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.

Oooh, I know, we could have two groups of poor benefit claimant: The Deserving and The Undeserving.

So you think a parents who have multiple children but don't feed them should be allowed to keep them then?

Okaaaay

Oh dear, I think you might need to calm down a bit oohlordylordy - you seem to be getting a bit overwrought!

It is true that this government, which are pretty right wing, I'm sure you agree, have so far not floated the idea of restricting benefits for children - this is because it's considered a pretty basic societal thing to look after the more vulnerable in our society. Which would be children. Who didn't ask to be born but who still need to eat. I know this is hard to follow but what you are advocating with this restriction of CB and additional benefits to people who are unemployed is that innocent children should be even worse off...How bizarre that you think this is OK.

As to the notion that the children of people on benefit should be put into care? Honestly, if you don't think this thread is completely mental and pretty disgusting then I might lose my will to live too.

Most parents, regardless of whether they worked or not, who found themselves without enough money to feed their children would probably cut back on all non essentials first, they would find ways of cutting their food shopping bill, they would cope, they may even go without food themselves to provide food for their children.

Let's not forget that many working people who are above the threshold for receiving gateway benefits to free school meals are already going without to provide food for their DC. The parents who chose to have DC3,4 and 5 should still be entitled to receive free school meals and healthy start vouchers for their DC.

I would imagine that most of the parents who this would affect would rather go to a food bank than wave their DC off into care, so it is unlikely that the care system would be overrun by children. Maybe some DC would end up in care, but the majority would not.

If 2 parents + 2 DC were supported, they would still receive over £250 a week after their rent and council tax had been paid to buy food. Imo, if they choose to stretch that money to feed 6 people every week, it can be done, but they would probably have to sacrifice everything except the bare essentials to be able to do this.

If a single parent + 2 DC were supported, they would still receive approxiametely £220 a week after their rent/council tax had been paid to buy food. If they choose to continue having DC whilst claiming out of work benefits, that is their prerogative.

When I see threads on here written by people who have children and only £50 a week to feed themselves and their DC and pay their essential bills sometimes less , I don't see those posters in that situation considering putting their DC into care. They cope. It is not easy by any stretch of the imagination, but if they can feed their DC and themselves for £50 a week, I should think a family can feed themselves on £220 a week.

I don't recall anyone saying any one is undeserving.

Just that if you are actually a bit strapped for cash, you should have the where with all not to procreate.

So, maybe have two groups of claimants: The intelligent and the stupid.

we appeared to have drifted into some fairly amazingly right wing policy here

I don't think this is right wing, I think its a mainstream middle class issue now.

I think Tethers has a point re what do you do, but I don't think the old answer of opening the chequebook and keep on writing 'em is going to wash as the middle class gets more and more squeezed.

That's what currently happens, Outraged.

The only reason they could not feed them would be because your plan had been implemented, and they only received enough benefits to feed and clothe two children.

They are good enough parents now, but would not be under your plan.

It's cheaper to pay the family benefits than to take the children into care.

I would have thought you could have worked that one out, what with your economics lessons and all.

I think that people with multiple children who don't feed them should be dealt with by the police whether they're on benefits or not.

What you're advocating is putting more families into this position of not being able to AFFORD to feed their families.

Maybe it's mainstream in your circles WhatMeWorry. Fortunately for me I don't mix with people who think that innocent children should bear the brunt of societal failures.

"So, maybe have two groups of claimants: The intelligent and the stupid."

And the children of the stupid MUST PAY.

Good enough parents do not continue to have children they cannot support. Good enough parents do not have four children when they struggled to feed three.

Yes Outraged, they do.

ShirelyKnottage "Which would be children. Who didn't ask to be born but who still need to eat. I know this is hard to follow but what you are advocating with this restriction of CB and additional benefits to people who are unemployed is that innocent children should be even worse off...How bizarre that you think this is OK."

So why have we, as a society, been ignoring the plight of children who are neglected by their alcoholic/gambling/drug addict parents for decades? Do we think it is ok to deprive a child of his/her basic needs based upon whether their parent is simply a benefit claimant or an alcoholic/gambler/addict? I don't think it is ok, and don't agree that those children have any less right to having their basic needs.

