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

there isnt a handout for you....you just pay taxes.....

I don't disagree with you gaelic.

If a family have DC, then fall on hard times, of course the benefit system is there to support them, and so it should be...but to continue having more and more DC whilst on benefits (unless the parent is sick/disabled and unable to work long term etc) is irresponsible imo.

It is irrelevant to me how many DC you have, so long as you don't start increasing your family whilst on JSA/IS based on the assumption that the govt will pick up the tab for however many you want to have.
Surely there should come a time when we have to take personal responsibility doesn't there? Instead of saying 'What are the govt going to do? They can't let my DC starve!' How about saying 'What am I going to do? Perhaps I should wait until I am in a better position to have another DC before I get pregnant?'

I am primarily talking about benefits such as IS/JSA.

Well I see in a way. Except that the factors that influence that person being on benefits may be wholly out of their control. I'm trying to illustrate why I agree with the proposition that income level is a separate issue from morality.

Consider two scenarios. The drunken and abusive parents who happen to have won the lottery and therefore don't need to rely on the state for anything.
The loving and dedicated parents who have chosen to have more children, despite living on benefits, because they love being parents more than anything in the world.

Which is the less desirable situation? In moral terms, situation one of course. In taxpayer terms, by the logic on this thread, situation two is the less desirable. That is why financial and moral arguments do not mix.

Having read the most recent posts, I would say that this isnt about working v non working, disabled v able bodied, single v married etc

Its about people taking the piss.

If you find yourself needing to claim benefits and a baby is on the way, or you are genuinely unable to work and have a baby, or suddenly become a single parent and need to claim, then fine. That is not a problem. These are the sort of situations that the welfare state was created for.

Its people taking the piss that is the issue for alot of the population. If you have no choice but to claim benefits, for whatever reason, then I have no problem with you having a family. But benefits-as-a-lifestyle has become a choice for a whole generation because it is seen as easier than working. That imo is taking the piss and should be discourage, but how to do that without penalising those with no choice? I dont know :( Sadly, the work ethic has been lost in many areas of society, rich and poor.

That said, there seems to be a view on here that families living on benefits are raking it in and living the life of Riley. I accept that there are a few that do have that life, but that will be through illegal and/or immoral means. If you do see the whole "Sky +, flat screen TV, designer clothes" BINGO!claimant then either most of that will be bought through skyhigh costing doorstep loans or Brighthouse type credit, or the parents are doing well because the kids are eating crap, wearing crap and suffering. Most claiming families go week to week, paying over the odds for their utilities because they get charged for not paying DD and for having a pre-payment meter, so they get shafted twice. They dont have home insurance as it is too expensive so if they have a fire or a theft then they are screwed. They dont have savings, or holidays or pensions or alot of things that many people take for granted.

Life on benefits is not the Utopia that the DM would have you believe.

Just to add my credentials.....I have been an (abandoned) single mum on benefits so I whereof I speak. I worked before and after claiming, and had no problem with claiming it at all. I paid my taxes and needed it.

I would still rather see someone have children who is on benefits, who is "taking the piss" even, but loves their children, than someone else who is a totally unfit parent but happens to have money. I just don't get the moral high ground on this one. There are so many worse ways for children to come into the world than happening to arrive to parents on benefits.

It's proper bonkers on here tonight, I am to bed.

I agree with you GAelic, it just worries me that there are people who are taking the piss and also are crap parents. But again, how to stop that?

I'm abit late saying this but I think some posters ought to come back down from what ever planet they are living on.

What do you realy think society would be like if everyone was a doctor, nurse , lawyer. It's not the nurses who look after you in old age it's the under paid hca's and who looks after those highly paid proffesionals children while they are at work? I'm sure they don't pay the nanny £100,000 a year

As for giving highly paid professional women a monatary insentive to have children then surly they would be no better than the people you are putting down who have them for the benefit money

I am with Bogey face on this issue. i think people have become so entrenched in their sense of entitlement and about what they want. I think anyone who is on benefits long term should be sensible and not treat the state like a cash cow.

If someone is disabled and cannot work, fair enough but they should not have loads of kids and expect society to pick up the tab. I think that is irresponsible. Most people tend to have 2 children.

I keep harping on about the partially sighted people on a channel 4 documentary but it was so wrong. as i said earlier they kept on having children being supported by the state but their house was filthy and the poor ED had no life because as soon as she walked in the door she had to change nappies. They could not really cope. I thought they were irresponsible.

Haka so are you proposing a rent cap on lettings?

fair enough if you are a BTL landlord who has made lots of money then you lose. But what about people renting their house because they need to move to get/keep a job and cannot sell: how will it work for them if they can no longer afford their mortgage?

i have 2 single male relatives who live on benefits as a lifestyle choice & are happy to engage in benefit fraud (e.g. hiding large inheritances). i dont need the DM or any survey to tell me it is an easy thing to do so it must happen frequently.

another relative recently shopped one of them. there is only one family member does not think they are on the fiddle & she is 80.

YourMother- You pretty much said exactly what I was thinking! Where is this free money?

It's very hard to hide inheritences, the DWP keep a beady eye on the London Gazette.

Dawndonna e.g. hiding the income from the property rental by paying it to an 80yr old. but many things over the years. and the inheritance would not have been in the LG in their specific cicumstances.

If someone is so disabled that they can't do any type of work, how would they be able to look after a baby/child? Of course everyone has a right to have a child. Have as many as you like but beware that the handout system could end tomorrow.

Hammy02, I wondered that very point. If a persons disability is so limiting/severe that they cannot undertake any kind of paid work, how would they cope looking after a newborn?

oh did you 2 pop over from the other thread then .Sorry folk but it is not all cut and dried .tomorrow why dont you tie your legs together , no kneeling , have accidents as you cant use the toilet ,.arrange to go out but lose points if the bus has no ramp or if theres a buggy on and the train journey dont forget to call ahead and book 24 hours ahea dand sheesh never want to just go out becuase the day is nice

Hammy, how about a disabled person and their carer?

And ffs its not a handout system if you are disabled and unable to work, it's enabling.

Are you proposing that disabled people should be able to have as many DC as they wish, enabled by the tax payer, and have their DC brought up by a carer if they are unable to look after their DC themselves?

Just to clarify?

ooooh pages and pages to read

(oh and for the op)

What about a person who is married to a disabled person and is their carer.

What if they are not married Dawndonna?

Okay, what if they're not married, whatever, but still have children. The carer can't work because he/she is the carer, the disabled person is unable to work due to the nature of their disability. Surely they should be allowed to have children, with the carer doing the childcare as well as looking after the person with the disability.

Does the carer get any say in this Dawndonna?

Have you considered how many children are caring for their disabled parents? Should those children who are caring for their disabled parents take on the added responsibility of however many children their parents choose to have as well as caring for their parents?

Or should SS step in and provide carers, funded by the govt, to be carers/nannies so that the disabled people can have as many children as they wish with no limitations on numbers?

Perhaps family members should step up and care for their relatives and their children?

I can't see how it could work tbh. Can you?