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

YANBU, its wrong that we have a system that allows people to have children without any thought as to how they will support them knowing tax payers/the state will pick up the tab.

I dont think the argument that they will be paying our pensions stands up either, most children brought up on benefits go on to claim themselves as they follow their parents lifesytles.

There are broadly two camps of people - net taxpayers (the value of whose contributions in tax and national insurance exceed the benefits they receive) and net benefit recipients (the value of whose benefits exceed the tax and national insurance they pay).

The former are paying for the latter and should be both (a) thanked and (b) consulted by them on any proposed changes to the system.

The latter are being paid for...therefore their views are, not unreasonably, far less relevant and should largely be ignored.

I'll warrant people's contributions to this discussion have largely been informed by which of these two camps they fall into.

"The latter are being paid for...therefore their views are, not unreasonably, far less relevant and should largely be ignored."

So the "haves" should have a voice, while the "have-nots" shouldn't? I'd say I was but sadly this type of thinking is not only fairly common but appallingly arrogant as well. Penalties for single pregnant women who won't name the father? Separate enforced housing for single pregnant women? Massive assumptions based on perceived class? You might want to read up on Victorian England before you wish us back there.

BarmyArmy - your logic doesn't take account of the fact that each individual - and perhaps more so than many your net taxpayers - benefits from the laws we have in society and the police etc to enforce them. They derive more benefit than their individual contribution in that way, surely?

Plus, they are presumably making their money through business, which benefits from e.g. recognition and protection of copyrights, patents etc.

"So putting them in temporary housing, where they don't feel comfortable, can't relax, can't even hang a picture of their baby, will probably be in the middle of no where, away from their family and friends - so with no support - is a good idea?"

No that wasn't what I was saying. Ideally there would be lots and lots of this accomodation so it would be near their family, and when I said temporary meant more like until the children ready to start nursery or until they turned 18 not just for a few months so they should be able to hang pictures and feel relaxed etc. Plus it would have childcare facilities and training options on hand. The idea would be to provide support and options, not to take these away. But yes maybe am thinking stereotypes, including those who are trapped by their situation, can afford to get training etc etc.

re: council housing, I don't have a problem at all with teenage mothers having council housing (see this in the same way as HB) providing they either working or progressing towards working, I do have a problem with people (unless disabled or caring for disabled dependents etc) living off the state long term.