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've just read that article. Who would willingly employ someone who has parkinsons and a brain tumour. It's not like she can just not declare it. Jobcentre dont seem to realise this.

I know someone who had liver failure and is on dialysis until he get a transplant. He has this 3 times a week and it leaves him very weak and tired. But he was found fit to work, again who would employ someone who is chronically ill.

Well, no, indeed, reni1. We'd be reduced to watching Benefits Britain, well, when the TV crew wasn't being chased through Teeside by enraged residents.

To the people irritated by the mocking and the "goat" comments. We have had a glut if these threads recently and I think many regulars have had a belly full of them. It's getting annoying.

Not the OP'S fault...she's new and didn't realise it.

And yes....save anger for a Govt that allows people dying from chronic illness to be declared fit for work.

I post that in memory of my friend Julie who was found dead from her chronic heart problem three weeks after being found "fit for work".

How unbelievable as well that when she had the medical assessment where you have to score 15 to be entitled to the benefit she scored nil.
Parkinsons AND a brain tumour and she scored nil???

Rose, I think her scoring nil proves that those assessments are rigged and they dont give a shit with about the people who are unwell and forced to find work, even if it kills them.

As in the case of Alfie's friend. For Julie

How do you score 'points' then?

I just found this on google:

It seems I scored 0 points on the questionnaire thing. Because I can lift my arm above my head? And because I can take a message from a stranger? Oh, and I can write with a pen, or use a mouse on a computer. (These were the actual questions!!!!) BUT SO WHAT??!! Yes I can do these things, but that doesnt mean I can work!!! What do any of the questions have to do with my disease ridden pelvic cavity?

Have never understood the goat references and I find the oh-so-hilarious references to them with everyone falling over themselves to join in and be even more hilarious more tedious than the OPs in question.

Let it go OP. You can't do anything about it anyway.

Though saying "my bad" is pretty inexcusable"...

I'm guessing they can do them... Once.... To prove they can. But not repeatedly,at speed, as the workplace would require. How sad.

It seems the test is literally, one size fits all.

Apparently the work capability assessment is carried out by an American firm.

A placement in a basic children's home costs around £3k a week. Foster care about £750 a week. On average nationally - more in the South east of course. Paying benefits to parents costs far less.

By the way, how does one "churn out" a child?

I'm not sure the children's home analogy works.

That's true of anything. It costs more to pay a cleaner than to clean your home yourself, more to get a taxi than drive yourself and so on.

The concern many have with benefits is that the generosity in some cases is not only a deterrent to work it actually becomes a lure away from the workplace.

I think that some posters on here are wilfully missing the bleeding obvious.

If benefits are cut and people know they will not get more and more for each child, the result will be that some if not many will limit there family size.

Some of you are loooking at the problem topsy turvey. It's not that children will " starve" when benefits ar cut but that fewer children will be born to feckless unemployables.

I did spit out my coffee at the idea that the offspring of these people could one day be surgeons. Dear god, get real.

Some may have fewer children woman - and what about those who don't?

And your contempt at the thought of poor children ever achieving success is disgusting.

It's unusual - hence the pupil premium.

Pupil premium is paid for children from low income families - this doesn't mean they are lower achievers. At my school there are ongoing debates on how to spend PP money because the PP group aren't the ones we would naturally give additional support.

No, not always. It does indicate extra support is needed.

No it doesn't. The government has decided to give an amount per head for children eligible for free school meals, ie from a low income family. Doesn't mean those children have extra support needs.

It is indeed very rare that poor children become surgeons, Womaninsack. One might of course address this by preventing their parents from having them in the first place or, preferably, one could address the reasons for their relative lack of educational success.

Every single piece of evidence and statistic shows that although POSSIBLE it is highly, highly unlikely that a child from a non or low achieveing benefits family with poor intelligence will end up a lawyer/surgeon etc.

Some of you want it both ways- on the one hand suddenly parental background doesn't matter and anyone can achive greatness regardless and on the other we MUST throw endless amounts of money at these people because othrwise thier children won't achoeve greatness...

Amyway - this is all moot. The changes are coming and we will all see the results cue the Lefty Frothers bleating about starving children of Tory policy in a few years time!

Why is an opinion voiced by a person who defines themselves as politically left of centre, socialist or liberal always called "bleating"? I do not bleat, yet am probably a "lefty frother" by your estimation.

Mrs - what I mean is that statistically, children from families where they meet the criteria are less likely to go on to high paying professions than otherwise.

Obviously, statistics are useless 99% of the time. Boom, clash clash.