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

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?

We are at almost full employment, the miserly wages and private landlords issue has gone been a growing issue through multiple governments, in fact one of the reasons why we have shite wages is because Brown introduced WTC in the first place going against many now famed "anti-austerity" economists and fellow labour back benchers.

He decided it would be easier to let the big businesses off the hook and try and gain a larger dynamic reliant on the state.

There is no quick fix to this considering we are now a fully globalised economy, the tories have raised the minimum wage and personal tax allowance and introduced the thin end of the wedge of targeting BTL landlords etc.

I doubt you believe in inflationary cycles or capital flight and its just a simple solution of "make big business pay more tax" and not really see that every country is trying to tackle this issue whilst also trying to attract the same big businesses to set up in said country.

We can be pissed off with the bigger picture, but also want people to have some personal responsibility

See the world as it is, not as what you think it should be.

Oh the irony! This from the poster who is determined that the welfare state should change to deal with the problems that exist in her mind and not the issues that have been actually evidenced.

There are always going to be people who take the mick!
I know a lady who has given up her job because it's easier for her to claim benefits although she was complaining about the benefit cap, she has 7 children, 2 don't live with her but she has found a way around the cap by claiming her son who is in receipt of dla is still living with her. I was gobsmacked when she was saying that social services are back involved with them but she doesn't care because at Christmas they get given lots of presents and food. She's currently trying to persuade the school to back her trying to get her 5 year old diagnosed with adhd so she can claim dla for him, now I'm not 100% sure whether he has adhd, the school are not backing her at the moment, I think it's a case of having too many children and not having time for them all, they are pretty much allowed to do what they want and are regularly outside playing up till 10pm.
It's people like this that really make me cross when my partner and most of our neighbours work long hours and struggle to pay ever increasing bills.
She even said to me that I was lucky that my son is autistic because I can claim dla easily for him, I haven't claimed because the form is so daunting and at the moment we are keeping our heads above water, needless to say I am keeping my distance from this woman.
I'm not saying everyone is playing the system like this but I bet there are quite a few like her, I don't know the answer but people like this shouldn't be allowed to play the system this way!

There's are and people playing the system is why it needs to change. It's likely everyone knows someone in real life who plays the system and there are plenty of examples online. How many posts do you see re I don't want to leave my baby so won't work, what's the lowest number of hours to net maximum WTC, we don't live together as financially better off saying we are single benefits wise etc.

Many that it affects though just blame it on everything bar themselves. It's the banks fault, the governments fault, LLs etc. They simply don't take responsibility for the decisions and actions they took.

If the changes via UC take us back to having a safety net for disability, ill health and job loss and stop all the claimants who do little a have a myriad of excuses as to why they can't work or why they deserve to live in x area or have x children then it will be a step in the right direction and maybe the next generation will benefit and the countries work ethic will return.

Thanks for the clarification regarding claiming free prescriptions.

In the pharmacy I use, people are not asked for proof just asked to tick the box.

I have to visit the pharmacy at least once a week, sometimes twice, and usually have to wait a while so I do see a lot of people collecting prescriptions.

Are people on here seriosly considering flinging children on the trash heap because of there parents? Consigning children to a life of poverity for fucking idological reason we must punish the parents and the children are just colitrail damage the people and i use the word people lightly make me feel ashamed and disgusted to be assicated with you by simply living in the same country as you.

These are children whom with no fault of there own being punished because some people think they should because they have feckless parents? Do we want children scouribg trash dumps like they do in 3rd world nations or want the government to incur greater costs taking them into care?

God some people on this thread make me feel disgusted sharing the same species as them.

I agree with everyone who says that companies should be paying decent wages. My friend's parents - a paint sprayer in a car factory and a school dinner person - back in the late 60s and early 70s - managed to have 3 children AND buy a 3 bed semi which is now worth around £350k. There were no tax credits back then. Just 'family allowance' I think (the equivalent of Child Benefit).

