Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
Sunshine401 · 05/04/2012 21:56

"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"

OMG really Sorry but you have NO clue what people on benifits get if you come out with crap like that!!

Benifits is to help those who need help otherwise we would have starving children out on the street. In this current day jobs are rare and very hard to find. However if you are a lucky one who has a job count your blessings because most of the country are struggling to find work and having to live of what the goverment feels is the "min living allowence" which at the moment is £42 a week.
SO REALLY GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT!

tethersend · 05/04/2012 21:56

"I don't think that's viable anymore, Tethers. The Benefits bill is too big to ignore, its 25% of Government spend and the Government is skint. If it doesn't act first, the markets will force austerity onto it. "

Ah, you see, I disagree with you here, Whatme. As Shirley says when she stole my thoughts out of my brain, the idea that the government cannot afford the benefits bill needs questioning.

Sunshine401 · 05/04/2012 21:57

BTW not on benifits have been on them in the past but have many close friends who have been forced onto them through lack of jobs.

wicketter · 05/04/2012 21:57

you are right. but the buck has to stop somewhere and it is not right to have kids for the money. i would never condone kids being removed from their parent if not needed but something has to change. the whole system is messed up and i wish i had the awnsers. i have seen too many kids who are getting by and that is wrong. your childhood syhould be full of laughter. i am just sad how the whole family happy filled life is now seen as a fantasy

bejeezus · 05/04/2012 21:58

thesecondcoming Grin

ShirelyKnottage · 05/04/2012 22:01

^I don't think that's viable anymore, Tethers. The Benefits bill is too big to ignore, its 25% of Government spend and the Government is skint. If it doesn't act first, the markets will force austerity onto it.

And IMO as the "middle class squeeze" kicks in, and people are asked to fund other people's kids while not being able to afford their own anymore, there are going to be some hard calls to make and this is one of them.^

I'm sorry, but I have to respond to this. You have refused, over and over again to answer my very basic question about there being 2.2 million few jobs in this country and here you go again about cutting the 25% government spend on benefits.

I'm sorry but you are going to have to qualify this now with an answer - how can we cut the benefits bill for those 2.2 million people who are without work - BECAUE THE JOBS DO NOT EXIST. You have accused me of twisting and turning and red herrings and gadflies and loads of shit - but if you're going to keep referring to the percentage of government spend on benefits to back up your arguments, I am forced to ask you about the shortfall of jobs.

Gosh, it's a conundrum

zumm · 05/04/2012 22:02

I've not read all the comments so sorry if I'm repeating what anyone else has said. But in fact, I think you just need to give her a break or just ignore her. Why? Because a) she probably doesn't realise she's saying anything offensive given she doesn't actually have children and (b) because she doesn't have children I strongly suspect that this is a woman who is very confused/upset about it all.

I bet my bottom dollar that she is confused over whether to have them, worried whether she can have them, or perhaps she even feels she can't have them because of horrible events in her childhood/life, or maybe her high-flying career ? one that she has worked damn hard for - means she just can?t entertain the thought, yet that decision must still challenge her.

Pl note that EVEN those people who say they never ever want children do wonder/worry about this route ? sometimes a great deal more than we realise. The choice not to have kids is a very hard one to make.
And if the choice is not even yours (no partner etc) then I suspect this route is even harder.

The fact that she has cats suggests she does have a caring side, after all. In fact, a friend of mine was always very anti kids, yet she too had a cat she loved like a child. It is only now that she has a 6 month old that she has admitted to being so desperate about her situation. That message from your friend sounds a bit like her.

She?s annoyed that women who can?t even afford it are going ahead and breeding ? whereas she can afford it, yet she can?t or won?t (and to repeat, even if it?s a ?won?t? there may be a serious reason behind the won?t).

Rhinosaurus · 05/04/2012 22:02

I think something has to change, as a benefits dependency culture is undesirable for both the claimant and society. I have to admit, a friend of mine recently tried to get back into work after being on income support for years, and found out she would be £5 a week better off, with all the hassle that entails such as getting up at 6am to get kids sorted for
Childminder before school, having to do housework in the evenings and tired kids upset at the disruption. She persevered in the hope it was going to lead to better things, but not everyone has the internal resources she has.

The government want to be seen to e doing something about benefit dependency, hey presto Workfare! So open to abuse by corporations it's a joke!

The reproducing children while on benefits is something that the people claiming have made a conscious decision to do. Will a top-down policy of removing the financial incentive work? Possibly, but then again children could end up suffering through it. But from my experience a lot of children from these large families are already suffering financially and emotionally.

If a contingency measure is introduced that will be another loophole to exploit. Social services are already stretched to the limit, they cannot pick up the pieces.

Perhaps early intervention and raising children's aspirations is the best route, but as Shirley says, there are no jobs anyway.

On reflection, there's no real satisfactory solution, I just hope the government take more time considering any reforms than they did the NHS reforms!

Hecubasdaughter · 05/04/2012 22:05

To truly cut the benefit bill there needs to be a better economy with more people working. This cannot happen overnight unfortunately so politicians aren't really interested in doing what is necessary for this although they say this is what they want. They want 'quick fixes' that will give them sound bites and headlines. Grafting away to change things slowly but more effectively is not on their radar.

For a start the directgov website needs fixed. It needs a search function that actually works properly. Then more time can be spent actually applying for jobs.

