to think that 20 grand on benefits a year is loads

[MrsBucketxx]

considering they dont pay any income tax.

just watching we pay your benefits program and worked out that this is over 30 grand if it was a normal tax paying salary.

why was this not mentioned.

Come off it Fanjo... you don't think it makes a difference?

Yes, I do think people should have as many dc as they want if they are willing to raise them themselves and not expect taxpayers to fund child care for them.
It does work both ways. You can't expect subsidised childcare for a lifestyle choice and then begrudge those not earning enough, or redundant support raising their own children.
You are no better than anybody else just because you have a job. That could all go tomorrow and you'd expect the taxpayer to help you.

So the Govt should cease providing those free hours of nursery care then for children of a certain age? Coz I think us taxpayers are paying for that....

Ellie, i think personal responsibility went out of the window a long time ago for many. So many have children without the means to support them, its actively encourages on here with comments of babies dont cost much or tax credits can be claimed.

I love how rent is deducted from benefits so make the figures low, so people who work and self suppport should start stating their salary after rent now then too should they.

£20k is an enourmous amount of money for not working or contributing, no wonder so many changes are being made to the system. UC will require both parents to work so the end of state money allowing people to choose not to work wll eventually come to an end. Well, until a loophole is found

Of course not.
However, all the comments of taxpayers subsidising the children of benefit claimants, there are working parents subsidising others childcare, who never use childcare.
My point is, we could go on forever about who should and should not be entitled to support.
IMO, working parents should not be more entitled to support than non working parents. My dh works and we don't use childcare, never have. His tax goes to pay for subsidised childcare, so does my dc1, who doesn't have dc. We could all come the high and mighty, it doesn't bloody matter.

Happy many if not the majority of HB claimants are in work - on low wages - it's not just paid to those out of work

Yes, but if an employed person didn't have to deduct their rent and Council Tax from their salary, they would be a lot better off too!

What shocked me from the programme last night was the lack of commitment of that young man who phoned up to say he wasn't going to bother going into work again.

Staying at home and not working should be a luxury if you can afford it. Its not fair to expect other people to work to fund your lifestyle choices. And then to complain when they object to it. I don't mind supporting those genuinely in need, but I do object to funding people who could work but like the luxury of not bothering, until maybe it suits them for a bit.

I was criticised on the thread asking how people can afford to live, because I blundered in without reading it all and simply pointed out that I would tend to go out to work if I didn't have enough money to live on. The OP there is 18 and wants to be a SAHM until her child is 4, and then become a student. And the insinuation on that thread is that I am in some way akin to Satan for daring to point out that this lifestyle choice just might be linked to her limited spending power.

To quote the Economist: "Though most of them seem to end up in newspapers, in 2011 there were just 130 families in the country with 10 children claiming at least one out-of-work benefit. Only 8% of benefit claimants have three or more children. What evidence there is suggests that, on average, unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people ... it is not clear at all that benefits are a significant incentive to have children."

from here

Happymummy

As I said up thread, babies don't cost much. The cb pays for milk/nappies and shoes when they are older. This isn't something new. In fact all you rich parents were real scroungers with the cb , you didn't need it.
Childcare is expensive but nothing really to do with having kids as parents are free childcare.

Nobody can bring up a baby on the CB alone.

Parents are only free childcare if they don't WORK!

GoodTouch

Yes, I have always had free childcare and not expected taxpayers to subsidise childcare costs because I can't be arsed to raise my own dc, or stupid enough to think losing a full wage from the family income is worth it

Don't get me wrong, it would be silly for you to go out to work, unless you can make a fortune. But your husband works FT. I haven't worked since my 1st was born.

Its not the same as having no way of providing for your existing children, but going on to have more anyway

Just a thought here - we could live (incl paying mortgage, council tax) on £18000 a year (DH's wage), and still have some quality of life. We're a family with one child.

If we want more than one, that wouldn't really be enough. Now I would like two, but even though I'm in a professional job, childcare would be £200 per month more than my wage if I put two children in nursery. So we'd be worse off as a family until at least one child went to school.

So as a working family, having a child COSTS us money, ESPECIALLY if we both work. We have to choose carefully whether we can afford that, as we cannot simply work more to earn the extra due to the extortionate cost of childcare.

