Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

960 replies

MrsArchieTheInventor · 05/04/2012 12:28

"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.

Hmm
OP posts:
usualsuspect · 05/04/2012 20:46

If it's a main stream MC issue to want children to go without , all I can say is thank fuck I'm not MC.

littlemisssarcastic · 05/04/2012 20:47

Gas/Electric is no longer charged at a higher tariff for those on benefits.

WibblyBibble · 05/04/2012 20:47

I hope that people who say things like that will do the right thing and commit suicide if they ever lose their jobs or if they live past the age of 60 or so and stop paying taxes, otherwise it really is pure hypocrisy. And I am quite happy to tell them so if they post such stupid shit on Facebook, though I have the good fortune not to know anyone that idiotic.

tethersend · 05/04/2012 20:47

Social services do not currently remove children from families due to the family not having enough money- benefits ensure that there is enough money for children to be clothed and fed. This is cheaper than taking the children into care.

If the money is not being spent on the children, this can be seen as neglect, and can lead to intervention and ultimately perhaps temporary or permanent removal of the child from the family.

Under this 'proposal', they would have to remove more children, as the benefits would only cover the needs of two children. Subsequent children would be left with their basic needs unmet if the parent does not work.

Social services do not currently remove children of parents who do not work.

littlemisssarcastic · 05/04/2012 20:47

Sorry, should have said on a pre payment meter. Blush

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 05/04/2012 20:48

No, my proposal would make them use contraception instead of having a third child knowing that they will not get any more money to provide for it. Or it would make them work harder to get a job. Or it would make them wait until they had a job between them before having a third child. If a third child came along as an accident and no job was forthcoming, then things would be very tight, but all three children would be able to eat.

If parents were in that situation and went on to have another child, then they would be being very irresponsible, and it would be their stupidity that made their children suffer, not my policy.

wicketter · 05/04/2012 20:49

why don't they introduce a voucher system as opposed to a benefit system. that the money is allocated to a specific thing so cannot be abused

tethersend · 05/04/2012 20:49

"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. "

This fantasy proposal, you mean? Or a real one?

Because if it's a fantasy, why the arbitrary figure? Why not give 'em £500? As long as they were grateful, of course Wink

ShirelyKnottage · 05/04/2012 20:49

OK, what about the rest of my post littlemisssarcastic?

And I'm not entirely convinced by what you say, can you provide some evidence please? Because that is obviously great news and I'm surprised I missed it.

usualsuspect · 05/04/2012 20:50

Yes they could wear high vis scrounger jackets when spending their vouchers.

Hoebag · 05/04/2012 20:51

As far as I can see there are less smaller families compared to when my mums generation literally popped out one after another benefits or not.

I dont think a bit of money is going to encourage people to go through pg, labour etc if they dont really want to anyway.

tethersend · 05/04/2012 20:51

"If parents were in that situation and went on to have another child, then they would be being very irresponsible, and it would be their stupidity that made their children suffer, not my policy."

Good-oh! Let the children suffer, as long as it's not your fault!

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 05/04/2012 20:51

Social Services do not currently remove children of parents who don't work

That's because they don't need to, because those children were born to parents who knew that would get more money as soon as they were born. That doesn't make those parents irresponsible.

ShirelyKnottage · 05/04/2012 20:51

"Or it would make them work harder to get a job."

I refer you, once again Outraged, to the statistics:

2.7 million unemployed.

463,000 vacancies.

wicketter · 05/04/2012 20:52

at the end of the day you would need to earn about £40,000 to to take home what a lot of claimants do. this is not fair

oohlordylordy · 05/04/2012 20:52

Wicketter - it actually does happen - many families get vouchers JUST for milk or food.

There are still shops that will take them in favour of booze / fags.

Sad but true.

I'm not really sure there is a solution, unless many more people see there is a problem.

tethersend · 05/04/2012 20:52

Or orange jumpsuits, usual? That's a good look.

Hecubasdaughter · 05/04/2012 20:52

I have no intention of having more DC we can't afford the ones we have therefore by your definition we are feckless and bad parents. Do you know how it feels to be called a bad parent because I do. It's shit, it is so fucking shit it makes you want to hurt yourself. It is like a dagger through your heart every time someone suggests you are not doing the best for the children you love with all your heart. Every time you are told you are not good enough because you want more than anything in the world to be good enough.

I know I am a useless shit but being remninded of that just makes you wish you were dead. Try and remember that next time you feel like sticking the boot into those less fortunate than yourself.

usualsuspect · 05/04/2012 20:53

Quit your job then wicketter, if life on the dole is so cushy.

tethersend · 05/04/2012 20:54

"That's because they don't need to, because those children were born to parents who knew that would get more money as soon as they were born. That doesn't make those parents irresponsible."

Erm. That's my point.

If you change the rules, they would need to.

Which would cost the taxpayer, sorry, hardworkingtaxpayers even more.

Which makes little sense.

moonblushtomato · 05/04/2012 20:54

Society will always be made up of those who can, those who can't and those who just can't be bloody bothered to contribute.

How many people actually fall into the final category? I.E. the so-called "scroungers". Genuinely interested to know as so much of this thread is aimed at them.

oohlordylordy · 05/04/2012 20:55

OK, Hecubas, it's an internet forum.

DOn't take it too seriously. NO one is saying YOU PERSONALLY are a bad parent. I know, from other threads, you are having a bad time of it right now, but I don't think it's fair to say it's what's been said on this thread is making you feel so dreadful.

I'm sure you are an excellent parent to the children you have.

wicketter · 05/04/2012 20:55

the majority of us on here can see there is a problem so surely something can be done. actually had conversation with dh when we realised that we were worse off than people on benefits and is considered to be on a good wage

usualsuspect · 05/04/2012 20:56

Here come the disclaimers

oohlordylordy · 05/04/2012 20:56

usual - I'd love to see what would happen if all those nasty bankers did JUST that (YOu know, those bastards who pay 50% tax)... if they all put themselves on the state... oooooh... who WOULD WE BLAME THEN!!!!!!!