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

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

778 replies

normality · 01/11/2011 20:56

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
OP posts:
dickiedavisthunderthighs · 02/11/2011 13:30

The argument for unemployed people bringing children into the world to provide for the previous generations doesn't really work when those children fall into the same patterns as the parents and end up haemorrhaging state money along the way.
There's no black or white here but things have got to change.

OhDoAdmit · 02/11/2011 13:30

Born and bought up in Islington? Dont have a job for whatever reason? Fuck off to somewhere no one else wants to live and let somone naice move in.

You never know, you may be able to move back in when the naice people decide that they have gone off gritty urban life and they want to move to the country. Then they can start kicking out poor rural oiks..

Oh wait...

Hmm
lesley33 · 02/11/2011 13:31

There is lots of social housing in London that poor people will still live in. There will also be lots of poorer people, as I was, living in crappy accommodation and still with a long commute.

sherbetpips · 02/11/2011 13:34

Always found the voucher debate interesting though. how would attitudes change if the basics were covered in vouchers - food, electricity, rent.
I doubt they would change at all, the key difference is that those with money worry about losing it - those who dont have anything dont, whilst at the same time knowing they will be provided for within the social care system. (although again I doubt for many that this is a concious decision rather a reaction to circumstance)

doublechocchipper · 02/11/2011 13:36

OhDoAdmit, it's easy to sit there and type a reply which takes the piss and is sarcastic like yours.

It's not so easy to acknowledge the fundamental flaw in the HB setup (chiefly 3 things - that it's inflexible, it artificially inflates the local housing market in a vicious cycle, and permits benefit claimants to live in properties many times over what a working family can afford).

And to come up with something constructive to do about it.

Your reply is trying to say that anyone who has a problem with the current system just just some rich bastard wanting to get the poor folk out of their nice areas. It ain't that simple. And yes - I may not be on NMW, but I'm not far off.

hardboiledpossum · 02/11/2011 13:38

Some people on this thread make me feel really sad. It's such a mean horrible attitude to have that poor people shouldn't be able to live in central London because they can't afford to.
I know one person who works but lives in a housing association house in Notting Hill. It's amazing and sometimes I do feel jealous that she pays a third of the rent that I do to live in a much nice house and area. But I know that I'm being unreasonable and mostly I am just happy for her.

doublechocchipper · 02/11/2011 13:41

"It's such a mean horrible attitude to have that poor people shouldn't be able to live in central London because they can't afford to. "

Yes, totally. But also irrelevant when looking to sustain the country's economy!

We all agree it's crap that it's come to this. No one here is rubbing their hands with glee like Scrooge... "tee hee all those horrid poor people being forced to move out of that rich area, wonderful stuff."

Hmm
doublechocchipper · 02/11/2011 13:43

Also, I find it funny as hell that I am within that group. I can't afford to live in central London at the moment. Should I be battering on the governments door, claiming that as I work (for a shit wage, fulltime) my 'uman rights are being infringed because I can't get that nice house in Islington?

No!

Because I can't afford it. And we're all adults, not children - if we can't afford something, we can't have it.

Simple as that. Except if you're on benefits.

Dawndonna · 02/11/2011 13:45

Vouchers are not an answer. Sorry, but again, those of us with disabled families need to be able to choose what we purchase food wise, especially for those with specialist diets.
It is also a way of marking families out further. Unfair.

lesley33 · 02/11/2011 13:48

I moved out of London 20 years ago, as it was almost impossible at the time to find anywhere I could afford to rent never mind in Central London - I might have been entitled to HB in retrospect. I have met lots of other people who have also moved out of London for the same reason.

Its tough, but I really don't think money should be spent enabling people to live in a house that someone working couldn't afford. Apart from anything else, that is bound to cause resentment. A welfare system only works as long as most people think it is broadly fair.

ohanotherone · 02/11/2011 13:57

It's much meaner to not provide good care for the elderly and those in very vulnerable circumstances.