There is no way on earth that a couple in the same jobs could manage that now.

Companies are indeed relying on the government to make up the pathetic salaries they pay to a decent level. Except that even with the government's help, it's still not 'decent'. Not really.

In an ideal world all benefits would be given completely fairly and nobody would be able to cheat. However, in an imperfect system I think it's better for a few cheaters to get more than they are entitled to than genuinely needy people denied, which is the way things have currently swung. There are disabled and even terminally ill people being wrongly told that they have to work. The vast majority of these cases are won on appeal, putting people through great distress and costing the government money. The only purpose it serves is to win a few votes for the Tories by appealing to those who have fallen for the "benefit scrounger" narrative.

Unfortunately, the government and media have successfully created the false impression that most people on benefits are lounging around in their pants watching Jeremy Kyle all day when analysis has shown that the amount paid in fraudulent benefits is tiny, certainly in comparison to the vast amounts of money lost through corporate tax evasion, for example.

Yet instead of dealing with this massive issue (which the EU tax evasion bill will help towards when it comes in next March - wonder why Rees-Mogg and his ilk want to crash out beforehand??), the government has spent millions billions? installing the UC system which barely saves any money and leaves genuine people in dire straits. It's a disgrace.

Persiancatlady free prescriptions are checked. Anyone fraudently claiming them may find themselves in trouble. Same with free dental treatment, last year I was told this last year when my claim was delayed.

I know free prescriptions are checked but upthread PP were discussing that people who are entitled to free prescriptions can't get them because GPs don't know if they are entitled to them.

If you are entitled to them, the check would agree with that.

What worriedmum and childrenofthesunsaidsaid, some people need to live it before they critisize,and i hope one day they will have to, disgraceful attitudes on here by some
I think its a case of "im alright* Jack,in some cases

Yes I agree our current system is broken and in drastic need of an overhaul/complete rewrite BUT the specific example OP has used is ridiculous as an argument for why UC is shit.

The woman chose to get pregnant knowing she was already on benefits and money was tight but thought "oh it's ok, cos I'll get more money off the government" then when she realised that wasn't the case she started crying about having a termination.

People like this woman are exactly the reason the cap was introduced!!

Frang
I agree the story is an awful example especially as the woman doesn't live with her partner as she "can't afford to".

it might be cynical but it is cheaper for the government to pay parents for there children rather then taking them into the care system because they are being neglected because parents like the money to house / feed the children.

So people saying benefits should only pay for 2 children are scoring own goals as the care system costs FAR FAR more then simply giving the parents enough money to feed and cloth all the children rather then simply 2.

Like i said previously its simply ideological reasons people must me responsible for their own stuff (USA style like the conservatives are so keen on) want a decent education you should fund it yourself want healthcare fund it yourself have children you fund it yourself if you cannot do so we will take your children off you which costs us far far more simply because we WANT you to fund your own children yourself and we are PREPARED to put you in a situation were we will take your children off you simply because we want to punish you for having children.

Is basically what UC translates too the 6+ weeks wait for the start paying is just insane even in work the longest you go without pay is 4 weeks. Its simply pure ideological reasons and people keep voting the conservites into power whom like to punish the poor while allowing companies to avoid paying there fair share of tax.

At one point a couple of years ago Starbucks paid less tax then my DH did (my DH is not insanely rich Starbucks simply paid pennies in tax if i remember rightly in 2007 they paid £14,000 in tax as they apparently were operating at massive losses........) The billion pound company was operating in the UK at a loss despite opening 10 new stores every week (its just 1 of the loop holes companies can us not to pay tax)

But its the people at the bottom of society causing all the pain for the country its totally not the big companies not paying taxes its the poorest members of society causing all the problems.

Wow! ....just wow.

The huge lack of understanding and empathy on this thread is heart renching...are you not all human? Is it that you cannot understand that everything isnt just black and white?

