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

You don't prove any points though!

All Xenia has proven that having money does not mean that you have good manners or compassion ( note not saying that other people with money have no manners or compassion can think of a few on here . That have both )

Xenia talks about immigrants as if they were a breed apart allowed into the country to especially care for her and her mates in her old age. Carers and HCA have one of the highest rates of musculoskeletal disorders amongst any workers. Immigrants in general are just as prone to be sick, disabled, divorced, separated as any other person and therefore need benefits and housing just like everyone else, often more so if they lack a family network to support them.

Regardless of whether you are disabled, working, non working, single parent etc you SHOULD take PERRSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your fertility. Expecting others to pay for what you want or feel you are entitled to will end up bankrupting the country. There are plenty of studies that show that young teenage mothers or people who have never worked will go onto have children that will repeat the cycle.

Of course we will now get the well, I lived on a sink estate and now I earn £200k - there are a very very few exceptions but if you see your mother living off benefits for example with no real incentive to work you will probably feel you can do the same...

Coming late to this as was away on a course.

Can't take anything Xenia says seriously after her ridiculous post about being disappointed if her kids became disabled because she would miss their dinner party conversation.

I miss my DD speaking as now she can't even ask for food and drink. please think about what you are saying and try to live in the real world.

fanjo that's awful, I've seen some ridiculous posts of hers but that has to be one of the worst

that is not correct Haha - i posted a link up the thread. until the cuts take place, welfare is the largest spend.... i will refind the link....

I didn't plan to get early onset arthritis. or to be twice widowed by the age of 36. I have gone back to full time work against doctors advice and brought my son up on shock horror benefits because a) I couldn't GET a job because of my disabilty and yes it does still happen and b) childcare was prohibitively expensive. We had no phones, no landline, no satellite TV no car and no consoles internet or computer. It was isolating and hard. I did not plan to find out I was pregnant a month after the funeral. And the OP may wish to earn extra by reissuing Mein Kampf - they seem to share a lot of ideals.

My son is now A** a peer mentor, nominated for house captain and predicted to do very well in GCSEs.

Bigotry will out but stereotyping is dimwitted on the part of the prejudiced not the groups they disparage.

Ou know what ends up bankrupting the country? Its not the poor. Its the
bankers, lack of regulation and more bloody wars.
Not people getting £65 a week. Way below the poverrty line.

that is not correct

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_national_debt

see the pie chart: 2009-2010

social protection: 28% it is a largest piece of the pie

Rocky of course is right.

I think the most said above is that the state might support up to two children on benefits. That's not particularly controverial as the average British woman rarely has more than 2 as she cannot afford more. It is also in the national interest. We just cannot afford it. the cupboards are empty. It may not be what people want to hear but this is austerity Britain, a new age, a new phase with much less money and cutting our cloth to suit our needs. People may not like the messengers saying such things but they simply tell the truth.

Everyone will have an example made up or not tbh to bring their point across, the fact is we cannot continue to pay people to have childen when they have no intention of paying anything back, they wont work, claim they are looking for a job but cannot find one that fits in during school hours (!!) etc.

Our welfare spend isin the billions, if the incentive to get your costs picked up the state disappears then I think people will think carefully about having child after child - just like the rest of us! We would have liked to have another baby but decided two was enough to enable us to lead the life we wanted. Why is that so difficult for others to understand this message and there is a sense of entitled creeping into the thread.

I agree with Zenia, if you live on benefits you will get a two bed house. If you CHOOSE to have lots of children then you still stick with your two bed house, your choice. No one gives me more money to buy a bigger house if I choose to have 3+ kids. Why do people on beneifts feel they should be treated differently?

good question Rocky:

Why do people on beneifts feel they should be treated differently?

does anyone want to answer it?

No thanks, have tried to explain, but would rather have a discussion with someone that is my intellectual equal reasonable, compassionate and able to deal with a logical argument.

yes, I would be interested in someone coming on - the thing is though - we will get someone saying that they have 4 children, trying to get a job but nothing around, nothing fits in with school hours and school holidays, dont want to move from the area I am living in now, my Mum lives around the corner and I would miss her, I get more on benefits, would reallly like to work but as I messed around at school (and spolit it for others!) I have no qualifications, I have 3 children so dont have time to study for anything and btw I did once pay tax so I am 'entitled'!