CardyMow · 02/11/2011 13:57

So, if the HB cap is to be £400 a week for a 4-bed house, and council and LA rents are to be put up to something like 70% or 80% of market value - how the heck does THAT work? I am not in London, but in Essex. I am TIED to the estate I live in currently by an access Court Order (therefore to move out of my expensive area would mean breaking a Court order and possibly being imprisoned).

MY Council actually has a LOWER limit HB cap already. Which is £865pcm for a 4-bed. So that would be a cap of just under £200 a week, over the year (multiplied by 12, divided by 52).

4-Bed houses in my local area average private rent is £1200pcm. Which for someone like me, would mean having to find £100 a WEEK to top up my rent out of my benefits. A total impossibility. Therefore I am having to wait for a council or HA property.

If the 'basics' were covered by vouchers - would vouchers be ALL that people on benefits got? What about if their dc needed clothing more frequently than they were allowed vouchers for clothing (growth spurt, say). Or if their dc was particularly hard on shoes, and wore them out quicker than they were 'allowed to'? Or if they wanted to buy their dc birthday or christmas presents? Or new bedding? Should the CHILDREN suffer because their parent's CAN'T (or, in a few cases, won't) get a job?

Not everyone can get a job - there is hardly ANY SN childcare, for example - and a LOT of people with dc with SN don't get DLA. I personally have had to give up a paid job because the ONLY available SN Childminder in my town gave me notice for my DD (13yo, with asd) ON MY FIRST DAY. I managed to scrape on for another 3 weeks - but there was NO other childcare available for her. And she is not able to be left at home alone, due to her asd.

AND no-one on NMW is going to be able to afford to PAY to commute into the 'richer' areas in order to work - so moving them out will only result in them either finding NMW jobs closer to where they now live OR them giving up work as they can't afford the travel AND food.

Solution - Pay a LIVING wage as NMW. End of. Until employers are prepared to DO this instead of expecting the government (and by default, taxpayers) to pick up the tab - then people earning more than £6.09 a bloody hour should bloody well stop moaning, unless THEY are willing to try to live for a month on NMW, and pay all their packed lunches for their dc, the vast majority of their rent, all their council tax, AND find the money to pay 30% of their childcare AND find the money to pay all their bills AND their travelling costs to travel the 1hr+ that richer people are assuming they can afford to find from an already over-stretched budget.

£6.09 an hour is NOT a liveable wage. If any of you could live on that after being taxed 20%, and still pay for everything that you need to LIVE rather than just survive, then by all means, feel free to complain about all this.

Why do people that DO earn a more reasonable amount not understand what life is like for people that are only able to earn NMW?

And people on a better wage seem to assume that people working FT for NMW get money thrown at them. I'd like to see how - when my Ex-P was earning £16.8Kpa before tax (at 20%) - we got £4.28 a week WTC. YES, we got quite a bit in CTC - but that is because the Government RECOGNISES that £6.09/hr is NOT enough money to raise a family on, and that not everyone CAN earn more. Also Capitalism itself RELIES on there being a pool of unemployed workers, so that other low-paid workers will put up with worse working conditions and low pay, so as to make the people at the top of the Capitalist tree richer. Without that - Capitalism would FAIL..

hardboiledpossum · 02/11/2011 13:58

doublechocchipper but housing benefit is already being changed but people still complain.
The big houses in Notting Hill are often used as examples by people complaining about people on benefits living in 1 million pound houses, or flats worth half a million but most of these properties are housing association rather than private landlords.

hardboiledpossum · 02/11/2011 14:00

Why are there so many people living on sink estates when apparently it's so easy to get housing benefit to cover private rents in luxurious parts of London in amazing houses?

TotemPole · 02/11/2011 14:01

Working families wouldn't be given a choice in the matter. Too poor to rent in Islington and you work? Too bad, commute for an hour on the tube or bus each day. Too poor to rent in Islington and you don't work? Here's HB to top up the chunk you can't afford.

