"People in jobs don't get a pay rise because their circumstances are different to the person at the next desk."
I think you may be misunderstanding the purpose of benefits.
Wages are based on the market value of the work someone is doing. Maybe based on negotiation (either individually or through a union)
Benefits exist because, as a society, we understand that the market alone isn't a good enough mechanism to provide for everyone's actual needs, by itself.
Some people have described benefits as a safety net. I don't think that's right. There should be an element of redistribution involved as well. That's why, for example, I receive a bit of Working Tax Credit towards my childcare costs even though I'm on a fairly good wage and don't need a "safety net." Society has taken the decision that it would be a good thing for children to be provided for and women to be in the workplace and redistributes money through tax credits for that purpose. Despite the recession, we are a first world country. We can afford it and a little bit more equality is good for society as a whole.
"Wanting it based on earnings is yet another entitled middle class mindset who again believes they should be entitled to more than everyone else because they are 'better' (ie were lucky enough to have a good job and education)"
Completely agree! Its like saying "Its OK for you to be skint- your used to it!" Its almost dehumanising in its callousness.
"Richer women limit the number of children they have to ensure they can afford them."
Aghh! I have a special hatred for this argument. For society to work efficiently we need a stable population level, or ideally a slight decrease in population between generations. What would be disastrous is a steep fall between one generation and the next. If everyone only had children they could "afford" this is exactly what would happen. Those "richer women" would find there was no one to wipe their arses and spoon feed them their food when they got old. Luckily for them it will never happen because realistically we are not going to stop people having children, its a human drive. There will be children. The only proper question is how, as a society, we provide for them.
Interestingly- the "don't do it if you can't afford it" line is only ever applied to poor people. I could just have easily pointed out to brt100 that richer people have had the opportunity to insure themselves against unemployment or illness and to build up savings. I could have questioned why anyone who has been in the position to make these contingency plans should receive benefits at all if they have failed to do so. It would be consistent with the "poor people shouldn't have children" line.
But I won't do that. Because I understand that we live in the real world in which people are fallible and do things for all sorts of odd, human reasons. And that when you are making social policy for an entire country, you have to deal with people as they are not as you would ideally like them to be