having children she can't afford without thought.

[rambini]

My best friend is 21, she already has one child who is 5, and she recently got together with (another) new bloke. within 2 weeks they were "engaged" and now in week 3 they have "decided to try for a baby". neither of them work, or have any savings. her current child is surprise surprise, supported by the state, as will baby number 2 be if he/she turns up. it is just so frivolous, with no care or thought for the fact that they have not even known each other a month, they have no money, and expect other people to fund their child just so they can play happy families. it really makes me mad, am i being unfair?
thanks x

Lol lol at rambinis idea that less spent on her 'best friend' means more money goes to NHS!!!!!

Lol at the naivety of that....... And the few posts she er, made!!!!

Of YANBU, who on earth thinks they can have a child with no means to pay for them from the off. And I mean everyone and anyone, regardless of circumstance or disability.

i have such a thing as sleep, which is why i have not yet responded. my point is, she had one child, a mistake conceived under a park bench, which the state has funded for 5 years so far and will continue to do so. she also has her life, her bills, her house and her partner which are all funded by the state. i understand that everyone gets a certain amount of help, but that is a two way process, because we pay into the system as well as take from it. the system is only sustainable if people pay in as well as take from it. she only takes, and has only ever taken. she has never worked, though she is fully fit and well to do so, as is her bf. neither of them have looked for a job, or want one, yet want to have another child which they know they cannot afford to house, feed, clothe, or take care of without state support. my definition of being able to afford the child, is that if state support was taken away the child would be homeless, have no clothes, and would starve. it is irresponsible, and a naive view that they expect other people to work hard and contribute to the system so they can merely take from it.

I'm not really sure how I feel about this. we're on benefits, but my DH works FT, he's successful at a very demanding job, but currently only earns £17k. I don't work as I'm studying a (fully funded) degree with the OU to be a teacher in a few years. we get a fairly hefty whack of HB, CTC etc.

I was working at a well-paid job but got made redundant and at 6 months pregnant I was stuffed - couldn't get another job and hadn't worked there long enough to even get the paltry govt maternity pay. I feel very lucky to live in a country that does support families like ours.

BUT I knew all this when we TTCed our 2nd baby... maybe that makes me a scrounger.

I don't know, it's a minefield isn't it. The idea of neither of them working is pretty shit (at least it is if neither intends to work at all), as is the fact they've only just got together.

in a way, for me what it really boils down to is one, very subjective, issue. are they good parents? because you can get totally self-supporting, MC parents etc who let their kids run riot and end up in prison, and you can get people supported by benefits who do an amazing job bringing up their kids who then go on to become groundbreaking scientists etc.

You're entitled to benefits at the moment mathsmadmummy whilst you're looking at improving your situation - there's no way I'd call that scrounging.

The assertion that "The welfare state was created so that everyone can have the chance to live a decent life and have a family." is utter rubbish though. The welfare state is there to help people stop falling into poverty short-term if their situation changes for the worst.
Anyone who is content to live on handouts provided by other people long term either has very little sense of self worth or needs their head reading.

MathsMadMummy,
I will try to clarify my point, as i dont want to vilify people wrongly. you contributed to the system before you fell pregnant, you then trained as a teacher to again contribute after you had had your children, and your partner was contributing all along. everyone needs help from time to time and i in no way resent that, and like you i feel fortunate to live in a country where the elderly, the sick, the disabled, and those who find themselves in difficulty get the help and support they need. my problem is with those who give nothing, and take everything, with no consideration of how it impacts other people.
she has not even planned a life off benefits, because she just assumes (prbably correctly) that the money from the state will keep rolling in.

Mathsmadmummy- you are clearly the exact opposite of the OP's friend. And exactly who the system SHOULD be helping. You had a job were turfed out can't get maternity (I was very lucky to switch jobs just before getting pregnant as my previous employer has now gone bust and I'd be in your very situation.)

The benefits system is there to help people in emergency and to help them move up in the world.. not just because it is a nice thing to do.. but because once you are a teacher you will be worth way more to the system than you would be in a rubbish job. (paying more taxes and we need more teachers. Also you have paid in to the system.. you have effectively insured yourself.

This country needs to shift away from the 'someone else will take care of the cost' mentallity. You had a kid, you pay for it. Get three jobs if you have to. You lived somewhere before you got pregnant, stay there. If you want a place of your own, get a job and pay for it. There are a multitude of things in life that I would like but can't afford. Get over it.

I agree that it's certainly not ideal to conceive children when you have no way of paying for them, but it's something I find really hard to get het up about.

I just think it must be a crap life to live on benefits, so my ire is very limited. I wouldn't want to do it. I want to own my own house, go on holiday, have nice 'things', save for the future etc.

And what about people who will never be able to support themselves, i.e. people with disabilities? You could argue, then, that they should never have children.