The working poor family could stay in Islington and get a top up too.

hardboiledpossum · 02/11/2011 14:03

If they increase rents of council houses to 80% of market rate I imagine some people in London won't even be able to afford to live in their sink estates.

doublechocchipper · 02/11/2011 14:04

Totem that still perpetuates 2 of the great evils: 1) the local housing costs inflation which carries on until capped (and look how many protests there were about that, and 2) the fact that you're still taxing everyone at the same rate bands, throwing inefficient admin into it, and giving the benefits (or tax credits, whatever they're being branded as) back to the same poor people again

It's nonsensical.

JuliaScurr · 02/11/2011 14:08

Most people who claim Housing Benefit are employed. Put the NMW up and control rent/build council houses. Why do we subsidise bad employers and landlords?

rycooler · 02/11/2011 14:09

Agree lesley33 - we're on 50 grand a year and still can't afford London prices, so I'm not sure why benefit dependent families think they're hard done by.
And agree the benefit system is unfair - that's why so many people are sick of it.

CardyMow · 02/11/2011 14:14

Not bloody likely - TotemPole. When Ex-P was living with me and working FT, we got NONE of our current rent paid. The rent on my Housing Association 2-bed house is £480 every 4 weeks. Now he has left me, it is covered by HB purely because, as detailed above, I cannot get childcare for my DD so have had to give up my job. When you bear in mind that I have only been an LP for 5 months, and had managed to get a PT job (22.5hrs a week), with 4 dc, 2 with SN, one of the others is a 9mo baby, the fact that I had to give that job up due to lack of SN childcare rather grates on me.

The £55 a week maintenance I get from Ex-P for DS2 and DS3 doesn't cover my living expenses, nor does the £1.36 I get a week from my Ex-H for DS1, nor does the £12.50 a week I get from DD's father. We are all on low incomes even when we work - and DD's father is out of work right now as his work is seasonal, Ex-H on the other hand, is just a workshy waster. At least Ex-P works FT - but 20% of his wages, which is what the CSA says is what he needs to pay for 2 dc, is £55 a week.

Maintenance very rarely covers living expenses - it is often an almost token payment (£1.36 a week doesn't even buy a loaf of GF bread for Ds1) to MAKE NRP's take some responsibility for their dc.

Would it be fair to penalise MY dc for the fact that their fathers have a limited earning capacity, and all left me for one reason or another? DD's father and I split up because he did not want me to have the baby - and it took him 12 years to 'come round' to wanting to be a part of her life. DS1's dad left me for the OW. DS2 & DS3's dad left me because he, well, I don't know - maybe because I refused to be cowed by his abusive behaviour any longer, and started standing up for myself and insist he behaved like a human being? I have TRIED to get paid work, but the lack of SN childcare makes it IMPOSSIBLE. Should my dc be penalised by getting no Birthday or Christmas presents because of that? Should my dc have to be penalised by not being able to have new clothes or shoes when they need them because of that?

TotemPole · 02/11/2011 14:14

Why are there so many people living on sink estates when apparently it's so easy to get housing benefit to cover private rents in luxurious parts of London in amazing houses?

The amazing houses are the ones that are featured in the papers. £1500-£2000 per week on rent for this family of 8/9/10!!

doublechocchipper, fair enough. But both families have a choice.

What we need is more affordable housing. This will bring down rentals. I'm not sure that putting up council rents is a good idea.Confused

hardboiledpossum · 02/11/2011 14:17

rycooler You could afford to live in London but not living the lifestyle which you do now. I live in London and we earn a lot less than you do. Most people on benefits are not living a life of luxury.

TotemPole · 02/11/2011 14:19

When Ex-P was living with me and working FT, we got NONE of our current rent paid.

His income must have been too high.

They add up your total income, including tax credits, then work out what your allowances as a family are, then work out what amount of HB you're entitled to.

hardboiledpossum · 02/11/2011 14:21

TotemPole yes I know the ones you're talking about but my point is that they are the minority, most people on benefits are living on sink estates.

ohanotherone · 02/11/2011 14:22

Because if there is no council housing available then private landlords fill the gap at the taxpayers expense.

I agree that NRP's should pay a decent amount for their children, this would help single parents more than a government handout!