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.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To ask what's the beef with benefits?

631 replies

mytartanscarf · 04/01/2015 14:33

Do people think they are too little? That they should be more?

There's always a lot of upset on here about them - about how wrong the government are and how awful life is on benefits. I've never been on benefits so obviously can't judge. But what are the solutions?

I suppose I am asking what should the government do?

OP posts:
ghostspirit · 04/01/2015 17:08

how territt16? contraceptives are not 100% so could still full pregnant. only takes one mistake... and they who in the world has a right to make a woman have an abortion because they are on benefits

Dawndonnaagain · 04/01/2015 17:09

Sorry Territ can you provide some sort of Empirical Evidence of your claim?

TaliZorahVasNormandy · 04/01/2015 17:10

After they've done away with us poor people, whos next. Fat people, ugly people, skinny people, gingers.

WooWooOwl · 04/01/2015 17:11

Woowoo What you are saying is the poor shouldn't have children.

No I'm not! I'm saying people should be given free childcare so that they can afford to keep working after having children, as that would benefit everyone who has children, poor people included. And that if they still need benefits then they should be limited to two children, or two successful pregnancies to account for multiple births. Believing people should be financially responsible for children they choose to have is nothing like believing that poor people shouldn't have children.

Who decides how much is enough to bring up a child?

People who have children should decide that.

Territt16 · 04/01/2015 17:12

Its bullshit, If you cant afford to support yourself don't have a kid and expect everyone else to support it for you,

FrogIsATwat · 04/01/2015 17:12

Also in work benefits are marginally better but are designed to keep you poor
if you work 16 hours per week and get your various in work benefits but if you go over 16 hours you get your other benefits reduced. This is not a bad thing of course as the less you receive in benefits is good for the coffers of the uk. .
I will give you an example
Your boss offers you 10 hours overtime
You declare it. Your hb and wtc goes down. Fair enough
the following month no overtime. You declare this and usually get your hb suspended while they investigate potentially leaving you in rent arrears and with reduced available cash. That's why a lot of lone parents stick to 16 hours in a low paid job. To actually have more physical cash in your pocket you would need to be earning 4 x what you currently earn.
so you stick out your low paid job not to rock the boat. Then your children leave home/education and the benefits are taken away. Quite rightly. By now you are pretty middle aged and on a low wage. Your HB won't pay for a 2/3 bed house so you have to move to a studio flat (bed sit) its a pretty bleak future unless you have an exit strategy. You can try and self improve, learn new skills but remember you are pretty middle aged by now with younger more experienced candidates snapping at your heels for those jobs that pay a living wage that enable to entirely self support.
yes benefits are great!
Fwiw i was a really high earner prior to having children. I didn't exactly plan on my partner buggering off and never paying a penny in child support.
The field i worked in would be impossible to re enter

EatShitDerek · 04/01/2015 17:13

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DaisyFlowerChain · 04/01/2015 17:13

Nobody can stop people having children but if they knew there would be no state assistance for simply having a child then fewer would be born. The teen pregnancy rate would dramatically drop. Everybody has the same playing ground then. If they want children, then they work to support them. JSA would still be there if they lost their job and had no insurance.

All the money saved from not paying child related benefits could be better spent. Think of all the extra teachers so smaller classes, more nurses, more apprentice jobs for those who can't or don't want to go down the uni route.

We waste so much of the money made via taxes. A strong government could change that.

HappyAgainOneDay · 04/01/2015 17:14

Sorry if I've offended anyone. I was just suggesting possible ideas. I've never been on benefits so don't know how they work; I just know that they exist. If electricity is supplied using a meter, there must be a way of (say) altering the meter or getting rid of meters altogether.

As for child benefit, there was a time when only the first child or second child (can't remember which) qualified for child benefit. It's a relatively new thing for all children to have benefit. Hence the "I'll have another baby to have more money coming in" outlook.

I have utmost sympathy for those who've been made redundant so have a dramatic change in their circumstances.

My attitude boils down to 'if you haven't the money for it, don't buy it'. That's how I live.

TaliZorahVasNormandy · 04/01/2015 17:16

I had my DD when working, my ex also worked, I decided not to return work to save on childcare bills. Then he left me.

EatShitDerek · 04/01/2015 17:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Dawndonnaagain · 04/01/2015 17:19

Its bullshit, If you cant afford to support yourself don't have a kid and expect everyone else to support it for you, So no evidence then? Thought so.

Daisy there are many countries that do not provide child benefit. The teenage pregnancy statistics remain the same. Teenage pregnancies are down to education, something we are incredibly lax in in this country. Having said that, it has been going down, year on year for about 20 years in the UK.

