Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that if the government cap benefits at two children need to make abortions easier to access...

37 replies

foreverondiet · 19/07/2013 15:12

And also to allow for those where (semi-)permanent long term contraception lets them down? (Am thinking about things like mirena / coil / implant / vasectomy, not the pill or condoms where there can be user error, ie forgetting to use etc)

Whilst I do agree in principle with the benefits cap at a certain number of children, I also think that some people are totally responsible with contraception but get caught out. Also abortions aren't always easy to access (and totally reasonably some woman wouldn't want one).

Just struggling to see how this would work?

OP posts:
WafflyVersatile · 19/07/2013 15:15

I think YABU for agreeing that there should be a benefits cap on number of children at all.

sydlexic · 19/07/2013 15:23

There should be no benefits cap on number of DC. Whilst I do not approve of planning to have many offspring when you know you can't support them, you cannot punish the children and circumstances change. You should not punish the many for the sins of the few.

NeedSomeSun142 · 19/07/2013 15:34

If both parents not working for certain number of years, then yes benefits SHOULD be capped, may make them get of their lazy backsides and get a job.

I don understand there are circumstances that can't be helped though.

PresidentServalan · 19/07/2013 16:05

Getting a termination is quite easy in England

Itsjustafleshwound · 19/07/2013 16:15

Why on earth would you link ease of abortion to the cap on benefits?

WafflyVersatile · 19/07/2013 17:32

It's a lot easier to get than a job, anyway.

CreatureRetorts · 19/07/2013 17:45

There shouldn't be a cap. That effectively penalises the child.

Wages shouldn't be so low and childcare so frigging expensive that people chose benefits over working.

Original poster
foreverondiet · 19/07/2013 17:48

What I meant was that some people might end up pregnant with a third DC due to genuine contraceptive failure and its not fair on either the parents or the children to have benefits capped under these circumstances.

Again thought had to get 2 doctors to sign off abortion etc etc and have reason - so again see link between ease of abortion and benefit cap.

I do agree in principle with a benefits cap as those that work have to budget for how many children to have, just not sure how fair of workable it will be because it may end up punishing children for having irresponsible parents.

OP posts:
LastTangoInDevonshire · 19/07/2013 17:48

The government are not telling you to cap how many children you have when on benefits - they are saying that the tax payer will only support the first 2. Fair enough.

Many working people can't afford one FFS !!!

FruitSaladIsNotPudding · 19/07/2013 17:53

I think a cap is a good idea, although it shouldn't apply to existing families, and should be births rather than children - to cover for twins.

Many many working people have to limit the number of children they have. That is just life isn't it?

CalamityGin · 19/07/2013 17:56

Oh yes because of course the number of children you have is to do with the benefits you may or may not get Hmm

Fakebook · 19/07/2013 18:09

Wtf? Why do people actually think up shit like this? Confused

morethanpotatoprints · 19/07/2013 18:19

OMG.

I can't believe this thread, there are people who work and people who don't work who receive benefit.
How bloody disgusting to suggest it.

WineNot · 19/07/2013 18:20

Could someone help me understand?

Do people on benefits actually get more money the more children they have?

If so, how much more?

morethanpotatoprints · 19/07/2013 18:23

People who work usually have to budget how many children they have because they use childcare.
It is the childcare they are likely not to be able to afford, not the children.
Unless you earn a lot of money, you are still entitled to cb and Tcs which pay for the dc.

Bowlersarm · 19/07/2013 18:26

Have you not seen the HUGE thread on this over last couple of days? I haven"t the ability to link but this has been done.......

Iamsparklyknickers · 19/07/2013 20:02

It's not a solution - there are far too many variables which is why a lot people find the idea repellent.

The stereotypical family with a hundred of kids losing child benefits for 98 of them won't do anything but cause more poverty. Chances are if you haven't worked for years your earning power is limited, or if you suddenly become unemployed/ill it means what you thought was a secure future gradually isn't and you need help (never be to smug I've seen it happen).

My main point being it's not like the kids can go and sweep chimneys to make up the shortfall. As a society we need to collectively at least provide for them.

Out of interest, how would you propose a family with one child on benefits who find themselves with a multiple pregnancy be dealt with?

WineNot · 19/07/2013 20:14

See, the question I keep asking myself is this.

If I have a first, second, third or fourth child, I don't get a pay rise at work. No one says, another child on the way? Here, have an extra £x per week/month. I have to calculate if I can afford it on the money I bring home and make my decisions accordingly.

So why should anyone else get more money for more children?

I am fully prepared to be told I've listened to the hype... That's why I asked my earlier question...

thispunderfullife · 19/07/2013 20:28

Without wanting to stick my head over the parapet in a really brief post... I do think it's unfair that people with no way of supporting their children rely on the state to pay for them.It's irresponsible to the child and to society. So there.

expatinscotland · 19/07/2013 20:36

I think 2 is fair. Then you have to cut your cloth. A lot of people seem to have a lot of accidents and failures.

LEMisdisappointed · 19/07/2013 20:45

So what about families that have more than two children and for reasons out of their control, end up on benefits??

Maybe the answer is to cap the number of children people have anyway, just in case............I mean, the tax payer has to pay for other peoples children to go to school, receive medical care, child benefit .......

Yes - only two children from any one family should receive state education, after that they either have to HE or go private!

Disclaimer - i am trying for irony here, it ofen fails.

morethanpotatoprints · 19/07/2013 20:52

What about the many families working and receiving benefit? its not just those not working. I can't see the number of births falling tbh, and if they stop benefit to families the dc will struggle.
working people can quite often afford more children but convince themselves they can't due to the lifestyle choices they have made.

ChoudeBruxelles · 19/07/2013 20:59

Benefits have already been capped - irregardless of the number of children you have. Child benefit is included in the benefits that count towards the cap.

WafflyVersatile · 19/07/2013 21:00

Winenot, someone in the same position as you might take the decision to have a child where you wouldn't.

as morethan says.

20 years ago I worked with someone who was on about £20k, her husband was on 2 or 3 times that, got a car with work. they owned a 3 or 4 bed house. She drove a sports car. She told me they couldn't afford children.

Also how can you tell if someone 'made a mistake' or 'made a decision'?

Iamsparklyknickers · 19/07/2013 21:01

So what about the multiples? So a couple who know they can comfortably afford two, end up with three should have been made to abort one?

That's a sickening thought to me frankly, just as taking away the (frankly token payment) of CB for a child that has no control over their financial security. They didn't chose to come into existence.