Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Benefit Bashing

823 replies

Kendodd · 18/02/2011 16:40

A mum I know and her DP with two children live in a two bed (nice) HA house. Neither of them work and have not worked for as long as I've known them (two years) I don't know about before then. She has told me they are trying for another baby, not to get a bigger house or anything, just because they want four children eventally. I would love four children but can't have that many because for one we just can't afford four.

AIBU to feel a bit pissed off that they can have more children and I can't or am I just a jealous benefit basher.

ps They are both nice and don't have a flatscreen TV.

OP posts:
StarlightPrincess · 18/02/2011 18:31

*excuse the last anyway Hmm

MillyR · 18/02/2011 18:33

CM and SP, it is up to society as a whole to decide what is best for society, not you. Society has decided that it will pay benefits to women to bring up their children with no obligation to look for a job until the youngest child is 5, presumably because it believes that is what is in everyone's best interests.

ShirleyKnot · 18/02/2011 18:37

Don't be so ridiculous usual.

No one is suggesting that one should be earning millions of pounds in order to breed. It's obviously ok to have babies and then to fall on hard times. The issue here is that someone who is on on benefits is choosing to have another baby when the state is paying for this baby as well as the other children.

The issue being discussed is the filthy morality of these benefit scrounging bastards. Where is the morality in having children you can't pay for?

That's the issue. I wonder if we can get some sort of injection that improve the morality of this section of society. You know, because really, they should be grateful that they're not living on the streets and stuff, they should be happy with their lot.

curlymama · 18/02/2011 18:38

You're also insinuating that you value money above other things. Well, do it then! What are you waiting for? Don't just sit and whine! If benefits is the best lifestyle, do it! If you don't, then it's not, so shut up.

Erm, what are you on about??

Of course I value money, it's how I afford to feed and clothe and house my children. I don't value it over a few other things, such as health and a loving family, but it is quite high up the list. What's wrong with that?

And I never said that benefits was the best lifestlye. Of course I would do it if I thought it was. But I want better for my children than a life on benefits, and I think the best way for them to be encouraged to do that is by seeing me and their Father, and their Step Father going out to work.

Glitterknickaz · 18/02/2011 18:39

Has it escaped everyone that unless there is a DLA recipient in this house then their benefit will be capped?

Doesn't matter if they have 4 kids, they won't get any more money...

taintedpaint · 18/02/2011 18:40

Is it irresponsible to plan more children if you don't intend on working to pay for their needs? Of course, without a doubt.

But good luck policing that.

There are feckless scroungers out there, I know, I'm related to a couple of them, but you'll never find a way to weed out those who don't intend to work (etc) from the people who genuinely need help through circumstances not of their own making.

I understand the OP's frustration, I really do.

ScramVonChubby · 18/02/2011 18:42

It is absolutely possible to be better off not working and on benefits for a VERY short time.

Especially with childcare, transport etc.

But remember that your chiold rearing years are short: when those kids have left home the vast majority of one's benefits vanish, they will now no longer be entitled to stay in their home if state- IS for a single person is around the £60 pw mark isn't it? A low figure.

Which I think is right- unless there are real reasons someone cannot work from sickness, disability, carers etc then we finance the kids to try and ensure they are not subject to the poverty that causes massive social disadvantage, and then after we provide subsistence.

And whilst I wouldn't have chosen to ahev 4 on benefits you can't really stop people making choices we don;t like and so it's suck it up as a state and cpover the kids hoping to hell we break the cycle somehow (and plenty do) or let the kids fester in poverty and act surprised when they are homeless or pregnant at 14.

That's reality.

MillyR · 18/02/2011 18:53

We don't know that this family is intending to stay on benefits forever. It is simply that the father is currently studying, and may intend to work at a later point.

StarlightPrincess · 18/02/2011 18:54

Society has decided that it will pay benefits to women to bring up their children with no obligation to look for a job until the youngest child is 5, presumably because it believes that is what is in everyone's best interests.

Quote me where I said anything otherwise. You obviously haven't read my posts properly, MillyR.

Glitterknickaz · 18/02/2011 18:57

MillyR if he IS studying then he won't be able to claim full benefits.

