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

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:
IneedAbetterNickname · 02/11/2011 21:27

My cousin is a fantastic, single Mum on benefits, to 2 young boys (4 and 3) Her and her DS2 are both deaf, and therefore registered disabled. She had a few jobs as a teenager, but most 'unqualified' jobs are closed to her (I don't mean she isn't allowed them, just can't ACTUALLY do them) as they involve using the phone, or speaking to members of the public. Her speech is amazing, considering the drs said she'd never learn to talk. However, there is too much ignorance in the world about deafness. Customers in one shop used to shout at her, thinking that would mean she would hear them. She found this terribly degrading, and, on more than one occasion, was reduced to tears :( Since having her DC she has been diagnosed with a muscle disorder, and now has a mobility scooter, further reducing the number of jobs 'open' to her. Should she not have been allowed children?

alemci · 02/11/2011 21:30

I wasn't being horrible. I know it is easy to make sweeping statements and lump all people together. I have also worked with special needs.

On forums it can be hard to convey meaning.

I think a strong work ethic and aspirations are important. However it is not good for the young people in this climate. It used to be easier to walk into a job but now it is alot harder.

BoffinMum · 02/11/2011 21:34

If I am correct, (do tell me if I am wrong, Xenia), Xenia's a self-employed commercial lawyer earning £200 ish an hour, although not every hour in her week is chargeable, and I gather her father was a consultant psychiatrist or something like that, so she comes from a fairly well-to-do background. Her ex-husband was/is a senior teacher and a higher rate taxpayer. She has five children.

TheRealTillyMinto · 02/11/2011 21:34

Should she not have been allowed children?

yes of course she should. but should she have a cap on benefits? yes - became people who arent on benefits have a cap as they dont get a pay rise when they have another child.

surely that is just fair?

BoffinMum · 02/11/2011 21:38

Two points about apparent increase in disability.

  1. Many people are alive who would have died of their disabilities in the past, or starved to death if unsupported.
  1. There are very few unskilled jobs left out there which means simple paid work for people with ongoing medical problems or mental disability is not an option in most cases any longer. Traditionally they might have picked teasels out of wool, scared off birds from crops or hand weeded large gardens. Alas no more, which is why they need to be given money to survive.

Our society can easily afford this degree of compassion, despite what the DM might say.

Dawndonna · 02/11/2011 21:41

Milly No it's not fair, it removes her choices and as a disabled person that is neither right nor fair. All working people have choices, whether they be low or high waged, they have a choice as to whether to have children/further children, people with disabilites should be afforded the same rights whether they are on benefits or not. That is simple human decency.

IneedAbetterNickname · 02/11/2011 21:45

My cousin was on benefits when she had her first DS, so her benefits were increased by her having him, whats the difference between that and her deciding to have another baby (which she won't because she knows she would not be able to look after another one)

TheRealTillyMinto · 02/11/2011 21:48

but on the other hand:

  1. births are safer
  2. medicine is better meaning people can make full recovery from illnesses that would have been fatal/debilitating
  3. conditions can be better managed
  4. painkillers can change peoples lives
  5. and we are only talking about people of working age

i agree to an extent about there are fewer basic jobs but there is also a problem in the jobs available people dont want to do e.g. cleaner, so one of mine is Bulgarian.

we cannot afford the current benefits bill because it is driving the country into unsustainable debt.

TheRealTillyMinto · 02/11/2011 21:48

Dawndonna can you explain why someone working has choices?

LynetteScavo · 02/11/2011 21:50

OMG, Xenia had a message deleted by MN.

perceptionreality · 02/11/2011 21:51

The Sure Start maternity grant is now only available for the first child.

If everyone had only one child we would have an even worse economic crisis in years to come than we have now.

I've not read the whole thread but yes YABU because it is a far more complex issue than you and other right wingers would have everyone believe.

Sevenfold · 02/11/2011 21:52
  1. births are safer

wtf did you read that in a comic, or do you really believe that?
births are not safer, far from it, just thankfully babies can now be saved, and they are also not left to die. or stuck in some institution.

Sevenfold · 02/11/2011 21:53

LynetteScavo about time too, she is a post DP

Dawndonna · 02/11/2011 21:53

Because it is a basic human right to make the choice whether or not to have children/more children if you are working. The fact that you may choose not to because you can't afford it is not relevant, you still have that choice. The same choices should be afforded to those who have disabilities. In this instance it's not about money, it's a moral discussion about choices.

