If you can't afford children you shouldn't have them.

[MrsArchieTheInventor]

"If you can't afford children you shouldn't have them" [and] "child benefit and tax credits should be abolished" with the mantra that if she choses to be childless she should not be forced to pay for the 'breeding' choices of others.

A Facebook friend of mine. I didn't retaliate.

Bring back the workhouse.

What about couples that both work but still need state help in the form of childcare tax credits? Lots of people are in that position should those people not have children?

I think the reason Rhubarb is "answering for you" is that you refuse to actually answer my question.

As have all the other people banging on about benefits as a lifestyle choice etc etc etc.

There must be a good answer to the fact that there are - and here I'm even going to be generous here - 2 million unemployed people in the country - through no fault of their own, and everyone talking about punishment and choices should really be addressing this point I think, in order to be taken seriously.

That was a bit garbled!

The two million unemployed people should receive the financial support they need to live and to raise their children that existed at the time they became unemployed. Thats what the benefits safety net is there for. They should not be having more children so they ought to take measures to prevent any more children. Then if they do have more children, they should not expect to receive any more money.

I don't see what punishment has to do with it. And for most people who are unemployed, it's not their fault. But that doesn't mean they should be entitled to extra money just because they aren't to blame for their unemployment.

So you would be happy to see children go without then? righto

But it wouldn't be me making them go without and it wouldn't be the government making them go without. It woud be their parents who conceived them when they didn't have their own income.

The UK does not have good family policies. The tax régime does not help families with children, which is not the case in many other countries.

If I ruled the world, I would allow every mother two children with tax breaks, child allowances etc but none for subsequent children - their costs would need to be met exclusively by the family purse.

I don't know many people on benefits wilfully having seven children they can't afford. Some might but for others it's quite obviously the case that circumstances change.

We have two children and are lucky enough not to have to rely on the government for our income at the monent but I'm not about to climb up onto my high horse and denounce the feckless scroungers with the rest of the plebs because in the event of a divorce, with childcare costs so high and major cuts in my sector, who knows? How would I send them back?

When two adults working full time do not earn enough to support their family without top-ups from the government, you have to wonder what is wrong with this picture. Surely the fact that tax credits even exist is an admission that wages don't meet living costs.

And we're back to the beginning of the thread. Outraged, you are happy for the government to put in place measures which mean that children will suffer.

I'm not and we will have to agree that I am right to disagree.

Yes, I am happy for the government to put measures in place that will mean people have to take responsibility for themselves and their children, and I'm happy to agree to disagree.

"When two adults working full time do not earn enough to support their family without top-ups from the government, you have to wonder what is wrong with this picture. Surely the fact that tax credits even exist is an admission that wages don't meet living costs."

There is nothing intrinsically wrong about having redistributing income to those who need it through the tax system. Why "should" two people's wages necessarily cover the living costs of four people?

usualsuspect Surely it would be the parents of those children who would be happy for them to go without if it were made clear to them before they conceived that having more children whilst on benefits would not result in more benefits?

Just as there are some parents out there who are alcoholics, drug addicts or gamblers and live on benefits. Would you suggest that they receive extra benefits to cover their addictions, so their DC don't go without?
I don't want to see any DC go without, but many many DC do, simply because of the choices that their parents make. If we are to work towards ensuring that children do not go without, regardless of the choices parents make, then continuing to finance the children is not the solution is it? Surely the solution is to manage how the money is spent to ensure it is spent on providing the children with the things they need??

I am not supportive of a society that controls how the poorest people spend their money, so to reduce the amount of extra benefit parents receive for subsequent DC is one way of cutting the benefit bill surely??

I have said before on similar threads that imho, if a family are already on benefits, then continue to have another child, I find it hard to accept that they need an extra £75 a week to raise that and subsequent children. (£60 approx CTC, £13.40 CB, £3.10 healthy start voucher.)

It is not difficult to see that whilst having one child on benefits is going to be a struggle for many many people, once a parent on benefits has had 3 or 4 children, it is much easier financially when the increase is between £70 and £75 per child per week?

Example : Couple on benefit with 1 child receive full housing benefit/full council tax benefit, £102.75 JSA, £60 CTC, £20.30 CB, £3.10 healthy start voucher. Grand total after rent/council tax is paid = £186.15.