Perhaps we should be asking ourselves, is £220 a week after rent and council tax enough to feed a family and provide them with the basics? If it is not enough, it needs increasing, of course. If it is enough, then is it up to society to decide exactly what they should and shouldn't spend their money on. FWIW I think £220 a week is enough to feed a family and provide the basics.

Of course, that would depend on what individual opinion is on what basics are, but imo, food, shelter, clean water and heating comes quite close to the top.

Rhino I am so sick of people like you telling me my daughters shouldn't exist. FYI we could afford 2 DC until I was 37 weeks pregnant with DD2. We don't actually want benefits and are doing our best to fix it and yes I do realise our best isn't good enough for all you perfect people out there.

I may be a feckless, ignorant twat but I'm not stupid enough to think I know everything unlike some people out there

You and I must have a very different definition of good enough then.

I agree completely with LittleMissSarcastics last post.

Well if I was doing critical theory I would be considering the experience of people in context, which is that evidence is showing that numbers of children in families have increased over the last 15 years. A family with six children used to be considered unusual but since New Labour, and as mentioned before their generous benefits based on numbers of children in a household has resulted in an increase of large families.

And no, care isn't the answer, as you said this uses a massive amount of financial resources so would also be unsustainable.

I don't know how the feckless can be empowerd to take responsibility for themselves, but I am pretty sure that financially rewarding them is not going to work in the long term. If that makes me right wing so be it.

"You and I must have a very different definition of good enough then."

I'm using the one used by social services. Which one are you using?

The one that wants parents to be able to feed their children.

I have deleted a friend from Facebook for exactly that reason.

Back in August 2011, my son was about to enter Reception. Part of his uniform are navy shorts. Despite placing an order for these shorts well in advance, the order never turned up (long story, shop's fault) and with only a few days to spare, I tried every local shop I could. In the end, I purchased these shorts from the school's second hand shop, just 24 hours prior to his first day at school.

Anyway, to vent my frustration, I wrote the saga on my Facebook status. This so-called friend must have interpreted it as me not being able to afford to purchase these shorts as she wrote: you really shouldn't have children if you can't afford to buy basic stuff for them like their school uniform.

I didn't reply. I deleted the thread and this so called friend. I haven't spoken to her in real life either since that comment.

Hecubasdaughter. So are you going on to have dc3 dc4 dc5 and dc6 while on benefits? Because that is what we are discussing, not that your daughters don't exist.

Good enough parents do not continue to have children they cannot support. Good enough parents do not have four children when they struggled to feed three

This is of course absolute common sense but then, unfortunately, not everyone in society has the full quota of common sense/intelligence.

But your proposal would ensure that they can no longer feed their children...

What exactly do SS think is good enough tethersend? I'm genuinely interested to know what their idea's on good enough parents are.

"So why have we, as a society, been ignoring the plight of children who are neglected by their alcoholic/gambling/drug addict parents for decades? Do we think it is ok to deprive a child of his/her basic needs based upon whether their parent is simply a benefit claimant or an alcoholic/gambler/addict? I don't think it is ok, and don't agree that those children have any less right to having their basic needs."

I don't know why that has happened - it's bloody awful that children who are born to alcoholics/gamblers/drug addicts suffer, but those afflictions cross all class and income divides TBH, so I'm not entirely sure what your point is? Do I think it's OK for those children to go without the basics? Of course I don't!

£220.00 per week is pretty tight to be honest, it's not just food, it's gas and electric (charged at higher rates for those on a meter) clothing, water rates, etc etc etc...there've been many threads of on here lately where people have shown their workings. People have been FORCED to prove that they're poor and not wasting their money on "frivolities" and yet, you all keep going...do you realise how it makes you look? I've got to tell you, it ain't pretty.

The proposal to limit benefits to parent/s + 2 DC would still leave families with a minimum of £220 a week after their rent/council tax is paid by the govt tethersend.

Do you honestly believe a family cannot afford the basics on £220 a week??