We are not all the same, we do not all get the same choices.

Attending school everyday, getting a full time job that i have worked at since 16, don’t drink, don’t do drugs, have a good heart, help others when I can and just a all round nice person.....yet I am not a millionaire....but I have done everything your supposed to do to get up the ladder of life, I graft hard, like I’m sure many others do......I’m on benefits.....although WTC actually....I’m sure that wasn’t supposed to be a benifit but now the UK see’s it as one.....I’m good at my job too, if only my employer paid me a proper wage a?

Get a heart. We’re blaming the wrong people here, all the little people fighting amongst our selves, when it’s really the big guys who arn’t pulling their weight in this society!!

So people saying benefits should only pay for 2 children are scoring own goals as the care system costs FAR FAR more then simply giving the parents enough money to feed and cloth all the children rather then simply 2.*

That’s just stereotyping and infantalising benefits claimants again though. For the overwhelming majority of people it affects it will mean they stop at 2 because they can’t afford more. Just like people who don’t receive benefits have to do.

The idea that they’ll just keep on having kids and dump them in care is ridiculous. And frankly, you’d have to have a lot more going on than being skint so it wouldn’t happen unless there were other problems. So the idea that it will lose more money in care admissions than it would save is ridiculous too.

I don't watch channel 5 so don't worry about that. We don't all form opinions from to shows

You do realise that most on "in work benefits" have a SAHP, work part time etc. You can't seriously believe that they are all working max hours possible as it's simply not true. The WTC rule of working sixteen hours allows them to get around the cap and not face the JSA criteria re attendance to prove work etc. It's not just those on JSA or IS that are workshy but it's masked by calling it WTC.

In response to the artical I feel VERY sorry for the woman. Having an abortion when you don't want one destroys your life.

I'm scared to death when uc comes to my area. Just a few years ago me and my dh were both working dh on a good enough wage that we were claiming less than £10 A week tc for 3 dc.
Then within 6 weeks I lost my job and dh had an accident at work which has rendered him disabled.
We now fully rely on benefits and I am his full time carer.
This is not our fault yet we will have to fight to what we are entitled to.

Imo if company's paid the living wage it would take people off uc hence solving half the problem.

Actually I suspect it may well reduce the numbers of children in care overall and the number of children with no chance in life simply because they won’t be conceived in the first place when there is no financial incentive for their existence.

It wouldn't though blue, that only works if they have a work ethic and are responsible enough to live within their means i.e. Salary.

Many simply don't or won't. They don't work to work or do just enough to get around the caps, they won't consider living in a cheaper area, they don't stop to think about the costs of children both now and in the future.

Some would but they would be the ones already being responsible, the rest wouldn't care unless the benefits were scrapped and they had no choice but to work.

Actually I suspect it may well reduce the numbers of children in care overall and the number of children with no chance in life simply because they won’t be conceived in the first place when there is no financial incentive for their existence

Is that you Theresa? Because it won’t work like that, it really won’t. And it is children who will pay the price because of views like yours.

Smeaton detailed facts and figures earlier, roundly ignored funnily enough.

I asked what happens to disabled adults and children and still don’t have an answer.

So basically on this thread the ones shouting loudest are the ones who would throw children and disabled adults and children under the bus to suit their own agenda.

Actually I suspect it may well reduce the numbers of children in care overall and the number of children with no chance in life simply because they won’t be conceived in the first place when there is no financial incentive for their existence

I'd imagine that would be one of the reasons behind the cap in the first place. It wasn't just about saving money but changing mindsets and trying to ensure the next generation have more chances.

The welfare system covers disability and that's not what the post was about. It was about people bleating the two child rule is unfair.

The only people throwing children under the bus are the parents who chose to have them. That's not the governments fault or voters, it 100% lies with the parents who chose to have the child. Let's face it, if you won't step up and provide yourself for a child then society should be questioning parental ability,