AIBU to think people shouldnt be getting money for having children?

[normality]

i know it is is controversal but i dont understand why some people feel the entitlement to get money for having children and aibu to think it should stop?

I think that if people want children then they should have them but they should not feel they are entitled for some kind of monetary hand out for having them

I especially feel like getting money for being pregnant like the sure start grant, maternity grant, healthy start vouchers ect should not happen because if you cant afford to have a child why should the goverment pay you to do this? what about the people who do not have any children and choose not to or can not why should they miss out on multiple grants and vouchers when they are paying more and more taxes to support the people who choose to have children and then choose not to work?

• i have a dd and although i wanted a large family i could not afford to have more than one child so stopped but never claimed any grants ect because i did not want to be paid for being pregnant as it was my choice

Yes, what do the French do?

In the UK, the housing benefit rules have changed. It's now capped at £400 a week and only up to a 4 bed property.

OP - 'you should be forced to volunteer for 5 days a week for at least 4 hours a day'

'Forced to volunteer...' Surely that's a contradiction in terms... or are you trying to redefine the word 'volunteer'?

Also, 20 hours/week work in return for benefits would be a fraction of the minimum wage and people like you would probably complain about the cost of childcare etc. that would be needed while people 'earned' their benefits.

And I agree with ScottoftheArseAntics - can you stop with the speculation and provide some evidence/data to support your arguments, OP?

Voluntary work? Like what?

Voluntary work, usually people bring up the old favourites such as picking up litter & cleaning graffiti off walls.

Totem, yes they do! But council workers are EMPLOYED to do those jobs.

We do it because if you don't support families in this way, statistically speaking your infant mortality rate goes up.

In other words, babies die.

End of argument. Now take your judgeypants off.

Yes, I agree. People are already employed and paid to do them.

If the council get these jobs done 'for free' they can lay off their staff who will then end up on benefits. After a year of being unable to get a job, they can then 'volunteer' to do the job for free that they were originally getting paid a wage for.

Problem is - there is data and there is data. When people have used stats before others come on and tear them apart especially when they dont match up with their own point of view. When it is clear that the stats (whatever they are showing!) are geninune some just say they dont believe them.

Oh ffs.
When should I do this voluntary work? Between the hours of midnight and three or three thirty to six. That's my sleep time, when I'm lucky. Last night managed to get to bed at eleven. I had to administer medication at 12.30. At 1.30 I had to change a bed and shower a 15 year old and at 5.15 ds2 had a panic. Dh needed the loo at 6.15. he needs to be lifted out of bed. I gave up at that point.

Dawndonna, if you're a carer you wouldn't fall under the rules for those getting JSA anyway. Sounds like a tough night for you. :(

The OP is suggesting those on JSA do this work.

So, say someone has kids and gets no benefits and then, through no fault of their own, something happens and they can no longer afford them - what then? What if someone has young children and their partner dies and they can't work because child care costs would mean they had to earn a ridiculous amount to cover it and be able to pay a mortgage and bills? And of course jobs are so easy to come by.

Oh I know - how about a nice cosy workhouse.

There are plenty of us out there who work but don't earn much and have to rely on some TC and WTC to top us up so we can afford to pay bills. I don't have holidays. I don't buy anything expensive. I budget and live within my means.

Whatmeworry I think everyone is doing their best to ignore helpful, constructure points like that.

Except you, of course :o

The French are actively trying to get employed people to have more babies.

You are free to not like it, but that doesn't make it (i) not relevant and (ii) go away.

O said the safety net would consist of one year.....no more... Then you are on your own. BUT op then says you would have to have a vigorous interview to get any further help!

WEll the OP has a point to some extent. If we only allow people who can afford to have children to reproduce, the population will decrease substantially.

So much so that the country would implode within a couple of generations.

The vast majority of people in the UK, including those who work, are reliant on tax credits to a greater or lesser degree. Not because they have a sense of entitlement but because because wages are inadequate to cover the living costs in a country that has some of the highest housing costs and highest childcare costs in the world.

If only the top 10% of earners have children, who will be left to do all the NMW jobs that have no 'value' but are an intrinsic part of a successful and fully functioning society?

YABU If people don't have children, who's going to pay your pension?

Really OP? Really? Why are you here?

YANBU - the UK population is set to increase by app. 28% by 2030, it was in the news last week

so all the arguments about needing more people dont stand up. there are more than enough people already & the numbers are increasing too much.

benefits and tax breaks for up to 2 kids, then decreasing for each kid after that.

(oh & OP i think you should ignore loads of the comments - AIBU is for debate & this is an interesting one. Good question.)

YANBU - the UK population is set to increase by app. 28% by 2030, it was in the news last week

Of which 2/3 will be from immigration - let some other country pay for bringing 'em up :)

Tilly, they are projected figures based on immigration patterns since Eastern European countries joined the EU. What really happens will depend on the economic structures put in place after the banking crisis.

More than enough people? How do you calculate that, Tilly? Is there an upper limit?

WhatMe - so using yuor figures, that is a 10% increase in the UK population without any immigration.

so still we dont need need more people born here

There seems to be an ever increasing amount of people who shy away from taking responsibility for themselves and their choices...that is true whether we like it or not. Yet that is a problem which isn't exclusive to unemployed parents. I don't know what the answer is. If you penalise the people who exploit the system, then the people who are genuinely wanting to work and support themselves also find themselves penalised. They are frequently all lumped together as scroungers, yet this is not the case.

I have asked myself though...is it really fair financially??

Take for example a married couple with 3 DC. Both parents work full time (37.5hrs a week) for minimum wage. Their net income per week is approx £400 (£200 each).
Let's suppose family help out with childcare and they have no childcare fees.
They have a mortgage to pay because they couldn't get housed by the council.
They will receive £108 a week in CTC, and £47.10 in CB.
Total income per week = £555.10

Compare that to an unemployed couple with 3 children who are in a 3 bed council house with rent of £125 a week (typical where I live for a council house)

They would receive : £157.22 CTC, £105.95 JSA, all rent paid (£125), all council tax paid, child benefit of £47.10 a week.
Total income per week £460

Let's look at what a single parent with 3 DC would receive, supposing they receive no maintenance whatsoever from the NRP in the same situation.

£157.22 CTC, £67.50 IS, all rent paid (£125 per week), all council tax paid, £47.10 a week Child benefit.

Total Income: Almost £400 a week

Of course, the single parent could be receiving hundreds of pounds in maintenance every week on top, if the NRP was paying it, and the unemployed people are also benefiting from no travel expenses to and from a work place every day, as well as free prescriptions, dental treatment, glasses, school meals/milk tokens etc.

IMO, it's not difficult to see why some working people get rather pissed off that they are working 75 hours a week (between them) and are only £35 a week better off after paying possibly £30 a week each for travel expenses.)

Littlemiss...that's a good post!

"The vast majority of people in the UK, including those who work, are reliant on tax credits.."

Is that true? I genuinely don't know, but I would be surprised if its true.

LittleMiss - also in live in London where even a 1 bedroom flat would be completely unaffordable to the working couple