Applying for benefits needs to be streamlined and a lot more efficient. The long lead time for starting benefits after redundancy is crippling to those taking short term jobs. ie If you are unemployed you are going to improve your job prospects (long term) by taking on short term positions in the absence of long term ones. They give you more experience, may lead to permanent contracts in some cases and they have a shorter period of unempolyment on their CV making them more attractive to employers in the future. However taking the job leads to instant stopping of benefits yet it may be as many as 5 weeks before the first paypacket. When you have been living hand to mouth 5 weeks with zero income is pretty much impossible to manage on. Then if their job doesn't lead to a permanent contract and they are unemployed again the system is so inefficient they have several more weeks with no money, in extreme cases where there has been a cock up it has been 5months with no money people have ended up homeless. This is a massive disincentive to do the right thing. People end up with the choice of improving their future job prospects and leaving their DC without or staying on benefits.

The system punishes doing the right thing in these circumstances, it shouldn't, there has to be some way to make doing the right thing in terms of job prospects feasible without endangering chidren's welfare. TBH taking a risk at a part time job should at worst leave you back where you started not significantly worse off.

ShirelyKnottage · 05/04/2012 22:13

Oh the NHS Rhinosaurus.

It's awful. Isn't it all just so awful?

Workfare - that was mad. I updated my payroll software at work and it had a little check box on there for for workfare employees and I just thought - ICK! WTF?

I am left wing. I know that, I have always been perfectly open to debate and shot the shit with right wingers - it's part of life's rich tapestry innit?

But we're (as a society) veering well the fuck off this - we're passengers and the stuff that has been enshrined in law to protect the most vulnerable is being chipped away to such an extent that we're ALL in danger.

Those on this thread who have made such harsh judgements need to hope that their families are never visited with disability or redundancy or unemployment through other means and to have to be reliant on government hand outs...

The words written here would be eaten as quickly as any food they are denying some children.

Hecubasdaughter · 05/04/2012 22:17

There is a theory shirely if you slag people off and look down on them and tell them it is all their fault etc then it can never happen to you. Hmm. It is the same psychological phenomenon as blaming a rape victim.

It doesn't actually work btw, just makes some people feel better for a bit. Makes others feel shittier but that's life.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 05/04/2012 22:24

I wouldn't personally feel the need to eat any words if disability or unemployment or redundancy happened to my family. Those thing have already happened. I support the benefits system wholeheartedly, but I support it as a safety net not a lifestyle choice. When people have children when they already have two and they are both on benefits they are not using the system as a safety net, they are making a lifestyle choice. By saying that I think that shudo stop, I am not saying I want children to starve, or that i want them to go into care, I am not saying anything that makes me a bad person. I'm just saying that beyond two children, people need to take responsibility for their own choices. That's all.

ShirelyKnottage · 05/04/2012 22:32

Yeah, yeah, yeah outraged. AGAIN for the heard of thinking, you can talk about a lifestyle "choice" but does the fact that there are not enough jobs, that there will be 2.2 million million people unemployed - WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT - not sway you at all? The fact that what you want WILL result in innocent children suffering? The fact that talking about responsibility is all well and good when you are living in a higher sphere and therefore have many, many more "choices" than people who are growing up in places where the job market is completely arid and the "only" option available is having a family?

As long as you feel comfortable in condemning those less fortunate - and by that I'm not just talking about money and class, I'm talking about Where you were born, education, aspiration, chances, luck - than yourself to an even harder life; and by extension their innocent children; then Good Luck to you.

Hecubasdaughter · 05/04/2012 22:38

The thing is outraged there is a disproportionate amount of emphasis on people choosing benefits as a lifestyle choice. They are a minority. Time would be much better spent considering how to help those who are using it as a safety net (the majority) get back to work which is quite frankly what they want.

A win win situation, more people in employment, more people paying taxes, those who fell on hard times are happier and even better the true scroungers have less people to hide behind. Problem is as I said above there is on quick fix for this so not inviting to MPs in search of re-election so instead the play on prejudices actively encourage them, what is truly scary is they are succeeding and we are letting them.

What we should be doing is telling them we see through it, encouraging them to start these tiny steps that will ultimately succeed. BTW before anyone asks I have told my MP this.

Hecubasdaughter · 05/04/2012 22:39

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Hecubasdaughter · 05/04/2012 22:42

For those on this thread who can only see those who have made a lifestyle choice, a summary

wicketter · 05/04/2012 22:45

actually there are jobs out there-if you are willing to do most things. the problem is that you are better off on benefits. that is wrong

tethersend · 05/04/2012 22:47

Can you repeat the stats again, Shirl? We've got a clean up on aisle three...

wicketter · 05/04/2012 22:47

p.s-having children should never been as a choice to get out of a bad situation. they are the ones that will suffer.

Rhinosaurus · 05/04/2012 22:49

Please explain why outraged would make a great psychological case study? Because he/she has voiced their opinion on an Internet forum? Because he she has beliefs opposite to you?

For someone who just got overwrought due to projecting this entire
Thread into your own situation, making over exaggerated self pitying statements in an attempt to make others feel bad, I think you are wrong to level such as personal comment towards another poster.

bejeezus · 05/04/2012 22:49

Well said hec It has been forgotten in this discussion, that for the large part benefit claimants are genuine

CrystalMaize · 05/04/2012 22:49

Wicketter - try living in the real world. Tell us - what jobs would you do/not do and why?

wicketter · 05/04/2012 22:50

who are you refering too

Rhinosaurus · 05/04/2012 22:51

Hechbas rather rudely stated that a poster would make a great psychological case study.

usualsuspect · 05/04/2012 22:51

Where are all these jobs wicketter? have the high unemployment figures passed you by?