TheRealTillyMinto · 02/11/2011 21:55

i dont think anyone is talking about a 1 child policy but as you have raised it causing an economic crisis.....

.... a 1 child policy is why China is booming...... 9% growth.

Dawndonna · 02/11/2011 21:56

But Milly, only if it applied to all.

TheRealTillyMinto · 02/11/2011 21:57

Sevenfold with medicial internvention when required, child birth is safer for mother and child. happy now?

BoffinMum · 02/11/2011 21:59

The benefits bill is not heaping debt on the country.

It was the bundling and trading of repayable debt with debt that could never be repayed in a month of Sundays that caused the mess.

It now means that things that should be affordable to an economy of this size need to be cut back. It's as though you had a house and the builders wrecked the roof before going bankrupt, and the insurance company refused to pay up. So you had to find £15,000 instantly for a new roof out of normal funds, meaning you had to cut back to the bone on food, clothes and healthcare. Normally a household would be able to cover all of those things but in extremis an unexpected massive bill requiring instant repayment would cause hardship. That's what is happening to the economy, and taking away the rights of the less fortunate along with their benefits wouldn't even begin to solve the problem, as it is so much greater than we can even conceptualise.

If you equate the size of the debt to the cost of having two world wars, you would probably come a little closer to understanding what is going on (although I think it is bigger than that), and what the legacy is likely to be for our children and grandchildren. Except that in the aftermath of the war we found money to set up a welfare system and NHS, as well as making university and secondary schooling free for the first time.

We need to keep a cool head and stop looking for underprivileged people to blame for a problem that needs an ongoing and long term global solution.

TheRealTillyMinto · 02/11/2011 22:02

Dawndonna

"The fact that you may choose not to because you can't afford it is not relevant, you still have that choice"

yes - this should applies to working/non working and disabled/able bodied.

BoffinMum · 02/11/2011 22:02

China has horrendous inflation, no public health care system, tremendous poverty in rural areas and a police state. They are booming because of a low wage economy, only wages are rising rapidly which means their days of massive growth are about to come to an end, especially if they are required to address their significant industrial pollution problem and so on. They also have severe problems with water supply which is also likely to choke growth in the near future. Really, this is not a good situation and not to be held up as a model for planned parenthood.

Dawndonna · 02/11/2011 22:02

That is true Boffin, there are so many things that are far greater than the benefits bill, but politically, it is convenient to scapegoat. Unfortunately, it is the Human Rights of those that need said benefits that suffer.

littlemisssarcastic · 02/11/2011 22:03

Dawndonna All working people have choices, whether they be low or high waged, they have a choice as to whether to have children/further children, people with disabilites should be afforded the same rights whether they are on benefits or not. That is simple human decency.

I disagree.

Not all working people have the choice to have children/further children. One member of my family would have loved a large family. DH has a well paid job and they are not entitled to any extra help from the govt....yet on top of their mortgage, they cannot afford to have the number of DC they wish to. They do not get a payrise for every DC they have, unless you can class £13.40 a week as a substantial enough increase in their income to influence their decision to have more children.
They have never had a cat in hells chance of getting a social housing property, and have to budget out of their joint wages. Unfortunately, this means they cannot have more children, even though they would very much like to.

OTOH, for someone on benefits, their income is increased quite substantially imho every time they have another DC. That puts many people on benefits in a much better position to have a large family than those who work but are not poor enough to qualify for help.

Why should someone on benefits be able to more easily afford to have large families if the people who are financially supporting their choice to have as many children as they want to cannot make those choices themselves?? FWIW, I think that's unfair.

Sevenfold · 02/11/2011 22:05

i meant posh not post

Dawndonna · 02/11/2011 22:06

But my point was not about the money Little Miss It was that it is morally correct to give those with disabilities the same choices as those who work. Okay, it is unfortunate that your family feel they can't afford another child, but the fact is that should benefits be changed, they would have a choice not afforded to those with disabilities. That is morally wrong.

TheRealTillyMinto · 02/11/2011 22:06

boffinmum i thought you might be correct, but found this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UKExpenditure.svg