To wonder why all benefits are not limited to two children only

[SuzysZoo]

Ok. I know that this is going to be a bit contentious. I don't mean retrospectively either. I just wonder why, in these cash strapped times, the government doesn't just say that all benefits, child benefit etc should be limited IN THE FUTURE, IN AT LEAST 9 MONTHS TIME, to 2 children per family only...... My point being that if you have more you should support them yourself. AIBU?

Karmabeliever, of course big business causes pollution but what are they doing? They're making products that are consumed by PEOPLE. Big Oil Business A has no C02 footprint at all, it's allocated to the people who buy the oil to fuel their cars, etc. If you are, for example, a carpenter and make furniture to sell to other people do you allocate the electricity consumed in your workshop to your own C02 footprint? Of course you don't, it goes to the person who actually buys your furniture.

Karma, think you are somewhat off track, big businesses cause pollution? And they also employ millions of people and what that has to do with whether benefits should be limited to 2 children is a little confusing.

And benefits should be limited to 2 children. Have three and they will have to share bedrooms, the choice is yours. At present people will no visible means of support are claiming more and more the more and more children they have and WE ARE PAYING FOR IT....

Funny how the US tried to impose a limit and the teenage pregnacy rate dropped over 30%!!

Thing is, Northerngirl, that I'm not sure that limiting the number of children a family can have has a direct affect on quality of upbringing for those who are born.
As I said earlier, we're about to have our fourth next month. One of the reasons we've had four is because due to us not having living siblings, my children have no cousins. Nor do they have any living GPs therefore we're creating a family for them.

So firstly, on a personal level, I believe my children's quality of life is actually enriched by there being 4 of them. Secondly, on a national level, restricting us to 2 would not increase the quality time many other parents give their kids. They wouldn't become better parents just because I have less children.

Also, in terms of national resources, a dramatic drop in birth rate wouldn't see the government sustain the number of teachers etc. It wouldn't result in classes of 15, just fewer classes of 30. I don't think we can look at the Swedish model and say the quality of provision is high because the birth rate is low. Quality of provision is high simply because they see quality of provision as a major national priority. Cost of living is also very high which may well be the real reason why most families in Sweden stop at 2.

Rocky, up thread it was said that limiting people to two children was better for the environment, so I was responding to that, but agree it is diverging from the initial discussion. I'm not sure if sharing bedrooms is so much of a hardship that people ought to reduce the number of children they have because of it.

Saski, my point about pollution caused by big business, is that they are not put under full pressure to repair the damage they do, no matter who it is attributed to. Parents are an easy target, when there are lots of people leading 'selfish' lives, doing what they want in terms of their carbon footprint, but taking the view that if they have 2 (or fewer) dc they are somehow more virtuous than someone with more dc who may potentially have a greater carbon footprint in the future.

Wrt benefits, yes you will always have people who think the world owes them a living. Not sure what the answer is when there isn't enough work for those who want it, let alone those that don't. the thing is , those children still need to eat and feckless people will have children whether they can afford to feed them or not. I'd rather be a bit ripped off in terms of them getting benefits, than see their kids without food.

We could always get some money back from the tax avoiding friends of Cameron and co, who are not held to be as villainous as a benefit recipient.

I do think if people KNOW upfront that they won't ever get more than a certain amount of money, or a certain amount of housing, then a lot of "accidents" won't happen, no?

And with teenage pregnancies, if it was known that there would be NO flat on offer - that your parents would have to support you, you might think twice about having sex at all, or at least ensure you use reliable contraception.

There will always be sad exceptions to this just as there will always be the odd family/person that still continues to take no responsibility - but I think in many of these cases, money is probably not the only issue.

But if you offer no support to teenage mums, then you will return to a situation where young women were forced to give up their babies for adoption if their own parents were unsupportive.

That is a fair point. Maybe some kind of mother and baby homes, where they can be given support with the baby, help to continue their education, training in life skills etc? If a girl comes from a family that would not support her in this situation, then surely that would be better than packing her off to a bedsit/flat on her own.

there is no flat on offer? ffs i can't believe in this day and age where people are waiting decades for housing this myth still perpetuates that you get a house if you get pregnant.

But we do offer support as in the eyes of these young mums, that is why they get pregnant - they see the state as supporting them. Are they looking for funded training courses etc. No, they are looking for their own place and perhaps sokme lump sum payments to buy baby equipment. Why are we funding that??