MillyR · 18/02/2011 18:57

SP, your post of 18.30.10

MillyR · 18/02/2011 18:58

GK, he will if he is studying part time, which is what the OP said he was doing.

BooyFuckingHoo · 18/02/2011 18:58

glitter, OP has yet to say whether this family are claiming any benefits. all she has said is that they are in a HA house.

Glitterknickaz · 18/02/2011 18:58

ahhhh ok

Glitterknickaz · 18/02/2011 18:59

oh I know, but if they ARE as the OP suggests then they'll be subject to a cap on money so it's their choice to have more surely knowing that they'll get no more?

taintedpaint · 18/02/2011 18:59

I'm not sure if that's true Glitter. I claimed JSA for a short while a number of years ago and was told that I was allowed to do a college course as long as I was willing to give it up if a job came along. I've always suspected I was given the wrong information tbh, but who knows....?

Regardless, didn't the OP say the college course was very part time? So he could be, and likely is, on full benefits (or at least those he claims will not be affected by the course).

ambarth · 18/02/2011 19:00

I don't see the point of this thread as the government is getting strict on people who have large families on benefit.

taintedpaint · 18/02/2011 19:00

Wow....cross posts with many!

StarlightPrincess · 18/02/2011 19:00

I was actually referring to the OP, not single mothers.

MillyR · 18/02/2011 19:05

I suppose the point is that, regardless of the smaller amount of money the family has under the new regulations, they feel they can afford more children. The OP does not feel she can.

I assume the difference is that the family in the HA house knows they can stay in their house and get their HB paid on that house. If the OP had another child, she may be working and have a mortgage, and not be able to afford childcare for 3 or 4 children, so have to give up work and lose her house.

This is really an inequality in the benefits system. The government should cover mortgage payments to the same value that it pays for HB on rented houses. At the moment it only pays interest on mortgages, and this interest is often a lot less than a rent on a similar property.

This is the fault of the government, not those who have a HA property to live in. The government should provide equality and stability for people who have a mortgage and end up with no job for whatever reason.

This may not be the situation of the OP, but it is the situation of many people.

ScramVonChubby · 18/02/2011 19:13

Milly I partly agree wiht you in that it's an inequality but also it's harsh if state pays for someone's house then person gets to own that house and benefit from it.

I would prefer all mortgage holders to have to take out insurnace, which should be capped at a reasonable rate, and then it would seem fair for them to benefit from what can sometimes be a massive financial windfall- and woudl create a loophole where someone could buy a house, get state to pay for it then make ££££££.

Or a scheme wher the house could be given to LA in return for free rent when claiming and a life tenancy. That would aid those dealing with long term sickness etc as well as increasing housing stock.

Neither will happen though.

MillyR · 18/02/2011 19:17

I think the idea of HA taking over mortgages and the house passing into joint ownership between the occupant and the HA is a really sensible way of increasing housing stock and affordable housing. I wish the government would do that.

MillyR · 18/02/2011 19:19

Also, HB is being paid to private landlords, who are getting to keep a house paid for by the state. It would be much better for the state to take over mortgages and get a house or half a house out of that HB money eventually.

Original poster
Kendodd · 18/02/2011 19:21

"the smaller amount of money the family has under the new regulations"

Have they been introduced though? I thought they were just being talked about, do you not get more money when you have more children any more?

Milly- I don't think we (society) should pay mothers to have as many children as they want. For one it's irresponsible and for two, where would all the money come from?

From the outside her life does look at lot better than mine and I'm aware we are paying for her family as well as our own.

Having said all that, even if she was a single mother with ten children all by different dads and not one of them contributed anything, they would all still need to be supported financially. It's not right but other than let the children starve (which both her and I know we are not going to do) I can't see a way round it.

OP posts:
MillyR · 18/02/2011 19:27

KD, I don't think it is the case that if the state would pay for women to have as many children as they want, loads of women of women would choose to have 10 kids.

In countries where there is generous support for mothers (Iceland for example), family sizes are still small, women just have children earlier in their careers or while at university, so women are much more likely to complete their families before they are 35. Women's participation in paid employment is much higher in (developed) countries which support families financially.

Swipe left for the next trending thread