benefits have a third child, what should the penalties be?

(a) No more benefits for the third child and parents be pushed back into work when the second child gets to school age
(b) Take the third child into care
(c) Compulsory sterilisation after two children

See? None of the above look particularly palatable, do they?

[TitsalinaBumSquash]

It is a stupid idea.

Although i agree some people take the piss with how many children they choose to have when both parents are on benifits... i know someone who springs to mind, they have 10 children, she is pregnant with another, they live in a 4 bed council house, they are both not working, neither is disabled.... they were complaining to me only today that the council wont build them a 6 bed house

Anyway yes i think something should be done about benifit scroungers, there is no incentive to work with benifits so easy to get.

I recall reading (and i know you will correct me if im wrong) in the Conservative campaign thing there was talk of a scheme when people who were on benifits would have to do community work to get them, i think it was JSA they were talking about, and i dont mean community service as in a horrible prison scentence work but things like working in homeless shelters, gardening, helping vunerable people in the communinty, the idea was these people would still be active and in a working enviroment and getting the money from thier JSA as well as getting work experience, social skills, networking ect. I thought it was a brilliant idea.

[maryqueenofyachts]

But Titsalina, () if there is work for them to do, why shouldn't they be paid minimum wage for it? I do think volunteering is a great thing to gain experience, confidence and well-being, but how can the line be clearly drawn between volunteer roles and what might previously or otherwise be done by paid employees? I can see organisations making a lot of paid work "volunteer" only, to take advantage of this.

[hairytriangle]

Pft. What a stupid stupid post op. Ridiculous!

[TitsalinaBumSquash]

maryqueenofyachts i hadnt thought of that! it is a very good point, maybe then they shold offer the longterm unemployed work like i mentioned before, gardening, community work ect for minimum wage with the rule that they are offered x amount of jobs and they ave to take one or the JSA stops?

[expatinscotland]

Another one of these.

Yawn.

[drloves]

Yabu .
I have a family of 8 children. (well dd1 isnt a child anymore ).I did not plan to have 8 it just happened. DH and i both had 3 from our previous marrages , and then we had twins.
Unfortunatly for about 6 months just after the twins were born , we were both unemployed.It was not something we could have forseen and avoided.

Being on benefits for that time , shocked , embarissed me ,my DH and our children.
They got teased because they had school meals provided and the other kids knew that we were unemployed because of it.
It was damn hard to feed the kids (even the smart price stuff), and pay the bills on the money we were given...there was never any left at the end of the week and we often had to borrow from family to manage.

Thank heavens DH found a job when he did....we celebrated that day with buying chocolate biscuits ( things were that tight , we hadnt had chocolate biscuits for ages).

Being on benefits is not a lifestyle choice.No one in their right mind would choose to do that to their children...people have to because their is no other option.
It is quite honestly starve or claim benefits.

If there was no benefits system, or if it was restricted to 2 child families then you would find a lot of women resorting to prostitution to feed their kids.

[foureleven]

rockermom, I half agree... but it would be impossible to monitor who had 3 children and could afford it, then lost their jobs.. It would become a case of another person deciding who was deserving and who wasnt. And thats not fair.

So it will never happen.

We just have to rely on human nature that most people will be sensible and stop at 2 if they cant fund any more. I think most people do this.

[foureleven]

But yes, people on benefits should do community work. They are essentially employed by the public sector so they should have to do work for the money they get.

Unless there was some way in the future that jobs could be created out of community work so that people could be paid benefits as wages.. it would be below minimum wage so not sure how it would work..

early stages of an idea!

[drloves]

Good Idea four eleven, but you would have to scedual in some "scouting for work time" - jobcentres are great , but not all the availiable jobs are advertised there (most of them are i know)
Dh found his job because a friend told him one was coming up where he worked , so he went down to the place and asked (didnt have money for phone top -up) .
Dh struggled to find something and he is educated and had an outsanding employement record (had been with his old firm 15 years before he was made redundent).

[mumofthreesweeties]

YABU, there are naturally some people who are died hard scroungers and more should be done to force them back to work. However yesterday I watched 'Fairy jobmother' and was really moved by the young couple who had been on benefits for about four years and were desperate to get back to work but worried about not earning enough to pay their rent and other bills. I believe for some people on benefits educating them on interviewing skills and building their confidence will motivate them to work. From yesterdays viewpoint, the young couple wanted to work - so to merely write off all families on benefits from having more than two children is unworkable.

[foureleven]

drloves, the going out and about and asking is something that many more people should be doing. Its flaming hard out there at the moment, and that is the best way to get yourself noticed.

Cant wait to see fairyjobmother, hoping its on 4od...

[rockermom]

In NI jobcentres are network connected with the social security offices. Most companies looking to recruit will ask the jobcentre to have the applicants fill out a jobcentre application form and leave it in.

If a long term claimant says they've applied for a job at the jobcentre, the dole office will check up on that every fortnight when the person claiming signs on.

Claimants also have to provide company names and numbers, if they have applied or called the company directly, so that this can be checked up on too. If anyone is caught lying, they're warned they risk having benefits either reduced or stopped.

Yes, it is a nanny state but over here there are very few people not looking for a job.
People on income support who have families will be taken off income support, put onto jobseekers and made to sign on every fortnight when their youngest turns 7yrs old. Most people on the dole with families are getting CTC and are changed to WTC if/when they find a job.