Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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

AIBU to think that at least one of the parents should work

293 replies

Adizzylass2014 · 08/04/2015 23:04

My 16 yr old son is friends with a family who have just moved into the close next to ours and we were invited round for coffee. My partner left as he was fuming and I stayed for the sake of my son but I was seething. They are a family of 8 and the mum is pregnant again, they were so brazen and gloated that their 4 bedroom house is paid for by housing benefit (we have the same in the next close and the rent is £800 pcm)
He has never worked and hasn't long been released from prison. The children had all the gadgets from ipad to ps4. She said she has never worked either as she loves to be pregnant and plans on having more. Now you will have seen from previous threads I don't benefit bash but this is disgusting how can this be allowed. My son has been invited by them to go fishing on their boat, i don't want him anywhere near them. my partner works damn hard to pay the rent and our band f council tax and these people not only get everything given to them but they openly gloat about it. This is what is wrong with this bloody world Angry Angry

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
Littlemonstersrule · 09/04/2015 13:49

Lweji, we may need a younger generation but we need them to be tax payers. If they follow their parents footsteps and claim more than they will ever out in we don't benefit in any way.

IsItIorAreTheOthersCrazy · 09/04/2015 13:57

Well this is a depressing thread. I don't see how you can say you're not benefit bashing, then criticise them for their benefit-funded lifestyle.

Not everything is as it seems. We have been on our arses broke and friends have thought we're doing quite well because that's the front we present. We've had nice holidays etc provided by family when we were struggling. We're lucky that we haven't had to depend on the benefit system too much, but it is there to help.

Yes people take advantage of the system but I think it's rediculous that you're so judgy about them that you don't want your son to bother with theirs.

Also, what were you hoping to achieve by posting this op?

Lweji · 09/04/2015 14:01

Littlemonster

They will have to work to support their parents and ourselves. Who will be on benefits by then too, unless we live off our amassed fortunes.

In practice, it's not likely that all 6 children will go on to live on benefits. As adults they will be able to make their own choices.

Lweji · 09/04/2015 14:01

And nothing guarantees that your children will be contributing members either.

needaholidaynow · 09/04/2015 14:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Fatstacks · 09/04/2015 14:07

In the interest of fairness.

I declare that flat screen telly can no longer be used as a yard stick in benefits bashing.

Even john lewis no longer sell old style tellys so it really is time to accept poor people are allowed less cumbersome forms of entertainment.

It's time.
Embrace the change.

Littlemonstersrule · 09/04/2015 14:30

That's the point though, needsaholiday. People not working as they don't want to pay childcare so they won't work to support their children. If everyone did that we would have no safety net as it simply wouldn't cope.

It's very obvious that unless you have a high earner that most salaries can't cover two adults and numerous children yet people do it anyway as they know someone else will pick up the cost. That's not what welfare was meant for, that's a choice people make for themselves.

needaholidaynow · 09/04/2015 14:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Littlemonstersrule · 09/04/2015 14:46

The childcare help is for a few years whereas claiming benefits to make up for your lack of salary will be for much much longer. Any gaps out of the workplace make it much harder to return if needed.

Yes, I do believe people should only have children if they can afford them. You don't need to be a high earner, two adults working can usually afford one child between them on standard job salaries. I know plenty of couples that work hours around each other to afford their families if they want more children.

The world will always have people that do what they want at a cost to others but thankfully we also have some that take full responsibility for themselves and choices. Without those kind of people, we would have no taxes for schools etc.

Coyoacan · 09/04/2015 14:48

All the people basing their desire for a limited on the number of children funded by benefits on this extreme story should remember that hard cases make bad law:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law

needaholidaynow · 09/04/2015 14:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SolidGoldBrass · 09/04/2015 15:05

In an ideal world, CEOs of massive corporation would have an earnings cap and/or a higher rate of income tax, properly enforced, and being an MP would be paid no more than the living wage. It would be much more difficult for people to enrich themselves and their friends by exploiting others (paying shareholders big dividends by holding down wages at the bottom level of an organisation, enforcing unpaid overtime and cutting back onhealth and safety).