Same couple after having their 4th DC will receive full housing benefit/council tax benefit, £102.75 JSA, £240 CTC, £60.50 CB, £6.20? healthy start voucher.
Grand total after rent/council tax is paid = £409.45.

Surely it has to be easier to cope on over £400 after rent/council tax is paid per week for a family of 6, than on less than £190 a week after rent/council tax is paid for a family of 3??

I think the reason Rhubarb is "answering for you" is that you refuse to actually answer my question.

No, its called work - something I do to while away the time. Your question was what do you do with 2 million unemployed when there are 300,00 jobs.

My view is that is one of the red herrings you and Rhubarb like to introduce into these discussions as you twist and turn, and has nothing at all to do with whether other people should fund the babies of those that cannot afford them.

And I have no issue whatsoever with people who work in low paid jobs who need to claim benefits to top up their income, or people who are eg: made redundant and are fully supported regardless of how many DC they have, if those DC were not conceived whilst the parents were on benefits.

Many working parents cannot afford to have more than 2 DC. Why should the workless be better off financially the more DC they have? It does not make sense.

I'd find that status quite offensive my eldest was a surprise.

However I've come across people in my life who have had massive families 6/7 kids. Yet whinge that they can't afford anything for their kids which does irratate me, what quality of life do these kids have? firstly being part of a huge family which will hainder how much quality attention/time is spent with them, and second being made to feel like a financial burden can't be nice either.

She sounds quite bitter and cold OP, theres probably not alot of people banging the door down to settle down with someone like that so her 'I hate breeders' demeanour may be front coz no-one wants her?

Another thing I do not agree with is the disparity between how much a person needs to live on wrt benefits.

A single adult over 25 claiming JSA is expected to live on £67.50 a week atm.
A couple over 25 claiming JSA are expected to live on £35.25 a week more.
Yet parents on benefit needs an extra £75 a week to provide for a child and further weekly increases of £75 for each subsequent child.

Would it not be fairer to say if an extra adult over 25 years old only needs an extra £35.25 a week to live on, which imo is very low that a parent does not need £75 per week per child to support that child?

How about a household with one person resident on benefit starts on full rent and council tax, and £100 a week to live on. This, although still very little to live on, would give single adults on JSA a much needed increase, and each subsequent person in the household, whether they be another adult, as in a partner, or a child then receives an increase of £30 a week? not including child benefit??

This would mean a single adult on benefit would get £100 a week. A couple would get £130 a week, as would a single parent with one child. A couple with one child/single parent with 2 DC would get £160 a week + child benefit, and a couple with 4 DC would get £250 a week (+ £60.50 child benefit a week).

I'm sure there are flaws in this idea but it would go someway to making sure that people are NOT rewarded for having more DC that they cannot afford.

This would not include adults/parents who work and need HB/CTB/CTC/WTC to top up wages, and would simplify the system surely??

Well it depends - do you think you should pay for her dog? Or her nice house? Or her new car? No? Well why should she pay for your lifestyle?

And frankly the argument that "my kids will pay for her retirement" is wearing rather thin when a) everyone is being forced to have private pensions anyway and b) your child would have to be a net contributer - which is rather unlikely if you haven't been able to manage yor own money enough to be able to pay for your own child...

I struggle to see how one person can support themselves on a full-time wage of say 14k with rents, bills, food costs so high, let alone be able to support a child on it to be honest.

If I went to my boss and demanded more money because I wanted another child, do you think I would get a pay rise?

Nobody is disputing there simply might not be jobs, just that it is not right to continue producing more babies and expecting the state to provide especially as the ones SOME people have already are not always looked after properly anyway

Agree McFluffster. I think the problem is that neither benefits nor "reasonable" wages cover the cost of living anymore. You can't expect people to stop having children in general. Many people make a conscious decision to "wait until they can afford it", but with time ticking on and accidents happening, who can "afford" to wait?

I think this thread has gone way too wide and those that are picking up on related issues should start another thread for those issues.

You need to seperate the people who have no intention of working and who have children to subsidise their lives from those who have had kids and then lose their jobs. The benefits system is unfair and clearly favours the lazy!

Exactly wicketter!!

This is why it would make sense imo to restrict benefits for DC who were conceived whilst neither parent was working and throughout the pregnancy the parents have not worked.

Obviously this would not effect the parents who find themselves made redundant etc and imo those parents should be supported regardless of how many DC they have, so long as they have spent some time supporting those DC.