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

rather the benifets being wrong why are jobs paying so little? in comparasion to rent the cost of food bills? wages are the lowest levels in comparson to the cost of living.

If companies paid a decent wage, landlords were not insanely greedy (yearly rent increases anyone?) we would not be in this situation but because the TOP 1% don't want to lose some of their precious profits to actually give the people making them their money a basic life style we will get no where.

As it should be. Part time work is a luxury, if you can't afford it (and clearly not as claiming benefits) then you either up your hours, stop claiming or accept that you will be forced into more hours maybe elsewhere. Nobody has the right to just work a few hours because they want to at the expense of others

Which entirely brings it back to only the rich have the luxury of choice. How is anyone supposed to combat that? Money determines value in society? Wonderful. Ugh.

Smart but cannot afford to go to university tough forever stuck in rubbish jobs, from a rich family and stupid can go to university and get jobs despite being not as clever simply because you come from money nice society will would be building.....

As it should be. Part time work is a luxury, if you can't afford it (and clearly not as claiming benefits) then you either up your hours, stop claiming or accept that you will be forced into more hours maybe elsewhere. Nobody has the right to just work a few hours because they want to at the expense of others.
Try a bit of longer term thinking, dear.

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

This is just such ridiculous backwards thinking I actually can't believe it. Maybe I would even agree with you if a) people who rely on benefits actually fit the scrounging, "lifestyle choice", wildly inaccurate image pedalled out by Murdoch owned media and bought so readily into by people like you. And b) maybe I could get behind it if they were doing absolutely anything to make up for the positions they dropping people in, which they aren't.

As it should be. Part time work is a luxury, if you can't afford it (and clearly not as claiming benefits) then you either up your hours, stop claiming or accept that you will be forced into more hours maybe elsewhere. Nobody has the right to just work a few hours because they want to at the expense of others

Are you getting paid to try and balance out the pretty much unanimous consensus on UC is that it's a horrible idea?

She is being taken out of her graduate part time role, to work a low skilled low paid job. I am in the same situation. I work part time in my career role and that on pro rata is not very much less than FT living wage. The most hilarious thing you are missing is if that I and my partner both worked full time, we would be claiming hundreds of pounds more in childcare element of tax credits than we would getting WTC and CTC without that!

"The government cannot afford to just hand out money to everyone who wants to sit on their arse and have 10 kids when the people paying the taxes stop at 1 or 2 because they can't afford it."

You know the single thing which has been proven to reduce the average size of families beyond the availability of contraception and abortion?

Further and higher education for women, and good career choices.

You make it sound as though all women would simply pump out babies until they realise they can't afford any more. That's simply not true. The women who have the biggest incomes and the most secure jobs also have the smallest families in the UK.

"The government can't afford"

Actually the tax payer can afford all sorts of things, including to provide more financial support to the minority of women who choose to have more than 2 children.

It would be more humane for the government to provide universal, high quality, free childcare and support for working class and impoverished women to continue in education and to be able to work, but instead they choose to use the stick approach, but making sure that women who choose to increase their family size while on a low income, experience extreme poverty. 'That'll learn them'! Except it won't. It will exacerbate social stress, abuse and dysfunction, which will result in more children failing in education and more social breakdown.

But that's Tories for you. Personal responsibility. Small state. That's the ideological agenda. Don't create a society which makes it easier for people to do the right thing. Punish people, including children, until they get on board.

So yes OP - universal credit is shit. And inhumane.

mini I think I love you!

"but changing mindsets and trying to ensure the next generation have more chances"

What will change the lives of the next generation is having the same educational and life opportunities as 100% of the Tory government and their children have had.

Secure, affordable housing.

Decent nutrition.

A living wage.

A high quality education.

But the Tories have no intention of making this happen. They think if they just make life really, really uncomfortable for people who claim benefits, they'll make different and better life choices. Work harder at school. Stay in education. Get married later. Have smaller families. Eat more healthily. Be less likely to get addicted to alcohol and drugs.

Because we all know that poverty, debt, severe social stress, homelessness - experiencing these things makes it MUCH easier for people to make good choices for themselves and their children.

@minifingerz genuine question, have you ever considered running in an election? Because you’d get my vote!

Crunchymint - pandoraphile Unless you are on benefits, then you can afford another child, but are choosing not to have one.

Oh can I indeed? What a bloody ridiculous thing to say. How would you organise my finances to let me afford another child?

'Actually the tax payer can afford all sorts of things, including to provide more financial support to the minority of women who choose to have more than 2 children.'

And for people like Boxsets, who, under the various namechanges she uses, purports to be non-sexist, it boggles my mind who they uphold misogynist policies like this because men are still not held to account for children they father and don't support under this. They can use subterfuge or even rape a woman to get her pregnant, leave, pay nothing, lie to other women and impregnate them, rinse and repeat. The useless CSA and HMRC allow such men to procreate as much as they'd like and pay not a farthing to support their children.

Yet Boxsets et al will still blame the woman because she 'made bad choices', had kids she can't support, etc etc. If that's not misogyny I don't know what is.

"because men are still not held to account for children they father and don't support under this. They can use subterfuge or even rape a woman to get her pregnant, leave, pay nothing, lie to other women and impregnate them, rinse and repeat. The useless CSA and HMRC allow such men to procreate as much as they'd like and pay not a farthing to support their children."

100% yes to this.

It's a huge injustice that single mothers are vilified by the public and punished by our benefits system, and yet we are so accepting as a society of fathers failing to meet their financial, social and emotional responsibilities to their children.

9 out of 10 sole parents are women.

2/3rds get no regular child maintenance from the father of their children.

On what planet is this acceptable?

The women who have the biggest incomes and the most secure jobs also have the smallest families in the UK.