And the obsession with making everyone 'work' ie be employed for (usually low) wages is moronic, as well. There are not enough jobs to keep everyone in full employment, despite the creation of plenty of completely pointless ones.

Lweji · 09/04/2015 15:08

I feel the need to introduce game theory into the debate.

Sadly I don't have the time to go through the analogy properly, but replace doves with workers and hawks with benefit scroungers. And fights with income (work - produces money; not working - takes money)
www.gametheory101.com/Hawk-Dove_Game.html

Ideally we would all be doves. If all were hawks, we would all lose.
As it is, the system allows for some hawks, they will always emerge and thrive, but the entire system survives pretty well and most will still have to be doves.

Lweji · 09/04/2015 15:09

Based on SGB's post, you may also want to introduce the bastard-hawk (CEOs) into the equation.

Lweji · 09/04/2015 15:10

Or should it be the cuckoos?

Have to go.

Mumbehavingbadly · 09/04/2015 15:13

if people who couldn't afford to have children all stopped how long would it be before the uk was bankrupt?
And if we take into account all the anti immigration people so no young 'forrins' to do the work pay /the taxes how many years sooner would it be?

phoenixrose314 · 09/04/2015 15:19

YANBU but a lot of people will disagree with my. SIL is on benefits, four children, and has just been moved to a gorgeous little twee village in a new four bed house with big back garden, whilst DH and I are struggling to find the money to buy our own house, both of us work full time and have only 1 child - would love more but sensibly agree we cannot afford to.

Ridiculous.

What's wrong with the system is that working full time plus childcare equals LESS than benefits. We should be encouraging workers, not giving them playstations, iPhones and new cars on a plate.

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 09/04/2015 15:24

Lol at iPhones and new cars on a plate. What a crock.

MrsDeVere · 09/04/2015 15:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Hillingdon · 09/04/2015 16:01

It does make me smile when people claim they will work at the appropriate time but only during school hours etc etc. Some are indicating that its not 'worth' them working because it will mess up their benefits.

And the ones that are the most worrying are the ones claiming its rare for people to have kids without any proper planning, that there are vunerable or that benefit cheating is OK because the bankers earn loads and they want a bit of it too.

In some countries there isnt a choice to work or claim benefits and the monetary values are the same. That is what is wrong and the more children you have the less you will feel the need to work.

There is no need to anyone to fall pregnant by accident or have an unplanned pregnancy again and again. Yet people claim they do.

When my DS was born (10 years ago now) I was asked to go into a school with him and describe what it was like to have a new born to some teenagers. The majority of girlsl couldnt wait to have one and didnt want to be an 'old' mother (like me!). One of the pupils who said they would like a career of some sorts was snorted at and told dont be an old granny before you have kids...

Men didnt really seem to come into the equation, they said being a single mum ws OK because so and so did OK.

TerryTheGreenHorse · 09/04/2015 16:01

I am also a bit bored. I might just get a new phone and have another baby.

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 09/04/2015 16:03

some folk love to leap in and unleash their inner right wing self on the back of it though

OnlyLovers · 09/04/2015 16:08

There is no need to anyone to fall pregnant by accident or have an unplanned pregnancy again and again. Yet people claim they do.

What a stupid comment. 'no need'? Confused So there ARE no accidental or unplanned pregnancies, are there?

And a lot of people's desire to work school hours only comes from the fact that childcare can be ruinously expensive.

sosix · 09/04/2015 16:12

Agree op. But prepare for a flaming. I know a family a bit like this who I avoid.

SpinDoctorOfAethelred · 09/04/2015 16:20

I want to know about the OP's house!

Propety porn time! One of my relatives went for an entire working lifetime thinking their band D house was in the most expensive band.