To think unversal credit is a disaster *trigger warning*

[jnfrrss]

This just popped up in my feed. Talking about someone that had an abortion as they wouldn't be able to afford the child without credits. It's not just an isolated issue, a charity says they've had a huge increase in women contacting about abortions as now they won't be able to afford to have any more children. I'm not sure what the answer is but this is very worrying

www.mirror.co.uk/money/it-wasnt-planned-very-wanted-12480380

Silver doe

Get off your high horse and re read my post

Where did I say I wanted to get rid of the entire welfare state?

And thanks for the offensive language - your overpowering sense of entitlement is palpable

should be a limited emergency measure only. That doesn’t make me evil it makes me a realist

It should be for genuine need. How could support morally be time limited for a profoundly disabled child? Parents acting as carers save the state a fortune. Payouts for carers are peanuts.

It’s a balance - if you’re too easy people take the piss. If you’re too harsh people die, or really suffer... since dying is quite a bit worse than taking the piss I’m inclined to err slightly on the generous side.

I’ve never claimed benefits, and I hope I don’t have to. But I’m happy to pay my taxes so that the welfare state exists. I want them spent wisely, there should be assessments and means testing (although the current system seems not fit for purpose) and there should be penalties for people who abuse the system.
But I can’t sit comfortably with children in s rich country being hungry.

Gilead - simple - you time limit the welfare package. 3 years and then the package starts getting cut, eventually to nothing

The state is not responsible for people: people are responsible for people

you time limit the welfare package. 3 years and then the package starts getting cut, eventually to nothing

What about people with disabilities they won’t get better from? Or a child born profoundly disabled?

Heyduggeesflipflop - so if a child is born with severe disabilities they better get better in 3 years or...what?

Bowl of

I don’t disagree with you. But why is it people drag out the most extreme examples? Profoundly disabled child? Yes, the state should help, but it should also be entitled to assess case by case. That’s due diligence on how our taxes are used.

But we aren’t talking about sick children, we are talking about generational state dependency. That should not be an option

I agree with the child cap. If you can't afford kids then don't.

The country is over crowded, housing at a premium, NHS is stretched, schools are stretched why do we want to encourage massive families?

NMW & Tax credits. Interfere with the supply / demand of a free market economy.
Before NMW people would move jobs to get 25p an hour more. Employers would realise their employees were jumping ship and put their wages up.

NMW low paid jobs all pay the same, so little incentive to move job, little incentive from employers to put the rates up.
Tax credits also mean instead of jumping for 25p more that would get deducted from TC / top up benefit and again no incentive to jump ship.

I think the answer is very complex but something needs done. 2 parents in full time work should not be in poverty or be relying on top-up benefits.

You’ve dodged the question about disabilities though by only answering the questions about profound disabilities. But not all disabilities are profound but many are enough to ensure working full time is impossible, sometimes part time.

What happens to those people in your ideal world?

I think this thread can be boiled down to this - the world is often an unfair and unforgiving place. But You cannot right all wrongs everywhere all at once. It is certainly not the place of the state to attempt to do so. The loss of individual freedoms required to attempt such total societal fairness would not be proportionate

That all being so there must come a point where the state stops and individual responsibility starts. That line - in general terms - is currently too generous in my view: people are responsible for their own destinies. The state is not a surrogate parent

@Heyduggeesflipflop so what happens to disabled adults and children?

Smeddum - traditional family units have broken down in favour of state dependency. That is not healthy. Family should be the primary giver of help, not the state

That we have gone away from this basic premise is a tragedy. The result is people pushed into the bearacratic embrace of in an uncaring state

But this is my point - the state cannot possibly ‘care’ (it is just a set of processes and rules after all) but family can

Heyduggeesflipflop - you are aware your statistics are completely the wrong way round? Households with generations who have not worked are the statistical outlier (1% or less) and households on benefits due to sickness/disability are considerably more common that those on unemployment benefit.