This is really interesting - it certainly marries with my (very insular, privileged bubble) experience of my peers.

I can count on the fingers of one hand the friends of mine who have more than 2 children. My assumption is that this is down to a few factors - but would be delighted to be corrected by these more knowledgeable than I

• maternity leave affects career progression - even more than 1 child can put you on the 'mummy track'. So the prospect of 3 children would potentially be a significant dent to your career

• full time childcare is expensive. My friends (we can't have DC, though dearly wish we could) say childcare is by far their biggest expense - two children in full time childcare with a childminder comes in at over £20k a year. When they go to school there's still wraparound and holiday care to cover, so it's still a significant outgoing, even with high incomes

• the expectation of supporting a child amongst the affluent extends beyond the childcare years - school trips, university, help with a deposit etc. There's a huge difference between the cost of 3 children and 2 children in this regard, so the vast majority of my peers stopped at 2

• I have no idea what goes on behind closed doors, so I have no idea if contraceptive failures do indeed happen in private. What I do know is that pre TTC the prospect of an unplanned pregnancy was viewed by most with horror - so being absolutely religious with contraception was a must. I can only guess that if they did happen that there may have been terminations in private - but as I say, I have no idea what goes on between a couple, and it's none of my business

These circumstances are from a place of huge privilege - but it's been very thought provoking to consider why small families might be the norm.

Reading about UC fills me with horror that this policy can be so inhumane. This thread has been hugely educational - to those who are affected.

Fucking round of applause for minifingerz and expatinscotland

Thank you. These welfare reforms not only hurt many people on an individual/circumstantial level, they are so blatantly and offensively misogynistic I genuinely can't believe (as I have already said on this thread) that women are able to get behind it.

@boxsets

My baby is one and I work 20 hours a week. My example was slightly theoretical because as it happens, I hope to get a few more hours and without paying massive extra childcare costs as its flexible, but most people don't have that luxury.

And you do realise that people working full time on minimum wage would still be eligible for "benefits" right? Its not about part time or full time its about how much you earn. Its about penalising people for not earning enough.

They have done consultations and studies on this in relation to do with UC and found that for those in part-time work, it is mostly structural reasons that prevent them from taking more hours - ie, they can't get more hours, or aren't able to with childcare commitments. It is not laziness. So constant interviews nagging people to get more hours and threatened sanctions won't do much.

I recently had an interview for a full time London office based job which was very well paid. But I literally wouldn't have been able to afford to take it, at least before my child turns 3 - after paying tax, full time nursery, minimum london rent and student loans for the month I'd be a few hundred in debt every month - and that's not even taking into account living expenses and travel. Tax-free childcare would barely make a dent, and I would not be entitled to any other state help on that salary. Its craziness. Again, I'm lucky I can take a few more hours with my current job.

I don't have a partner to subsidise me - for those with young children, full time work is also "a luxury"!

If they made free universal childcare from age 1, that would save the state a fuck load in what they are currently paying in tax credits/ UC and the childcare element.

... we are so accepting as a society of fathers failing to meet their financial, social and emotional responsibilities to their children

Eh??? If by that you mean that not enough is done about it then yes, I'd agree

But among the folk I know - admittedly not a scientific sample - I can't think of a single individual who regards irresponsible, serial fathers as anything other than unspeakable

Yet Boxsets et al will still blame the woman because she 'made bad choices', had kids she can't support, etc etc. If that's not misogyny I don't know what is.

But sadly some women are making bad choices, just look at any MN thread. Stop painting every woman as a feeble and pathetic.

BTW it's not smart to accuse poster of namechanging.

Life, even if some women do make bad choices, there have been suggestions. However, again, why are we punishing the majority for the minority.

As for name changes, boxsets has been around for years and we all know who she is. She is known for changing her name to promulgate these views and when caught out, changes again. As someone who has been forced to name change I understand the point of view that we shouldn't mention it, but I personally feel that they may be the exception to the rule. It does make other posters realise there's no point in arguing with her.

I thought you meant she was name changing on this thread.

'But sadly some women are making bad choices, just look at any MN thread. Stop painting every woman as a feeble and pathetic.

BTW it's not smart to accuse poster of namechanging.'

People namechange all the time and it's easy to tell who some of them are. It's not against Talk Guidelines to point that out . Pointing out that people make bad choices is not the same as saying those who do are all feeble and pathetic.

habobo, free childcare would be brilliant and I think an excellent economic investment.

One thing that tax credits are brilliant for and have had a really good effect on is helping lone parents back into the workforce because they won’t lose money going back to work. The investment in keeping the skills of women up to date and economically valuable is worth it. Not sure it should be universal, I think we’ve gone beyond the days where we can afford to be handing out freebies to people on £100k salaries.

But the fact that so many lone parents went back to work shows that the image of benefit claimants on this thread is rarely accurate. They’re not helpless waifs who haven’t figured out how on Earth they keep getting pregnant. Apart from the ill and disabled they’re mostly perfectly capable people who want to work and have an interesting life and progress a bit and have a bit of extra cash in their pockets.

In that sense tax credits are brilliant and a really worthwhile investment. But encouraging multiple babies keeping women out of the workforce hence meaning they’re likely to need subsidy for their whole childhood - very poor investment.

But sadly some women are making bad choices, just look at any MN thread. Stop painting every woman as a feeble and pathetic

The ones blaming the women for families with absent fathers are doing that, while simultaneously absolving the absent parent of any responsibility at all.

I read this on buzzfeed www.buzzfeed.com/emilydugan/these-women-were-taken-to-court-for-eviction-because-of?utm_term=.agOEkRXlM#.aprOa1V2o

Women being threatened with eviction and going into debt spirals because of how appallingly Universal Credit is being mismanaged by the DWP.