Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

425 replies

SuzysZoo · 10/08/2011 13:59

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?

OP posts:
Pendeen · 10/08/2011 15:35

BooHoo

You make a good (second) point there. Not so sure about the accuracy of your first point though.

FreudianSlipper · 10/08/2011 15:40

well you could be married both working have one child try for a second fall pregnant have twins or even triplets, company you work for goes bankcrupt, husband leaves and pays hardly any maintenance and you can not work as you jsut can not cope working full time and be a single parent too

we should also limit children to only those earning over 20k a year, maybe we could have childrenshare so everyone gets a go even if they are too lazy to work hard and earn a decent wage

BooyHoo · 10/08/2011 15:41

what do you mean?

i worked from 16 until 24 and then left my job whilst with my partner. 2 months later he left. leaving me as an unemployed single parent of 2 children. i have now been claiming for 1 year. i am just about to become registered as a CMer and hopefully work full time so i dont have to claim anything other than CB. i will also be paying tax again and hope to for a very long time. you cannot tell me that 1 year of claiming IS and HB amounts to more than a working lifetime of paying taxes?

northerngirl41 · 10/08/2011 15:43

I do think people shouldn't be having any more children if they are on benefits. Maybe after 10 months on benefits you lose the right to any more child benefits?

And there are loads of people I know who can't afford any more children - they could I suppose squish extra children into unsuitable homes in the vague hope that the council will rehome them, but as they are responsible they don't take that risk.

Tortington · 10/08/2011 15:45

i had one

then i planned another and had twins

if you could legislate for that - then in theory i agree. we are not saying - only have two chilren

just that the state will only pay for two children

so in times of good fortune those with3 & 4 children should think about how they would support themselves with state assistance only providing the financial assistance for two

obviously i would be alright jack beucase multiple births don't count

NasalCoffeeEnema · 10/08/2011 15:46

What about if a widow with two children meets and wants to marry a widower with two children

Pendeen · 10/08/2011 15:50

Extrapolating your personal experience to make a point about government policy is not a valid argument.

Tortington · 10/08/2011 15:51

then those widows need to think about how they would support themselves should they wish to all claim off the state

2old2beamum · 10/08/2011 15:51

Hang on OP I gave up a bloody good job and have since adopted 6 special needs children with complex health issues.Dc 5 was in residential care age 4
and was costing £5000 per WEEK. Just give us that amount and this government can stuff their benefits

Tortington · 10/08/2011 15:51

who is your comment directed at pandeen?

Tortington · 10/08/2011 15:53

good point 2old2beamum, i woulod excluse adoption and fostering ofcourse

LineRunner · 10/08/2011 15:55

I know it's bit radical, but we could invest in these things called jobs and then make that sure that young people feel able to get them.

And then they could pay for our pensions.

Tortington · 10/08/2011 15:55

shut the front door!

genius Wink

BooyHoo · 10/08/2011 15:56

ok, pendeen ignore my post then. answer the question i asked you. what do you mean about the accuracy of my comment?

ThisIsANiceCage · 10/08/2011 15:57

Booyhoo "for starters, being 'on benefits' is not a permanent state of being. people do come off benefits and contribute to the pot themsleves therefore repaying anything they may have received. "
Pendeen "Not so sure about the accuracy of your first point"

You are joking, Pendeen? Just ask the folk on MN who had their children young, sometimes unplanned and single, and are now professionals and senior managers.

fedupofnamechanging · 10/08/2011 16:12

Not read whole thread yet, but wanted to say that if we had a country with jobs for everyone who needed them, jobs that pay a living wage (without needing tax credits to top up), then it would be fair enough to tell people to support their own kids. but the fact is we don't live in a country with enough jobs. Therefore benefits are essential.

Also, child benefit wasn't always called child benefit. It used to be called family allowance and was essentially a tax refund, in recognition that raising children was both expensive and necessary for the future of the nation. These children will be the future workers and tax payers - it might be nice if they didn't spend their childhoods in abject poverty.

The name was changed to child benefit, because politicians play the long game and wanted to sell to us the idea that it is layabouts getting something for nothing and could therefore scrap it when it suited them to do so. sounds like the plan has come together!

carpetlover · 10/08/2011 16:13

I don't think you can be as prescriptive as the OP is suggesting but it is a valid argument to be having. The benefits bill in this country is too high and we need to stop pussyfooting around things and look at how to encourage and help the long-term unemployed back into work.

There are too many people who have rarely or never worked just sitting at home living off the state. Of course not everyone on benefits is a lazy scrounger and I agree with the benefits system wholeheartedly but it doesn't help anyone to pretend that everyone of benefits has a real need to be there-least of all those in genuine need as the Right just tars them all with the same brush.

Pendeen · 10/08/2011 16:14

BooHoo - that was the point. You were basing the assertion on your personal experience.

TIANC

No, I am not joking. My comment is perfectly valid.

Maybe you are joking. What has someone's current career got to do with supporting other people's choice to have large families?

whackamole · 10/08/2011 16:17

We would've been fucked then. OH has a son from a previous marriage - then we had twins!

Tortington · 10/08/2011 16:23

NOT if my mulitple birth rule counts - you are not fucked at all

in response to karmas points - all exclellent points howeer poeple shjould really have children they can afford - in that light then, if you cant afford them, two is plenty

BooyHoo · 10/08/2011 16:28

actually i wasn't basing it on my experience. i was basing it on the fact that being on benefits is not a permanent state of being. that is a fact. people do stop claiming benefits. fact. how is that inaccurate?

QueenOfAllBiscuitsandMuffins · 10/08/2011 16:40

I don't agree with the OP but I just have to ask this question

"I am on benefits. I have previously worked, but back problems now mean that i am limited with what i can do. I am currently pregnant with DC5. ...
...
I can assure you, living on benefits is not something i would have chosen for myself. I do not have luxurious things like flat screen tv's, ipods and the like. I would much rather go out and earn an honest days wages, but i simply can't."

So why are you having DC5?

And apart from extra CB (which let's face it isn't going to put anyone in the luxury league) do people really get a lot of other benefits from having lots of children?

Pendeen · 10/08/2011 16:40

BooHoo

You were.

What you acutally wrote was for starters, being 'on benefits' is not a permanent state of being. people do come off benefits and contribute to the pot themsleves therefore repaying anything they may have received.

Note the use of the word "people" i.e. generalising, but you then went on to 'explain' this by simply using your own experiences.

So, not "fact" at all and your claim is therefore inaccurate.

BooyHoo · 10/08/2011 16:44

pendeen you disputed the accuracy of my post before i had given my personal situation. why did you do this? because at that point you had no idea of mypersonal circumstances so you could not have been saying it was innaccurate because of that.

aliceliddell · 10/08/2011 16:46

This is eugenics and that has a very uncomfortable history. If you're worried by 'the country' subsidising people's childrearing choices, how about lookingat Eton getting tax breaks as a charity? (It exists for the education of paupers). Next stop - forced abortion?

Swipe left for the next trending thread