People aren't dragging out the most extreme examples. We are citing a more common reason for being on benefits long term. You're dragging out the unusual and the extreme as a justification for policies which evidence based studies show are harming the most vulnerable.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths

I think it's ridiculous. I think the benefit system is completely ridiculous. I work and my dp has worked since he was 18 and left college. Yet as soon as he was let go from his job, we had no help. Then I learnt I was pregnant again unexpectedly and cannot claim. MA. We live on 400 a month. I've had to sell everything I have for rent etc.
If you work and need help, you're fucked.
If you do nothing all day. You get all the help.
Make me rage.

I think a time limit could work well but three years is too long. It should be linked to past contributions too and have a clause re no more claims within a set period and then only for job loss or ill health not more children.

Obviously it couldn't apply to all claims but where claiming state support for working part time, having a SAHP parent, for children, to top up SE etc it could work very well. Has the two fold effect of children seeing a working household and learning to live within means.

we are talking about generational state dependency. That should not be an option
Doesn't exist to any great extent.
Oh, and by the way, Jeremy Bentham has been dead a while, we've moved on form those policies. A civilised society treats its poor and disabled people fairly, without limit.

Twounder, it seems unlikely you can claim nothing if neither of you are in work? Have you been to the Citizens Advice?

But we aren’t talking about sick children, we are talking about generational state dependency.

You're right, how many generations of the Windsors have we been supporting?

It’s a balance - if you’re too easy people take the piss. If you’re too harsh people die, or really suffer... since dying is quite a bit worse than taking the piss I’m inclined to err slightly on the generous side

That sounds fair enough to me, though I'd add the caveat that sometimes even generosity isn't enough. As PPs have said, those who argue against the "2 child cap" for disadvantaged families don't want parity with everyone else - they want more, and rightly or wrongly that's not likely to be popular

Gilead - if you offer state assistance ‘without limit’ you will find a long queue of people quite happy with that. That is not sustainable or healthy

Justanotherposter - that’s right conflate and whatabouttery the argument... nothing useful to add to the discussion I think....

Heyduggeesflipflop - statistically that doesn't happen though. The vast majority of out of work benefits claimants claim for less than six months.

You're making arguments based on issues that don't exist. It's about as sensible as me claiming that we should abolish the NHS because some people want to have plastic surgery on it. That isn't what it is there for, it's not what it's there for and it's only really an issue if you are desperately looking for one.

Hey, what isn't sustainable is large companies not paying tax. Bombing Syria.
Your long queue of people is as non existent as your generational scroungers. Again, punishing the majority because of the few.

Gilead

Are you playing some kind of ‘bad things in the world bingo’?

The welfare state is a complex problem integration a philosophical position with practical solutions. So why introduce completely unrelated problems like Syria which is its own very separate problem.

By the way you sound like a poster boy for the corbynistas with your for the many not the few blah. You realise corbyn lives in an Islington house worth a lot of money and Abbott sends her child to private school

But presumably that’s all ok because they tell you what you want to hear.

See the world as it is, not as what you think it should be. Until you do that none of your political solutions will ever offer anything practical and real. Exhibit a is the council elections. People are rightly not convinced by your oh so shouty student politics

Heyduggeesflipflop

Bless

Justanotherposter - thanks for reading. I would like to hear your thought but apparently they are few and far between :(

Sosickandtired, thank you for that, that really sounds awful and I wasn’t aware of all of those issues. I’m lucky enough to not need benefits at the moment and happy to pay taxes to contribute to society but I’ve been pretty poor and I’ve seen real poverty happen to good people. Some people really don’t have a clue. It’s almost not their fault. Society is so divided sometimes that they just don’t see the humanity of the ‘other’.

To all those saying we have almost full employment just now, surely that should make the welfare bill nice and low then? Or perhaps it’s really all propping up private landlords and miserly employers like some pps said?