To feel a little sorry for the 7 children benefits Mum.

[MilgramsLittleHelper]

www.itv.com/daybreak/hottopics/benefits-mum/

Is just seems like another bit of benefit bashing to me.

I know she shouldn't have had children she couldn't afford, but what hope of improving her lot???

OTTMummA Thu 13-Jun-13 08:25:03
Beau it is quite clear you have no experience of the benefits system, nor do you care to learn about it either, so I can't not fathom why you are even trying to justify your opinion.
If you can not see or refuse to see the flip side of this then I suggest you go back to your little benefit free bubble and pray with crossed fingers, arms and legs that you never end up relying on this saftey net.

___

Now read my post, which I have stated more than once on this thread.

"Alot of peple are missing the point. People on this thread are not against the welfare state, or helping those in need. What they are against is a woman who is expecting to be housed by the welfare state in a 6 bedroom house, and moaning that 2k is not enough for her to pay her rent."

___

If god forbid, I should find myself in a situation where I needed help from the state, I most certainly would not be complaining that I had to move from my current 4 bed house, into a 3 bed house, kindly funded by the tax payers. I would be grateful for any help I was given. Not be selling my 'woe is me story' and expecting Joe Public to feel sorry that I was unable to stay in a 4 bed house.

Fellatios last two posts add much needed common sense to this thread.

The Birmingham post link says she has three children with various conditions but I cannot see a mention if dla or carer. Its possible that she has not received correct advice about benefits. Its also possible she is an attention seeker. It does seem thoughtless to put her family in the news when claiming the correct benefits or downsizing from a six bed house would resolve the situation.

Whether we like it or not, we are competing with India and China for food and fuel.

Everything is going to get more and more expensive. the more we transfer our countries wealth to them through trade, their living standards raise, and we will struggle to complete. ms and Mr average will find everyday item taking up more if their pay packets. These are global forces and neither left or right can side step the issues, they must deal with them. We will tighten up on corporate tax avoidance and it will help, but it won't be a complete fix for all that we face.

the is no enduring reason why in the UK we all lead more comfortable lives than we would if we faced the same challenges in a developing country. There is no endless pot to pay for people to have children they cannot pay for themselves. We are continuously transferring our country's wealth to others by of balance of trade deficit. The pot is running dry. we need to focus our resources on those who have no choice: people with mh or physical or ld disabilites. Children, particularly those in care The old.

The irresponsible need reap what they sew. if you have children you cannot afford, no one can stop you. But your house should be no bigger than a 3 bed. If you cannot find a job, the local govt finds you a nmw job on their payroll and you work EU directive max hours in term time. You wage comes off your benefits, so it is a zero overall cost. The school provides 3 meals per day. The parents provide for their children. Why would anyone not want to provide for their own children? If you dont want to, you can get benefits in vouchers and hb paid directly as you cannot be trusted to budget with your childrens interests in mind.

Excellent post Faster.

Beer- I have not looked at any woman and deemed them incapable of being economically productive. They are all capable of working, in some capacity, which is my point.

This is a mere diversion from the fact that amazon, Starbucks etc should be paying millions in tax.This is the scandal that we should all be jumping up and down about

I think jumping up and down abput that has to be done with rather more consideration as to why loopholes and avoidence stratagies are built in to the system.

There is a world, of which Britian is just one corner. There is a certain ampunt of competition for corperations basing themselves in a specific place. Direct tax of profits being lowered one way or the other to more attractive levels (from the coperations perspective) is used as a stratagy not becuase a country feels sorry for Big Bosses, but becuase tax revenues, incomes for populace and generation of work for related local businesses (supply/distribution etc) increase where a corperation choses to plonk themselves.

One of the biggest struggles for Italy is that they are at a disadvantage in attracting those businesses. Becuase of the far higher direct tax burden on corps in the region. On paper it looks fairer. In reality, we're fucked. Because the work and the tax revenue that generates .... is happening everywhere except here. It's not competative, it doesn't look as attractive to corps, somthey don't come, or if they do they close after a period and move.

I am prepping several students right now who will be dealing with the corps that employs them Italian client base....from other places in Europe. Becuase the base here either never opened, or it is earmarked for closure.

I will be sending my son to Britian for higher ed in no small part becuase his opportunities for work here are limited, and one of the major factors in that reality is that few business see Italy as a competative contender for making a base.

In turn that means the already small safety net here just gets ever more hole than thread.

Seriously how many of you have a strong expectation that your children will have to look abroad for work post education ?

Part of the reason why it isn't such a common place expectation (and this is obvious cos languages aren't seen as being particulary important) is because you can do and do attract corps and business. They aren't there becuase the British weather is so lovely and they like the view, they are there in part becuase it make economic sense for them to be there.