Bering in mind the last 20 years there is no stigma in having a baby very young, you will be supported, no one will critizise you for being so stupid despite the fact there are precautions galore to pick from why wouldnt some choose this route.

there doesn't need to be some kond of baby homes or units - decent education system, hope for the future, and parenting classes to help change prevailing culture - invest in our youth - this is what is required - invest in our parents - plenty of parents are over the age of 19 and are the height of SHIT.

its a life option having a baby, its something someone can do and be good at its something that someone thinks is 'theirs' the conswquences, material financial or otherwise are not thought about

if a teenager is wise enough to sit down and work out entitlement to benefits, the housing situation, how they are going to afford a child - they are probably smart enough to go to college/get a job and not even countenance that as an option.

But custy, if they are not living with their parents, they must be living somewhere? Probably somewhere not very nice, but somewhere presumably paid for by HB?

Custardo, so where are they going, certainly the young mums around here are hanging around the shopping centres with carrier bags almost tipping their pushchairs over. I dont believe they are in hostels for a minute. I sat next to a couple of them last year in a coffee shop they were swaping tips as to how to get a bigger place which revolved around getting pregnant again, anyone would do, the social would help them (again). They knew exactly what they were 'entitled' to and to how to get more.

When I was a single mum I often could be seen with carrier bags that tipped over my buggy. Just because you live on benefits it does not mean you live on air.

No I agree, the bags might have been full of fresh fruit and veg to make soup but wasnt, the blackberries they were both using were nice, latest model, not like mine 4 years old and still going. The fags out of the one of the bags was reassuring as well.

I said on the other thread, or it could have been this one that when I was a single mum sleeping in hostels and people's sofas with a baby I applied for a council house and was told I would probably wait 10 years for anything. If I was very lucky I could get somewhere with a housing association but that would be a 2 year wait.

Maybe I was just an extraordinarily crap single mother.

Custardo; it must just be your area where young girls can not get flats/houses! I know of many young girls whom got pg at 16, flat 6 months later, few more kids within a couple of years and they are in a 3 bed house without ever working a day in their lives. And yes they are smart enough to go to college/uni etc (I know I taught them) but they are led more easily by their family history in that it has been many, many years since anyone worked as they know their way around the system......

I know I should not be too judgey about these things - my mum fell PG with me aged 17. A wedding swiftly followed, as these things did back in the 60s. My parents had to live with my GPs until they could afford to get a place of their own.

Things are different now - contraception is freely available to all. And most teenage boys would probably run a mile, rather than traipse up the aisle. Both good reasons why the rate of teenage pregnancies should be much LOWER than it was then.

So, where are we saying that single teenage mums are residing? Dont think they are all on other people's sofa's. If you are homeless the council have a duty to house you. My sister's SD got a very nice flat when she announced she was pregnant and the father was unemployed and had disappered She got a lump sum to pay for things and social workers, health vistors galore. She says it was the only way to get the things she wanted in life. Doesnt work 4 years later, has sky tv, blackberry, always seems to be well turned out.

What were those single mothers doing that I wasn't Rocky. I am not questioning your account but I was an intelligent young woman who went on budgeting courses, I could cook etc so I should have been able to make my benefits stretch further than most. I could not afford a shopping spree, I certainly could not afford to smoke, I had a mobile phone from my marriage but could not afford to top it up. I had no Sky TV, no flatscreen and I rarely bought clothes but when I did they were from a charity shop or those places where you buy rejects from other shops.

Why could I not live the single mother lifestyle that others claim that single mums have?

I agree cricket - they do know their way around the system,what they are entitled to. They have time on their hands to look into it all, they mix with other teenage mums who tell them what they need to do, what are the key phases, what do they need to put on the endless forms. If only they put as as much energy into putting something back into society

My council did house me in a series of hostels and Bed and Breakfasts.

I was never given a lump sum for anything. I can remember one day when my housing benefit was not paid but my rent had gone out. I had no money at all, I sat for hours trying to get a crisis loan and was told I could not get anything.

I tried to get a loan to pay a deposit on a house and again was told there was nothing.

Again I am an intelligent quite forceful woman why could I not get the help that all these other single mothers have coming out of every orifice?

but most are living with relatives or in temporary accomodation. yes housing benefit might be being paid - but non of this equates to the sum of pregnant = getting my own place

Honestly - I think they are been given money from other sources that they dont tell anyone about. Boyfriends give them cash, they perhaps buy stolen goods, certainly they shouldnt be able to afford the stuff that they now seem to think is their 'right'. It certainly doesnt add up.

If anyone can throw any light on how a teenage single mum can afford all the things they seem to have could you let me know!

so rocky, if all you have to do is pop a kid to get a nice house, sky, blackberry etc - why not do it?

I had time on my hands, I mixed with other single mums. Maybe I didn't know who to work the system but I spent enough time reading, phoning and pestering people to know the system.