YANBU

thanks those who replied. sorry - didn't mean to hijack with a "please give me your approval" type post, I just get worried what people think sometimes, there is such anger about scrounging etc and I'd hate to be tarred with the same brush IYSWIM.

thank you for the reassurance.

TortoiseontheHalfShell - "But if you took away subsidised housing, tax credits, ML, a lot less people would be able to have children."

Well, it depends on what you are trying to achieve with each benefit. Maternity Leave is meant to allow women to return to work after having children - so it should result in a net increase in tax revenue. Similarly, tax credits are essentially a subsidy to business to allow them to pay lower wages, keeping them competitive. Again - hopefully a net increase in tax revenue. Subsidised housing is another subsidy to business.

Someone who ISN'T working however, isn't paying into the system and so any money spent on them cannot create an increase in tax revenue - so they are a net loss, and if they have children that loss goes up.

You need to consider both these scenarios over the whole life of the tax payer though as people move in and out of each group.

MMM - your situation is entirely different. You have contributed, your DH is contributing, and you are working towards contributing more in future.

The welfare state was NOT 'created so that everyone can have the chance to have a family' though. No, no, no. It is a safety net to prevent existing families and individuals sliding into utter poverty, not as a lifestyle choice for feckless idiots who want to have children together after 3 weeks.

Tortoise - I understand what you're saying, this is my take. Yes middle-class welfare might be huge and unseen, but the middle-class also contribute hugely. Vast numbers get no tax credits because household income is too high, CFT (our equivalent baby bond) has now been scrapped (should never has existed but there we are). The unseen things - schools, healthcare - are contributed to, and yes lots of families use them but a significant proportion don't. We have private health insurance with DH's job, so do nearly all our friends and we are by no means in a very high earning bracket. Yes we still use the GP and the NHS, but the expensive things like operations and overnight stays (apart from maternity) are not done on the NHS.
My issue is with people who are planning on taking income benefits and using NHS, schools etc for years and years without making any contribution at all - and in the case of the people the OP is talking about, clearly those people haven't been contributing much for long, if ever.

YANBU to the OP

although tortoise I do see your point. Why is it acceptable for people to rely on the state for some elements of their child's upbringing, but not others? I think the line falls here: if you try to earn to the best extent you can, and pay for as much as you can, then it's acceptable to rely on the state to provide the rest. It's not acceptable to choose not to work and expect the state to pay for you.

I would imagine that these parents are unlikely to bring up their children to be of much use to society. I appreciate that there are exceptions but more often than not, their children will replicate their parent's behaviour.

Riven - 3 weeks and I'd still be holding hands!

YABU - mind your own business.

OP, you say your friend's child is 5.

Wrt to income support I did read somewhere that they were considering (may have already done so by now) bringing the age of the (youngest) child down to 7 before making the parent look for work.

Cynical...moi

I'm being cynical here - but the fact the first child is hitting the age of 5, and they want another one on the way... yeah - I thought exactly the same as Angelcat

I've got a cousin who's doing similar - she's 9 months younger than me and has never had any intention of working for a living, she's backed employers into sacking her, she's defrauded benefits, she's played the system for all it's worth - they finally close the net, line her up a work placement... she gets pregnant at the drop of a hat. I'm expecting another one from her in 3-4 years and I'll be very surprised if I'm wrong. It does make me angry as she's had more second chances and opportunities given to her than anyone else I know - she just simply wants to be paid to sit on her backside all day and she's found the ultimate way to play the system. She sits and complains she's skint, that the benefits haven't given her her "pay" for the week (it really really gets me mad that she actually refers to it as this).

Personally I think that one kid, yeah fine it happens - but I don't think the state should be subsidizing endless streams of 3,4,5 kids to people who intend to spend a lifetime on benefits.

I'm actually pretty impressed that she can conceive a child under a park bench. Perhaps she could look for work as a contortionist.

OP - the truly shocking bit here is that anybody would ttc only 3 weeks into a relationship. Can you try to talk her out of this for the sake of the potential child?

Tortoise - you're asking this question as if there is a single right answer. It is simply a matter of how much we want to do as national communities collectively, and how much we want to do individually. Some types of welfare benefits are clearly close to the limit of what we accept, as the level and extent to which they are paid changes fairly regularly in the UK political system. Universal free education for children however does not, so is clearly well away from the limit in a wealthy nation.

I was wondering about that too Angel/empty. I feel bad thinking the worst of people but I was thinking "oh, so the child goes to school, she'll have another to mean she gets 5 more years at home.

I really hope we are wrong about that.

I think appletrees has hit the nail on its head tbh. It is the lack of aspirations that is a very worrying concept amongst a certain section of society that is the real problem. How you address that though I have no idea.

OP YANBU