If they reduce their British base to a signficant degree due to the direct tax increasing, I think you can propbably expect the welfare state to shrink and crumble at a far faster clip.

"dealing with the corps that employs them Italian client base"

Oh dear. Shoild drink coffee beforemposting, not after

dealing with the Italian client base of the corp that employs them...

There. I think that's what I meant.

Why assume she is vulnerable or was forced to have 7 children or didn't understand what contraception is. She didn't come across as being unintelligent in the tv interview. It is just as possible that she knew exactly what she was doing and just figured that having more children was the easiest way for her to have money. The fact that she had 6 and then had another child on benefits kind of points to this fact. If life was so hard for her with 6 kids on benefits she wouldn't have had the 7th but an extra child equals an extra £2860 in child tax credits and an extra £702 in child benefit plus entitlement to more housing benefit. And now especially that all these kids are here, it's really a no brainer that her income of £32k a year tax free from benefits is easier than going out to find someone who will give her a £45k per year real life job.

I think the problem with cases like this is they are not representative of many people in the UK but are used to get people frothing and poor bashing. There are very few people in the UK who have social housing provision with 6 bedrooms and very few people at all with 7 children. But articles like this are a propaganda move to blame the poor for all the country's problems and countless people fall for it.

Another problem we have is that some employers are not paying people enough money because they expect the government to top up wages. If this woman worked all the hours she could on minimum wage, she would not earn enough to support her children. I would argue that a minimum wage job will not provide enough to support even 2 children today, with food and energy prices so high.

You can say she shouldn't have had the children, but really it's an irrelevant point because you cannot stop people from having children but the children created (through no fault of their own) should be protected. You may think it isn't fair but that is what it boils down to.

Beer, (1) you can create extra jobs as they have zero overall cost to the state (2) either not many people live on benefits for long periods of time (in which case this would only be a small scheme) or we are already funding many so lets deal with it! It would apply to both parents whether cohabiting or not so not affect women or sp unfairly.

I think its important to equalise parental responsibility in the system.

'Why assume she is vulnerable or was forced to have 7 children or didn't understand what contraception is.'

Perhaps because having 7 children must be very difficult? Do you think it's fun to have 7 children? I personally don't think I could cope...

Mummy in response to your post up thread.

Yes, I saved my tax credit, which isn't a benefit (unless you are a tory)
My household doesn't have 2k a month from earnings and tax credits combined. So I don't see how you know my family haven't struggled.

lottieandmia - the problem is they are used to get people frothing, oh yes, and why is that? It is because we read about someone like this all the time. Not once every so often, one who is irritating yes and a lone case, but clearly it is not a lone case. At all.

I'm not convinced at all by the repeated argument that she would be able to afford the cut if she downsized.

The Birmingham Mail article states that her rent is £725pm. I certainly don't live in an expensive area, but that would not be enough to rent a house big enough for 8 people around here. Considering the fact that her two children with SN may need bedrooms of their own, she may need a minimum of 5 bedrooms (one each for children with SN, one for mum, one for girls and one for boys).

Assuming she had the money for a move upfront, she would still have to find a 5 bedroom house for less than £725pm, which did not move them so far away from schools/hospitals that the money saved was swallowed by increased travel costs, and where the landlord was willing to take her on as a tenant. It just does't sound likely.

Does everyone who has children with SN in this country automatically get given a house big enough for them all to have seperate bedrooms?

I think you will fine there are a a greater number who are struggling with children with sn in ordinary houses.

So, you think there are cases like this on every street Beau? I don't - they are clearly in the minority and are brought up by the right wing press to stir up propaganda against all poor and vulnerable people.

Beau, so because some people struggle, you think this woman should be made to struggle too?

Again, if your view is really that this woman is somehow 'better off' than all these hardworking, taxpaying parents, surely the sensible way to address this would be to make life better for the working parents, rather than worse for the non-working parents.

Beer, different budgets.

Bythe, yes she should struggle.

The point is, she already is struggling. Surely you wouldn't argue that her life is easy? Why stick the boot in a bit more and force SN DCs into unsuitable living conditions to save what would probably turn out to be not much money at all?

by-I have 3 dcs of different genders sharing 1 bedroom-do you want to give me some money out of your pay packet every month so I can afford more bedrooms? We could create a whole new benefit just for me-lets call it taxpayers charity. Oh no wait-we all ready have that one...

'Bythe, yes she should struggle.'

This is the crux of the issue and how some people see it. What you mean is, the children should struggle. How is that ok? Or do they not matter because they are 'only' her children?