To think if most people waited until they were earning enough to not be entitled for any government benefits before they had children there'd be hardly any kids in the UK?

[LaWeaselMys]

MIL had an argument with DP last night as she does not want us to have any more children until we are not eligible for any government help and are 'paying for them ourselves' To not AIBU by stealth - After a choppy period we are earning and from next tax year will be entitled to very little bar CB and a small amount of TC.

Tax credits is a bit more complicated to work out, but to not be eligible for Child Benefit you (or your partner if there's two of you) would need to be earning more than £44k pa. That's twice the national average wage!

AIBU to think that by the time most women and/or their partner earn more than 44k - if it ever happens, they would be infertile?

Curlymama, JSA is a small sum of money. It doesn't cover the cost of children; that is why people on benefits who have children receive extra benefits on top of their JSA. So you haven't explained how someone who was on benefits as a result of losing their job would support their children.

A disabled child is a citizen in their own right, but so is every other child. Why is a disabled child entitled to support when other children (who as they are children cannot support themselves) are not?

So many posters on here who think benefits babies are acceptable!

If you cant afford to live without begging from the taxpayer then you sure as shit shouldnt be planning children anytime soon. Not until you can stand on your own two feet and do it out of your own pocket.

Thats what I love about the cuts. They are the start of the end for this kind of crap :)

Ok, chucking this in for the "answer for everything" brigade!

A couple are not working and claiming and they have a genuine contraception failure. YES IT DOES HAPPEN. What should happen to them?

They are entitled to support. From their parents, the people that chose to bring them into the world.

In answer to your first question, I would only take very little away from people that have already got themselves into this position. They chose to have the number of children they have now with the goalposts the way they are, and it would be unfair to move them. but I would hope to put people off getting themselves in this position in the future. But if a hard working parent lost their job, then that is exactly what the state should be supporting. I have said more than once that my target would be people that choose to have multiple children on a very low income or when they are very reliant on benefits.

I wouldn't begrudge anything from someone who tries to work but has lost a job and is doing everything they can to look for work, any work, to provide for their family. I'm not completely heartless.

Bogeyface - I had a genuine contraception failure, it was my choice to have my 2nd child, and it's up to me to pay for him.

But this hypothetical couple are on full benefits so......they should have an abortion?

If they choose to. Or they could choose to accomodate their new child with the money that already have. But they wouldn't get any more, and they would be able to make their descision knowing that.

So poverty made worse, or an unwanted abortion.

what a lovely person you are not

It seems to me that those who have the biggest problem with those on benefits are the one's who begrudge paying their taxes the most.

I payed my taxes and didn't give it a second thought. I claim benefits but I do also work.

I hope to go back full time soon; way before dd goes to school.

If we stopped giving benefits we'd have more poverty, more impoverished children and parents.

I love working but when dds dad ran off I couldn't support us both alone. Or rather my place of work gave me the boot as I was a pregnant single mum. Lovely.

Sorry! Are you saying that people need to earn £44,ooo a year to be able to live?????

I think Riven's point about childcare was it perhaps wasn't a 'cost' thirty years ago.

Dual incomes weren't required by the majority of the population to put a roof over your head. So one half of a couple could choose to stay at home to avoid paying for childcare.

Now there are many in the position where they need two incomes to pay the mortgage/rent, either they lose an income or pay a lot in childcare. Currently for those on the lowest income the government tops it up in the form of tax credits etc.

To say that these people, people who are working full time, should not have children is ridiculous. I don't blame them for 'relying' on benefits, I blame the government (both past and present) for allowing ourselves to get into this position, when the minimum wage isn't a living wage and doing nothing to sort out the ludicrous house price inflation.

Also the economy would stagnate because the impoverished don't make great consumers. Consumerism is what keeps this great capitalist economy going you know!

£44k is an ok salary but it's not brilliant - I keep seeing posts saying that £44k is a big salary. In the industry I work in there are very few people earning less than than and the majority are on a lot more.

Bogey, I'd rather be someone that can provide for my own children than a 'lovely person' according to the standards you seem to judge by.

Riven, I'm honestly not sure about that one, and I never said that If I Was Boss I'd refuse to allow anyone to have children. I just said that my government wouldn't fund more than one child per couple. But I do find it hard to see how someone that can't work because of a disability can adequately care for a baby, toddler or child. I'm open to being told I'm wrong on that one though.

sorry not read whole thing, was skimming and electra's comment surprised me, even more so that people were agreeing with it.

I earn a reasonably high wage. I am a single parent of one child. However, I cannot afford another one and work as two lots of child care would cripple me.

to have another child, I would have to give up work and go on benefits. Why is this ok? Why should I ask the rest of you who work to fund my wish to have another child?

I am not saying if you are poor, don't have children. But I think it is ridiculous to call me a 'fascist' if I say I don't really want to pay for other people to have children that they cannot afford to pay for themselves.

I dont need people to be nice, but I do need people to consider others needs above what they cost. And if you are happy to force women into abortions and sterilisations by economic means then you really are living in the wrong country.

I believe I already mentioned China?

Fair does Bogeyface, but when people start chucking around the words 'facist' I start treating their arguments with the contempt they deserve.

Maybe they need to read up a little more in their history books.

I wouldn't be forcing anyone into anything. I would just expect people to take responsibility for their own actions.

"to have another child, I would have to give up work and go on benefits. Why is this ok?"

People seem to be confusing "being on benefits" with "receiving benefits".

I don't think anyone was trying to say that people shouldn't be concerned about their finances because the state will pick up the bill. Rather that we're in a situation where a huge number of people can only afford to have children with state help even when both parents are working full time.

Well this went off the rails.

I'm going to leave you to it...