Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

88 replies

rockermom · 12/07/2010 00:13

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

OP posts:
tethersend · 14/07/2010 13:49

Maybe the long term unemployed could be given jobs as social workers, as they will need thousands more of them in order to take unlucky third and fourth children whose families cannot afford to care for them due to benefits being stopped into care (which costs more than benefits).

rockermom · 14/07/2010 14:56

I didn't imply that kids are taken off parents, I was merely saying that parents who haven't done a days work in their life and keep on having kids to avoid it, should be made to work for any extra benefits. For instance, for every x amount the parents get in CHB/CTC etc, for 3rd+ kids, they must do voluntary work for charities, say, like SureStart/HomeStart/charity shops etc, until the youngest is 7 and then they will be able to go into paid employment. As far as I'm aware, no company can ask you to work as an unpaid volunteer unless it's a registered charity.

OP posts:
tethersend · 14/07/2010 15:03

Who would meet the cost of childcare whilst the parents do voluntary work?

If the parent refuses to work? What then?

Triggles · 14/07/2010 15:15

"I got sterilised so the state wouldn't have that extra burden to bear."

That's just about the most hilarious thing I've read in quite some time. Implying that is simply the only reason... what a good citizen.

Forcing people on benefits who have children to do voluntary work - like criminals???

God, don't people have better things to do with their time than think of shitty things to say about those on benefits while they're looking down their nose at them?

Use a little imagination and creativity. Come up with something else to discuss. This has been done to death....

rockermom · 14/07/2010 15:25

I didn't imply that kids are taken off parents, I was merely saying that parents who haven't done a days work in their life and keep on having kids to avoid it, should be made to work for any extra benefits. For instance, for every x amount the parents get in CHB/CTC etc, for 3rd+ kids, they must do voluntary work for charities, say, like SureStart/HomeStart/charity shops etc, until the youngest is 7 and then they will be able to go into paid employment. As far as I'm aware, no company can ask you to work as an unpaid volunteer unless it's a registered charity.

OP posts:
tethersend · 14/07/2010 15:32

You already said that.

FindingMyMojo · 14/07/2010 17:53

OffYourRockerMom - YABU & nasty

foureleven · 14/07/2010 18:00

You cant do unpaid work like internships whilst claiming job seekers wtf is that all about..?

Internships can lead to permanent work so this rule is stopping people get work. It is true you can only owrk unpaid for a registered charity.

You also cant do odd bits of temping because your benefits are stopped and take ages to reapply for... Temping also leads to permanent work often so this is also a joke.

hairytriangle · 15/07/2010 20:41

do you honestly believe there is a large number of people having more children simply to avoid work? YABU!!! and you are generalising.

foureleven there are some really, really stupid Department of Work and Pensions rules - the welfar reforms brought in by the last government started to make headway into a far more sensible method of encouraging people to take steps into becoming more employable, but the Condems have blown them out of the water...

usualsuspect · 15/07/2010 20:43

How many more...

tethersend · 15/07/2010 21:09

"ghjutyfdxasghuytrxe"

Well exactly.

lovechoc · 15/07/2010 21:18

long term it is expensive having more than 2 children though - what if each one wants to go to uni?? new shoes all teh time too - it is bad enough paying out for two children, let alone more than this!
I agree with OP.YANBU.

Megancleo · 15/07/2010 21:29

I have 3dc and when ex left last year I was reliant on benefits for 6 monthes, if you had seen me in the street how would you have worked out if I'd Kept on having kids to avoid work etc. Who the hell would have looked after my 3dc when I did voluntary work, Rockerman? I truly don't understand how you can be so insensitive to others situations. Do you read the Daily Mail?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page