Original poster
mytartanscarf · 04/01/2015 17:21

Derek sorry for smiling but that post sounded so much like your 2 year old walked out and started a relationship with your best friend Grin

OP posts:
Scram · 04/01/2015 17:21

I highly doubt there are many parents who decide to have children purely to claim child benefit. even if they did, why should the children have to suffer because of the parents lifestyle choices? they didn't ask to be brought into the world!

MrsItsNoworNotatAll · 04/01/2015 17:21

I honestly would not know where to start with claiming benefits now and I hope I never have too. Only ever done it once when I was single and there wasn't the stupid ridiculous sanctions or the intense pressure to find a job like it is now. Dh has a low paid job and I only work part time. I'd like more hours but there isn't any going. If Dh were to lose his job we'd be up shit creek. I know he doesn't realise hard finding another job is. They don't grow on trees and it always amuses/annoys me on here when someone complains about their job or an aspect of it they get told to find another one.

If only it were that simple.

Scram · 04/01/2015 17:23

CB is only really a contribution to the cost of bringing up a young child, it will not cover the whole cost.

EatShitDerek · 04/01/2015 17:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Rummikub · 04/01/2015 17:26

To add insult to injury if someone on benefits wants to improve their situation by retraining then they will have to fund it themselves. It used to be the case that you could get a free or subsidised course if you were on a means tested benefit. Not any more. It's social engineering, keep the poor/ low waged where they are and do not let them have a hope of getting out. It's sickening.
To those who say if you can't afford children don't have them, what happens if you go to uni, get your career, get married, and have your 2 kids, then your dh walks out? I wasn't "irresponsible". My circumstances changed so now I have to have top up benefits. I believe in a society that looks after the vulnerable. No one knows when that support will be needed by themselves.
Oh and benefits are give with one hand, take away with another for eg if in receipt of wftc then you don't get free school meals.

ghostspirit · 04/01/2015 17:26

yep territ16 its that simple... Hmm

Iliveinalighthousewiththeghost · 04/01/2015 17:31

Wow. Territory. You really have an open and shut case on how the world works, so what you're saying is, no one on benefits are allowed to have sex!.
Ahh use contraceptives will be the next reply from you I don't doubt. However in case you're unaware contraceptives can fail. How many people do we hear about where the condom splits or the pill fails are you suggesting In these cases the women has an abortion because tax payers dont like paying for other people's children. I damn well hope not. A women's duty is to her children not to the tax payer, and I say that as a tax payer.
Also a lot of people do get pregnant whilst on benefits to get the system off their back. I can give you an example. A friend of mine was claiming I.s was moved onto JSA, She purposely got pregnant solely to get back on income support, and she's never looked back. As her case proved forcing parents out to work when they are not ready, will just encourage them to keep getting pregnant to enable them to stay at home. This is the real world and people do what they have to

GratefulHead · 04/01/2015 17:32

Yawn.....having a child when you can't afford it blah blah blah.... You DO know that people with children can lose their jobs Daisy don't you?

What do you suggest? Leave the children (or more likely the parents) to starve? You are so simplistic and black and white when this subject comes up.

Anybody can find themselves in that situation, believe me I know from painful and personal experience. You can be in a great position when you plan your baby. Nobody can predict that 8 years later the Dad will walk out or that the child would be autistic.

GratefulHead, single parent on benefits, Carer and no idea what the future holds.

GilbertBlytheWouldGiftIt · 04/01/2015 17:33

Only the first child gets £20.30!
Additional children entitle the family to £13.55 per week.

If you can manage to turn a profit on that, then you probably deserve your free goat.

EatShitDerek · 04/01/2015 17:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Iliveinalighthousewiththeghost · 04/01/2015 17:38

Hi Derek. You're partner walks out. Leaves you alone to bring up his son.
Yet you're the one worried about getting a Sanction. Something not right there.
All we ever is critique for the single parent. I have never once heard one government minister criticsize the absent parent but yet they seem to get off on penilising single mums/dads. Is it because they are an easy target I wonder.

ghostspirit · 04/01/2015 17:39

'iliveinealighthousewiththeghoset' you said at then end of your post about someone who got pregnant so she could stay on i.s... I have never known how to put it before as i know it can start a war... but a long time ago now single mums could stay on benefits/i.s until their child was 16 then it went down to age 11. and now 5. i hear its going to be age 3 soon. i have often wondered if it had been left alone or maybe even just put down to age 11. would people of had less children... i also understand that people do it for a reason not because they cant be bothered or what ever