Dawn - thats a bit rude, if I had said to you that as a working mother I will only speak to other working mothers as people on benefits wont have a decent point to make I would be rightly slaughtered.

And why do you think you should be treated differently?

Yes, there are a lot of them about and plenty of us moved hundredso f miles away from family for work, went back to work full time when babise were 2 weeks, have to fix child care when we're abroad on business trips or between 5am and 9am even never mind after school.

I don't think anyone is saying a life in benefits is the life of Riley but if there were an obligation to work for benefits then those who work to pay tax may feel a little better about it.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hidden-in-plain-sight-how-the-needs-of-the-poor-are-being-ignored-2278989.html

"Professor Fothergill's report, the culmination of a decade tracking the lives of people "on the sick" across the nation, has homed in on Merthyr Tydfil, where nearly a third of the population of working age is on the dole. Fothergill estimates that the little valley community needs 3,000 new jobs; across the wider valley community, the Rhondda and Cynon, the imperative is for 35,000. The scale of the task, replicated abroad in the US Rust Belt, almost defies solutions. Even Professor Dorling is stumped. When I asked him what governments should do to rebuild the UK employment market, he said something vague about looking after the aged properly; then he startled me by adding: "Also there's got to be depopulation of the Welsh Valleys."

if you would like to know who Steve is www.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sp_steve_fothergill.html

"Also there's got to be depopulation of the Welsh Valleys."

The paper is the Indy. the profs field of study is benefits and joblessness

so where there is not work, the system should not support people having more children, because you need fewer people there not more.

& the Independant is not right wing. how is it not common sense?

Xenia, maybe "plenty" but I would hazard a guess that as percentage of the general population, the mothers that did all those things is quite small. That is why you earn what you earn. Not everyone has the chances in life to make these choices.

So those not working at all get an extra £3231.16 per year for each additional child in CTCs and child benefit. Then that family will also be exempt from Council tax, will pay little or no rent due to Housing Benefit, school age children will benefit from free school meals, uniform grants, discretionary help with school trips, sure start grants etc etc etc.

For those working and above the CTC/WTC limits but with neither parent on 40% tax, they get an extra £696.80 per year in child benefit for an additional child, £2534.36 less per year for an additional child than the family who do not work at all. These families are unlikely to get any help in the form of Housing Benefits, Council Tax benefits, no free school meals. It's this income group which are often little better off, could even be worse off depending on housing or travelling or child care or extra school costs than the family who do not work, despite possibly having 2 full time working parents.

For those working and above CTC/WTC limits and with one parent on 40%, from 2013 this family will get NO extra money for any additional children.

So how fair is it that a family with a parent/parents who does/do not work get effectively paid £3231.16 extra per year if they have another child, whereas the working family just above CTC/WTC limits gets NO pay rise from their employer(s) to cover any additional children to the family??? That's the point the OP is trying to make, many families in the UK on benefits are REWARDED financially for having additional children, whereas for families not elligible for CTC, WTC, Housing Benefit, Council Tax benefit - and the upper thresholds for these benefits are not that high!!!!! - that these families get no pay rise from their employers?

And I speak as someone who went back to work when dd was 5 months old as I was main wage earner, and who also moved abroad for work when facing redundancy in the UK.

Well if more mothers went back to full time work when the baby was 2 weeks old they might be better off. We live with the consequences of our own actions. I've worked full time for 28 hours now without any single break. Obviously I'm lucky I am healthy and have never been ill although even there we make some luck ourselves - I don't drink. I don't smoke. i don't take drugs. I don't eat processed food. I've kept around 9 stone since I was 14. I take exercise. Hence I'm not ill or obese like some people. There is of course a lot of luck in it too - perhaps most of all I was born with the motivation to enjoy life and to work very hard and balance that with a lovely family.

MOre than anyone I have given practical advice to women about how to get and generate work and start businesses. I know they are all very grateful to me even my anti fan club don't like to admit it.