if you can't afford the children you have you shouldn't have more?

[Lady1nred]

was speaking to a couple I know today, both out of work and living on benifits. They have 3 children and they are very vocal about how awful it is that they barely get enough money to survive. It turn out that she is now pregnant with their 4th child! This was planned and they are delighted?! They use food banks and thir children have every gadget and toy known to man!

When I asked how on earth they will manage with another child she blatantly said the money they recieve will go up and that it is her right to have as many children as she likes?!!

I have 2DC, I would love a 3rd but we would struggle finNcislly so have made the decision not to. I believe benifits should be capped at 2 children, she obviously doesn't agree! If she can't afford to pay for the children she has why should I go without yet pay for hers through my taxes? AIBU?

I very much doubt they will get any more money with 4 children than 3 due to the new £23,000/year cap to be introduced soon.
Unless they are exempt (disability?) or not claiming housing benefit....

Children don't ask to be born into a specific family or situation. They are helpless to control their parent's responsibility or lack there of. Why on earth would anyone wish to restrict benefits to our most needy population? Is anyone fine with saying "Right, child number four, you were born outside the cap! No food for you!"

Fwiw I think it's awful. But I will be directly affected by said cap so I would say that.
I think it's the tip of the iceberg though - the Tories have ambitious welfare cuts planned and as pensioners are protected the savings are going to have to come from somewhere.....

It's not a case of saying people like the op's friend don't exist- they do. The danger of this though is taking it to the conclusion that there are millions of people out there like that- there are not. This in turn demonises people who claiming benefits and leads to all sorts of ridiculous suggestions like giving out vouchers to be spent in certain shops etc. You can't treat human beings like that and if you think it's the answer to helping families out of poverty, you're wilfully deluded.

So op you have every right to come on here and give your opinion on your friend but the 'sweeping statement' element of it is what is the problem for me.

God, you lot were up late drinking your benefit wine huh? No work to go to today then ?

As for my post being a sweeping statement, it is only that if you make it that. I gave an example of a situation I came across that pissed me off, not sure how that demonises everyone else? Think a lot of people are a bit too sensitive!

Totally agree with you OP. Don't care about any 'groaning' etc. the Government need to set a limit on how many children they will pay for, personally I think three (btw I have 1 DC so I'm not biased) and not pay for anyone. Working people 'cut their cloth' so to speak so why should the government just keep giving and giving to those who give nothing in return.

*anymore (that should say)

Up late studying and drinking benefits wine Lady, but your true colours just showed through. No, I don't have work today. But if it makes you feel better about funding me to get through the day, I worked from the day I left high school right up until being made redundant during my maternity leave last year.

{Feeds DD benefit weetabix. Doesn't feed self because people on benefits aren't allowed nice things.}

I've no work either. I'm a SAHM to a 6yo who is still on half term, a 17month old and I'm 33 weeks pg. so nope I wasn't drinking benefits wine I was actually on my phone in bed last night in absolute agony because of SPD And an unstable spine, but that doesn't matter as the government won't pay for that as it will apparently magically disappear when baby is born. (it won't, it didn't last time and an unstable spine doesn't just pop back into place)

Whoever said, upthread, that it won't stop until they cap child benefit at 2 kids, is wrong..... What's child benefit? £13 a week for each subsequent child? Not really that much is it?

chicken so the tv that was a Christmas present from my mum? am I not allowed that?
is my DS allowed his Xbox 360, I only paid 50 quid for it off my dad.

I know! I will just give everything to charity! that's a good thing. wait a minute... if I give to charity then they will probably end up with a family on benefits erm...

Fucking hell fatty, don't do that! If you can afford to give things to charity, you definitely shouldn't be claiming benefits. You have to sell them for as much as humanly possible. Someone will have a pop that you're not declaring the income but them's the digs.

No work for me - I am on leave due to going away for a weekend with my friends
I do work - I am 45 and have worked (and paid taxes) since I left home at 17
Op you haven't said what benefits you get?

Fatty I was speaking to the folk that were, I pressume, being sarcastic last night about drinking their 'benefit' wine. Perhaps the sarcasm of my post was lost on you 5day? I didn't realise that everything said on here was taken literally given the piss takes about goats and popcorn?? maybe it's just when someone has a different opinion they can't be sarcastic? Cool, think I'm getting this now.

MrsD, just to make it perfectly clear, I have never said anything about people caring for disabled children, or indeed people caring for anyone. I haven't slated people claiming benefits, just feel there should be a limit on the financial help. Not sure how a child growing up in a home with income of 23000 could be 'plunged into poverty' if they don't recieve more?? It's not that barbaric an opinion surely, there seems to be plenty who agree

Is being on benefit the issue here - or generally people increasing their families without sufficient income?

I do know of one young family expecting twins, no 4 and 5. When these are born, child no 3 will be barely a year old and no 2 will be two. So four children two and under with little income. The only problem I have with this is the fact that the one and two year old obviously won't get as much attention. I can see the two year old trying to bottle feed the twins and not really being able to be a baby herself for long. I can't see any of the children getting a great deal of support as both parents have learning difficulties.

I'm not trying to be controversial here at all. They do love their children greatly but they are limited in resources, both financially and in ability. I do feel for the children as their forced to grow up too quickly. Some may say that's a good thing, I don't know, but all I can say is it's not the way I'd like to bring up a family.

The delicacies of social interaction are evidently lost on you lady. People talking about their own situations with clear sarcasm is fine. But people talking about other people's situations with scorn thinly veiled as sarcasm isn't. So no, as you started a thread in which you were scornful about the choices that people make while in receipt of benefit, your very pointed question about people's people not working today doesn't come across as jokey.

If you fell pregnant OP, lost your job, had to go on benefits - would you still agree?

Clearly op is discussing being on benefits and CHOOSING to have more.... Not falling pregnant and losing her job. Why are you twisting it?

Oh, goodie, more benefit bashing, how original.

There's a lot of old bollocks on this thread.
It's a ridiculous notion to suggest that we should cut benefits for families continuing to have children in poverty. Whatever your politics, you've got to understand that plunging those families, those children further into poverty isn't only bad for them but bad for the rest of us. How are we to have any hope of breaking the cycle if we just leave those kids to suck it up? Don't we want them to grow up healthy thus costing the NHS less? Don't we want them to have a chance at further ed or training thus becoming productive, tax paying members of society? Oh and from a cost pov, benefit payments make up a tiny proportion of the overall welfare bill.

Having said all that, we do need to address the fact that many families are caught in this cycle of low aspiration. The just don't care and they don't see why they should. They do procreate without thinking it through or considering the wider impact of that. But, fuck, I don't think I'd give a shit either if I was living day to day with nothing to aspire to or look forward to.

So, there's no point in denying there are families like this out there; though nowhere near as much as the right wing press or Ch5 would have you believe. However, as always, it's not as simple as it appears to some people. The number of couples or (shock) single women on benefits having babies just to piss off tax payers really is minuscule if they exist at all.

I thought the suggestion was for future claimants. Not cutting anything off for existing claimants, but making it clear for the future, that it will not be paid after 2 children. ( I think they could work out an exception for multiple births tho)