I have seen families living on benefits and how little spare cash there is. It's not a nice life. It's no better if you work minimum wage jobs though. And if you don't turn up at work for a day because your child is in hospital, you won't get paid in ANY job. If your child is in hospital for a few weeks, you won't get paid for those weeks. Sick pay is pretty rubbish too.

I would never begrudge others enough money on which to live. The greatest expenditure any government makes is health, education and pensions anyway, something all of us get. I don't understand why everyone seems not to get that there are WORKING parents who cannot afford a bed for their children, who cannot afford dinner for the adults, who cannot have an extra child because it won't work financially. It is those parents that are thinking 'hey, wait a minute, she gets to have six kids and manage to feed/clothe/house them on her benefits.' 'I couldn't do that on my salary...'

So did mousy live under a rock and not attend school and receive the free education we are entitled to?

And no, why should we pay to educate her further, IMO her lack of qualifications shows neither great academic ability or the ability to stick at something and gain a qualification. If she didn't take advantage of the free education first time round then sorry but she needs to fund herself.

And I do firmly believe that people would be more careful in terms of birth control and planning the size of their family if they had to stretch what benefits they were already receiving.

Moretahn if parents should 'raise their own children' and 'lose a full wage' can you tell me what I, a working single parent who needs CTC to pay childcare should do? I am very confused - If I don't work I am on benefits but if I do I am not raising my children and sponging off the tax payer?

I realise you meant to be goady but I am genuinely curious

People who are out of work get the absolute minimum amount they and their family need to live on as determined by the government. It's not a bed of roses. It's enough to just about scrape by.

If you work and receive less than someone on benefits in the exact same position you are in (housing/children etc) then instead of bashing the people on benefits, you should be campaigning for higher wages in this country. A LIVING wage.

www.livingwage.org.uk/

Morethan, i doubt your DH's tax pays for other peoples childcare given you have a few children, claim CB, WTC and CTC. I suspect you net more in benefits a month than you pay in tax as WTC is capped to low salaries.

Plus you may have lost your salary but you then claimed tax credits so obviously the loss in salary wasnt a selfless decision as you knew it would be topped up anyway by other tax payers.

Lol at whothefuck

The bare minimum? Bollocks is it, free meal at school every day, 70 to 80 a week per child is far and above the minimum

The simple reality is that once you are on your third child you are receiving more in benefits than the cut off for in work benefits.

It's a bloody sham it really is.

I don't think morethan is trying to say we should all be having endless babies on benefits. It takes the piss a bit, though it's perfectly legal. The problem is, no one has yet suggested a realistic and workable solution that doesn't result in some children suffering through poverty. If a set amount isn't paid for each child, some will suffer for it, through no fault of their own. Personally I'd say it's worth funding a small number of people who play the system if it means less children going hungry.

Happy

Your point? I'm sure he doesn't pay for anybodies childcare, but obviously many taxpayers do.
Surely, if we live in a society that is suggesting we don't have dc unless we can afford them, that should apply to everybody, not just those on low incomes or out of work.
If my dh earned enough we wouldn't need tcs, if many duel income parents earned enough they could pay their own childcare. If all the unemployed had jobs they wouldn't need jsa.

Happyabout

I have 3 dc born 1991, 1994, and 2004.

Ds1 and 2 were born before I started claiming Family credit during 1995. We received a letter telling us it was our money with our name on it.
How on earth I knew that Tcs would come in is beyond me

dunno where the about came from Happy

Sorry, £20k not bad for a single person i.e a single person at home without a job. No, its not bad. £20k for doing nothing....

Gordy.

I don't think people should lose a wage, but those who do should not be treated like the anti social scum, they are portrayed to be. i don't think that a person working and receiving supplemented childcare is any better than a low income family with a sahp receiving tax credit.
Until a living wage is available it will be the same problem. The gov just want to divide and conquer.

Morethan, given you saved your tax credits to buy a house then it would appear your DH's income was more than enough anyway. If it isnt, theres always the novel suggestion of working.

Abolishing all child related benefits would put a stop to people having children that they cannot afford, am sure contraception would be used far better and people would sit down and ensure they could financially support a child. Statistics show that children fare better not growing up on benefits so outcomes would rise too. I dont think its too much to ask that people provide for the children they choose to have.